Victory

[ThGlump]

Titles for killwhoring? No. The less they promote that the better.

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

Titles for killwhoring? No. The less they promote that the better.

Heaven forbid you reward killing people in a first person shooter.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Aurmanite

Heaven forbid you reward killing people in a first person shooter.

If there were rewards for kill stats, people would never try to capture anything. If there were rewards for kill to death ratio, you'd have snipers hanging back trying to get as many kills for as few deaths as possible.

And then people would wonder why we need a huge game world...

[Aurmanite]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

If there were rewards for kill stats, people would never try to capture anything. If there were rewards for kill to death ratio, you'd have snipers hanging back trying to get as many kills for as few deaths as possible.

And then people would wonder why we need a huge game world...

Capturing = XP/Resources.

Character advancement requires XP/resources.

[WiteBeam]

What's the point in fighting when you can't win. It doesn't mean "end game". I always thought it was hilarious when a faction got kicked to the sand for a few minutes.

[EightEightEight]

I think there should be a WIN but the conditions on that mean that you have to turn all of the capture hexagons to your color on ALL continents. Which based on the new system seems almost impossible. At least if there is an option people will work for it. I remember logging in on nights where we were close to a global cap and the couple of times we did it, it was amazing everyone way hyped and having fun.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Remake this poll after launch and watch the ratio of yes to no be completely reversed.

Yes or no, and if ever a final victory condition has to be set, I'm still trying to think about an acceptable one.

Originally Posted by WiteBeam

What's the point in fighting when you can't win. It doesn't mean "end game". I always thought it was hilarious when a faction got kicked to the sand for a few minutes.

This never happened unless 2 empires turned against 1 at the same time. Ask the VS about it.

Originally Posted by EightEightEight

I think there should be a WIN but the conditions on that mean that you have to turn all of the capture hexagons to your color on ALL continents. Which based on the new system seems almost impossible. At least if there is an option people will work for it. I remember logging in on nights where we were close to a global cap and the couple of times we did it, it was amazing everyone way hyped and having fun.

Just curious but would you have details about when (weekday/time) and the player populations when it happened ?

I remember it happened a few times but it was always due to absurdly low pops and/or technical difficulties.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

Yes or no, and if ever a final victory condition has to be set, I'm still trying to think about an acceptable one.



This never happened unless 2 empires turned against 1 at the same time. Ask the VS about it.

I have a thought, but there's something I need to know.

Back in the golden days of PS1, if a server was at peak population, how full was the server? I mean, what percentage, on average, of the game world was seeing fighting and what percentage was not?

[ThGlump]

If you convince them to add some victory condition, then i hope they give us some choice. Different servers one with victory condition and one just endless war. Im sick of resets, and i never miss anything like that in ps1.

Victory condition with reset just force you to give up. If you are losing its better to let them win faster, so you can start from scratch. Without it you know you have to do something, that it wont magically be better, you have fight to turn the tide.

[Stardouser]

wait a second, if I had played PS1 I would know this but I didn't so...if there was no victory condition, what happened when one team got backed up to their sanctuary? Did the devs have to step in and reset it anyway? And if so, did that happen often?

[Tom Peters]

You could get sanc locked for a while if one faction managed to take BOTH of your main continents, and the team that did it got temporary access to the other faction's vehicles/weapons.

[ThGlump]

If someone was pushed back to sanct, they gather everyone, pull tons of tanks, fill everyone into galaxies and raided nearest base and took it back. Why interfere? players can manage it and get back up.

[Kipper]

The less territory you have, the easier it should be to defend and the more stretched your opponent is going to be ... with the new mechanics in play meaning that you can break out and go for ANY hex on the board, all it will take is a couple of co-ordinated squads attacking different points far enough away to turn the battle back on its head.

Either they end up capturing outlying hexes unchallenged and giving the cornered regime 2 or 3 new spawn points, or they divert troops to defend them and allow a proper counter attack from the main base into the next hex.

But all the same, if it does happen - no to a map reset for reasons stated above, people will just log out and stay logged out until the reset happens. Also those who have "won" may quit the game having "beaten" it.

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I have a thought, but there's something I need to know.

Back in the golden days of PS1, if a server was at peak population, how full was the server? I mean, what percentage, on average, of the game world was seeing fighting and what percentage was not?

I do not remember but someone else would know. In any case, the total was divided between continents since there were caps on how many players could be on a continent at the same time.

OFF-TOPIC: btw, concerning your comments about killwhores, I tend to disagree and think they are very important. The strength of Planetside (next to its scale) was about offering niches for various kinds of players. This diversity of gameplay made the game a true MMO instead of large deathmatch.

A game played by only killwhores would be a disaster. With large numbers of players, killwhores become less of an issue as players with different mindsets play a role to fill the other needs in the game.

PS2 needs to keep its richness and instead of controlling behavior through censorship of K and other "bad" stats, there should instead be more efforts spent on creating stats that will give support players something meaningful to track their own performance.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by sylphaen

I do not remember but someone else would know. In any case, the total was divided between continents since there were caps on how many players could be on a continent at the same time.

OFF-TOPIC: btw, concerning your comments about killwhores, I tend to disagree and think they are very important. The strength of Planetside (next to its scale) was about offering niches for various kinds of players. This diversity of gameplay made the game a true MMO instead of large deathmatch.

A game played by only killwhores would be a disaster. With large numbers of players, killwhores become less of an issue as players with different mindsets play a role to fill the other needs in the game.

PS2 needs to keep its richness and instead of controlling behavior through censorship of K and other "bad" stats, there should instead be more efforts spent on creating stats that will give support players something meaningful to track their own performance.

Well, let me put it another way: I have no problem with giving rewards for kill stats based accomplishments so long as the devs don't pull a DICE/EA and 5 years later when it's time for Planetside 3, say "telemetry indicates everyone is out for kills, so this time we're going to have 64 player rounds with small maps focused on tight KDR combat".