How fun is it to lose?

[Lonehunter]

Losing was never a problem as a cloaker. Sometimes I'd hang around and sabotage the base just as the host started to move to another base. Or I'd get behind them and destroy the base they where just at to get some to retreat. Or I just move to the next base and set up a new pattern of deployables. Planetside never ends, even if you're defeated

[Cosmical]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

I like this idea, some sort of points bonus as an understaffed defender holding out to the bitter end. Not sure how they'd calculate that, keeping tabs on number of attackers/defenders, but it's a very good way to add incentive towards holding out to the bitter end rather than just dropping out when you know the base is going to be lost.

There was a system they were interested in implimenting in PS1, which was a shield dome that came up over the base after you defended it for a certain amount of time. Idea was it gave the defenders something to fight for, and forced the attacks to back off.

It also had the unique idea of being able to be taken down quicker by bombardment. I always loved the idea of the enemy all spawning flails to bring down our shield while we redeployed the courtyard, and waited inside with artillery raining down ontop of the shield, waiting for it to break. Would have been really dramatic gameplay.

I think as far as they got to implimenting it was on the capital bases on continents. Lets hope the energy domes we have seen in a few screen shots over bases are something similar?

[EVILPIG]

I love target enriched environments.

[SgtMAD]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

They had a very similar system in PS1 if you remember. If you where able to hold a base under heavy attack or stop a hack you would receive XP for base defense similar to what you recieved when you captured the base.

The xp was based off of the size of the battle (number of players in the SOI) and the time/how long it took for before the battle was pushed outside the SOI.

They could keep the same system from PS1 with a few modifications for resources now and it would work great.

this is wrong,the only BEP you got for defending was the kills your squad was farming, there was never a "defense" bonus and there was never anything about timing the push out of the SOI

SOE did add SEP so you could also get points for repairing and healing ppl

BEP for hacks was determined by time slices and how many enemy defenders were in the SOI,it didn't matter if you killed anyone or not

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

this is wrong,the only BEP you got for defending was the kills your squad was farming, there was never a "defense" bonus and there was never anything about timing the push out of the SOI

SOE did add SEP so you could also get points for repairing and healing ppl

BEP for hacks was determined by time slices and how many enemy defenders were in the SOI,it didn't matter if you killed anyone or not

Edit: Redact my statement from above. I was wrong my bad. It seems like everything nowadays is just running together.

Thanks for setting me straight HtSgtMAD.

[SgtMAD]

Yea,you could rack up some good BEP pulling resecures,that was one stat in PS that should have been tracked.

you made an honest mistake,what really gets me going is reading some of the stupid shit I see in 99% of these threads,so many clueless ppl pontificating on crap there is no way of knowing anything about until atleast beta.

its mind numbing

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by HtSgtMAD

Yea,you could rack up some good BEP pulling resecures,that was one stat in PS that should have been tracked.

you made an honest mistake,what really gets me going is reading some of the stupid shit I see in 99% of these threads,so many clueless ppl pontificating on crap there is no way of knowing anything about until atleast beta.

its mind numbing

There is absolutely nothing wrong with speculation and discussion. There's absolutely no way of knowing anything until beta, discussing possibilities and thoughts on various gaming mechanics and theories allow the developers to gauge community thoughts against their own though, even without the community having complete information. It's all good whether it turns out to be relevant at a later date or not.

[BorisBlade]

This is why you focus on gameplay, then losing may not be as fun as winning but you can atleast have a good time playing anyway. Putting in elements that are "fun" while not looking at it from a gameplay perspective is what makes losing suck to the point of quitting. For example, giving someone a gun that shoots OS'es is "fun" for that person, but those on the other side just get pissed off cause its complete bs. There should be solid gameplay on both sides from any weapon.

Take AV in ps1 for example, strikers and lancers provide good gameplay, with both sides of the AV/armor battle able to attack each other, the target can try to get cover or evade fire with evasive maneuvering and the shooter can use his own tactics as well. Lots of fun back and forth. Compare that to a phoenix which is totally one sided. Great as the shooter but as the target, you cant get cover, you cant maneuver away, you can rarely even attack back because the guy is often firing from inside the base walls or even from in the building itself and firing out the doors, or in an area you cant get too etc. Its pure frustration as the target because you cant do anything about it, bad gameplay.

The idea is simple and should be applied to every aspect of the game. Is it good for both sides gameplay wise, not just is it good for the guy doing the shooting. Honestly this is the biggest flaw by far i see in teh devs atm, they apply the "fun" aspect like most boring shooters do rather than teh far superior gameplay test to their choices.

In the end, gameplay means fun for everyone and for the longer term while "fun" is just for the shooter, while the target gets pissed off, and these positive moments for the shooter wear thin and only last short term. This means less time wanting to play for everyone. Long term positive gameplay oriented decisions are key to making a great game.

[ITOS]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

This is why you focus on gameplay, then losing may not be as fun as winning but you can atleast have a good time playing anyway.

I cut away the rest of your post as it has to do with balancing weapons and utilities. It goes without saying that that is an important aspect for the enjoyment of a game but it's not the problem I wish to highlight; the sense of pointlessness that can arise when facing hopeless battle after hopeless battle. This problem has more to do with the balance of population in an isolated battle then it has to do with balance of weapons and utilities.

What I'm looking for is mechanisms which give meaning, fun times and a sense of achievement even when you are losing badly. I argue that for the majority of players, this can not be achieved with "the greater cause" of strategy and long term resource control. Instead it requires more direct incentives, of which rewards for completing "last stand" challenges could be one.

[Grognard]

Originally Posted by ITOS

Secondly I'm going to state that most players will not defend a territory for resources only. I'm basing this statement on the assumption that a majority of the players will be people who jump in for an hour of fun and pay little attention to continental strategy.

Then I must be in the minority, because if I am comming on for just an hour, then contesting a resource like a badger sounds like the perfect thing to do...

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

I like this idea, some sort of points bonus as an understaffed defender holding out to the bitter end. Not sure how they'd calculate that, keeping tabs on number of attackers/defenders, but it's a very good way to add incentive towards holding out to the bitter end rather than just dropping out when you know the base is going to be lost.

Yes some kind of challenge/scaled reward system relative to how outnumbered you are/how long you hold out would be really cool.

[ringring]

Losing after an epic fight is fun, it really is.

What isn't fun is boring 3-ways. Tonight, on Hossin we have the TR in the bottom left-hand third of the continent, NC in the bottom-right and VS in the top ..... the fight is pretty stale.

The map reminded me of the mock up for the ps2 conts

[StumpyTheOzzie]

I don't mind losing a close fought battle. It's getting my arse handed to me with a silver spoon that I don't like.

[Sillywabit]

Digging in and holding back wave after wave sure can be fun. The hours i spend just defending towers I guess that will still happen it all depends on who's fighting beside u.
I used to be in a outfit that often fought against the current.

P.S. sorry for the bad grammer, but i guess it's better than your Dutch

[Graywolves]

I love Alamo battles. Just focus on keeping the enemy out of your base as long as possible.

With what we know now I'm not sure this will be possible. The idea of losing and having some form of statistic regress to watch your fighting strength bleed out frustrates me. Like if we need to control parts of a territory and gradually gain influence, I just see myself being frustrated that we're unable to get that 3rd node or something.


Something we won't really know until beta, imo.