A way to give people a grand purpose

[Taramafor]

Originally Posted by Edfishy

I for one am for the ability to "Win" Planetside 2.

Make it difficult to accomplish (a one in three/four months kind of thing, possibly only opened up by the devs), and have it just show a static screen saying: "And thus the Vanu won..., etc."

It's not that there's no "major" long term goal. It's more of the fact that the short terms goals seem rather meaningless. I mean, what's the point in holding a base, big or small, other then quicker access to vehicles and a bit of territory expansion?

[Edfishy]

Originally Posted by Taramafor

It's not that there's no "major" long term goal. It's more of the fact that the short terms goals seem rather meaningless. I mean, what's the point in holding a base, big or small, other then quicker access to vehicles and a bit of territory expansion?

Definitely territory should have better meaning, and I think they're headed that way with the Resources, Continental Lattice, etc. I just think it'd get PlanetSide 2 some popular attention if every 4-5 months folks are Twittering something like: "TR are about to win Planetside 2! O.O".

It'd make me want to join in and change the situation.

[BlaxicanX]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

[Taramafor]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

Exactly. Ergo, bases need to have more meaning. Say an orbital strike ability with a cooldown. Or some vehicles ONLY being produced form that type of building. Things like that. Then people will WANT to hold on to them because they won't want to lose them. I'm starting to think that the devs are afraid of people leaving due to "losing" (pop inbalance could be a major factor here but that does tend to vary). But PS1 had things of this nature and look how great that was (and hopefully will soon be again with it turing free2play).

[ringring]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

It is but by extending it beyond a descrete continents the nature changes completely.

It can only be described by referencing PS1.

In game version there were more continents and because of the nature of the fight at any one time some continents would be quiet and others would be a front line.

The empires attempted to push the front-line and with coordination and strategy would be able to do this.

We would attempt to first force our opposing empire back to their own home continents and then even kick them from their home continents.

As well as attempting to 'zero base' another empire other empires would attempt to zero base you. Avoiding this was a big incentive.

Essentially that drove PS1 for years, simple but involving.

On logging in everyone would look at the map, decide whether we were doing well and either complement the efforts of your empire colleagues or verbally abuse them as Planetside incompetents.

Now in PS2 the incentive to play is getting a new camo, or a different colour gun or something digital and ultimately worthless and unsatisfying compared to having a real game.

I don't know if it's related but I find that in PS2 there isn't the intensity of PS1, there isn't the sharp differentiation between empires and little empire loyalty. Some people even have friends on the other empire, apparently *shock*.

[KesTro]

Personally I don't want there to be situations where you can 'win' planetside 2. People will flock over it for the first time and maybe even the second time. But once one player has been a part of it they probably won't care about it ever again which would lead to the faster inevitable decline of the PS2 playerbase as every F2P game suffers once players have beat its 'end game'.

That to me is one of the most beatiful parts about PS2. You could argue that there is no end game. Unfortunately that's also PS2's curse.

[Edfishy]

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

Continents essentially become cigarette breaks:

"Kicked the Vanu and TR off of Indar! Back in 10 guys, gotta smoke". =P

[Mightymouser]

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

I'm curious:

How does continent locking/Continental lattice give the game more "meaning"? At the end of the day, it seems to be just taking territory and warpgating people, but on a larger scale.

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...

[Calista]

Originally Posted by ringring

It is but by extending it beyond a descrete continents the nature changes completely.

It can only be described by referencing PS1.

In game version there were more continents and because of the nature of the fight at any one time some continents would be quiet and others would be a front line.

The empires attempted to push the front-line and with coordination and strategy would be able to do this.

We would attempt to first force our opposing empire back to their own home continents and then even kick them from their home continents.

As well as attempting to 'zero base' another empire other empires would attempt to zero base you. Avoiding this was a big incentive.

Essentially that drove PS1 for years, simple but involving.

On logging in everyone would look at the map, decide whether we were doing well and either complement the efforts of your empire colleagues or verbally abuse them as Planetside incompetents.

Now in PS2 the incentive to play is getting a new camo, or a different colour gun or something digital and ultimately worthless and unsatisfying compared to having a real game.

I don't know if it's related but I find that in PS2 there isn't the intensity of PS1, there isn't the sharp differentiation between empires and little empire loyalty. Some people even have friends on the other empire, apparently *shock*.

Very well stated.

[Ruffdog]

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...

Summed up really nice man

[Vashyo]

amazing post mouser, you nailed exactly what I am longing for this game from PS1. ^^

Just amazing winning a hard fight then logout and come back the next day to see that your victory caused the battlefield to shift elsewhere.

[Canaris]

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

The scale changes everything. The lattice gives a sense of progression that doesn't currently exist in PS2, and having the ability to lock conts gives that progression meaning and shape. (Incidentally, I dislike the term 'cont locking'; I think it's ambiguous and I think many misunderstand it to mean that when an empire fully owns a continent all others are kicked off it and locked out. That is not what it means. Cont locking means that it is possible to take full control of a continent and push the enemy fully off it, leaving them no where to spawn (i.e. removing the three empire warpgates))


With a global lattice and fully capturable continents, empires fight each other from cont to cont and then rush to protect their newly won territory by capturing the links that would allow someone else to threaten it. Of course, the more territory you have, the more flanks you leave vulnerable, and the harder it is to maintain control (meaning the 'end game' is nearly unachievable... as it should be)

Apart from the meta game implications this brings, wherein choosing good targets becomes very important to an empire's nightly success, this has a very real and very important impact on every player (regardless of their interest in strategy); that is, players can see there contribution towards a common goal and that contribution has lasting meaning...

As it is, the fights move so fast in PS2, and over such little territory that a hex won or lost right now will have little impact at all in an hour (much less 2 days later). The battle lines move back and forth too fast, and there is simply no way to reasonably protect your advancement. And that's before one considers alerts which instantly change the dynamic of fights and renders meaningless anything that happened a mere moment before.

With more room (i.e., more continents) and the ability to push an enemy fully off a hard won territory, suddenly that base you just won/lost has a real meaning in your effort to capture a continent, and in a wider sense it has a real contribution to the wider 'war effort' of your empire. Suddenly the fight you were fighting in to secure Indar when you got home from work at 5:30 has direct bearing on your empire's situation when you log in after dinner at 9:30. If you won Indar and your empire's been able to capitalize on that success you may be in a good position indeed. If you lost the Indar fight, your empire may still be reeling from the defeat and trying desperately to regain momentum. Similarly, as with real life military campaigns, during large scale expeditions the leadership and cooperation of an empire is often what makes or breaks the venture. It's not only about having the most numbers, it's also about how those numbers are directed and deployed. Inter-outfit cooperation takes on a heightened meaning, and global leaders are what propel empires to success.

A global lattice, and 'cont locking' give the fights deeper meaning within the context of the game's endless war. Yes, players are still fighting at bases to turn things from one color to another, and yes, the fight is still 'meaningless' in relation to real life... But PlanetSide is supposed to be a game of conquest, (For Land. For Power. Forever.) as it stands, there can be no conquest in PS2 because there can be no real lasting concerted campaign by any empire. What we have instead is a series of high-player count Team Death Matches carried out at a series of towers and sometimes bases, with little real relation from one fight to the next...

I'm not coming back to PS2 until it's in, that's for sure. Without it it's just not planetside as it should be.

also OP here's another thing they could have linked to the faction intros when you're making a selection. Kinda like Dune 2 or 2000 did.