End the Fight - "Tours" of duty

[Warborn]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

No sense of progress? What do you think taking bases/continents is? I don't think there needs to, or should be, any overall end goal.

Capturing a base isn't any different than capturing the payload in Teamfortress 2 or whatever. Or winning a round in Battlefield 3. This thread is about the desire of some people to have longer term goals that you fight to achieve. Capturing a base is something you'll do over the course of an hour or so, and you'll lose it shortly thereafter with nothing really gained or lost in either transaction except for passive flow of resources. So not exactly the kind of progress some people are hoping for.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Capturing a base isn't any different than capturing the payload in Teamfortress 2 or whatever. Or winning a round in Battlefield 3. This thread is about the desire of some people to have longer term goals that you fight to achieve. Capturing a base is something you'll do over the course of an hour or so, and you'll lose it shortly thereafter with nothing really gained or lost in either transaction except for passive flow of resources. So not exactly the kind of progress some people are hoping for.

Yeah, but those games you mentioned are incredibly fun and popular. I'm just not sure why people want more than base and continent captures (which can take the better part of a day in PS1, probably a bit faster in PS2). I think people are just being anxious about things. Once they get in game and get mobilizing with a whole army to work on capping an entire continent, people will stop worrying about "overall" goals, because they won't need them. I think the games current goals will be satisfying enough.

That said, I wouldn't be opposed to some bonuses for securing bases/continents, but I'm not sure what they'd be.

[Warborn]

There's no question that BF3/TF2 are fun and popular, and this game is going for the middle-ground between them, with BF3-style gameplay and TF2-style silliness/microtransactions. I think PS2 will do very well even if the gameplay is shallow, because I think most players really just want to be able to log on, shoot people, and not care about any sort of "big picture" stuff. Doesn't mean you can't have both styles of gameplay working concurrently, but PS2 lacking the long view probably won't keep it from being a great game.

[Ratstomper]

The reason I don't want resets is because that is literally like TF2 and BF3, it's just another round where everyone does the same thing they did last time. Having a never ending war means you've always got different battle lines and situations where tactics and battleplans will need to be different. You may have to take a base differently today than you took it yesterday because of any number of battlefield factors: enemy positioning, enemy type, global populations, etc. The best way to make gameplay stagnant is to introduce resets.

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by Bazilx

I will tell you hows.

That's bound to happen with or without a reset, all the bases and resources you captured are liable to be taken back while you are sleeping. Atleast if there was a reset at the end the x amount of resources your side would have gained from those hours you held that base you captured would contribute to your victory.

As it is now, you'll just be like the tide, sweeping forward and back with no sense of purpose or accomplishment. As people are pushed back they become stronger from having to defend less territory and become more able to take back the territory you conquered which means that even if you fight better than them, the results won't be nearly as noticable as they would be if there was a score and reset system.

I believe it's mainly though a matter of preference, I won't feel like I am doing well unless I have a number telling me I am. I won't take as much pleasure out of the knowledge that technically we are doing better than them unless some arbitrary third party gives me a pat on the back once in a while, it's sad but I believe it's part of many peoples competetive psychology.

I feel it would be like playing a sport but with nobody keeping score and some hippie jerk telling me it's not about the score, it's about the pleasure of the game.

If you look back at PS1 you could push them all the way out of a continent, and being able to control a base or tower for a long time like a day is way more then just resetting in every day, we could hold the base for a week or a month if were good. Having the break outs is what is fun and much cooler then seeing a YOU LOSS sign when your out of all continents. This is a build no one else uses and you never have tried it. All you have played is BF3 or Modern War fair. Name one game you have played like PS1 and PS2?

[Envenom]

I like this idea. I played WWII Online and they had a similar setup. I can't remember exactly how it worked but it was either you fight for a 2 week period and the faction with the most territory at the end wins, or until one got totally wiped. At that point there would be a reset.

It was a lot of fun and gave purpose to your advances/movements. I would see this working nicely in PS2.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by TeaLeaf

I don't think a reset is the way to go about it but I would really like some kind of system to "raise the stakes", as it where. The game world 2 years after launch will be pretty much the same as the game world 3 months after launch (excluding actual new content), I'd rather player actions have a bit more impact.

Like I said, no idea what could help do this in PS2. It'd only work if there where no real pre-set factions and everything was player driven (so if your faction is destroyed, you can just join a new one or start rebuilding) but that would probably gimp the actual gameplay.

Maybe some smaller things such as the game just archiving most of its history in a database somewhere (what the empire map looked like on a particular date for example) would help bring more sense of actually affecting the world.

This sounds like the outfit base idea we've had floating around here for a bit. I could see a win/loose condition for outfit bases. And the DEVs have said they want more sandbox features such as this in the future (not at launch)...

[Bazilx]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Having a never ending war means you've always got different battle lines and situations where tactics and battleplans will need to be different. You may have to take a base differently today than you took it yesterday because of any number of battlefield factors:

I don't see how not having a reset would cause that more than having one would, in fact I think a reset would make things like foothold-swapping possible, changing the battle lines far more significantly.

Originally Posted by fishirboy

If you look back at PS1 you could push them all the way out of a continent,

And if we could still lock the VS scum off our land I wouldn't have a problem, since that felt satisfying enough. I just don't feel the constant fighting going nowhere would feel satisfying in the same way.

I am hoping that the character progression and the conquest making me feel like I am progressing my character will bring more meaning and be satisfying, but I can't speak to that just yet.

[Deflagrate]

I feel like a reset physically (as in bases, etc) would really serve no lasting change, since they would be hacked back within hours. However the concept of statistics, ranks, etc. could be extremely positive. 3 month or so "seasons" could be used, with, in addition to the long running game long statistics, there would be individual statistics for these 3 month blocks.

The last week of each 3 month blocks could be a "fun week" SOE could grant everyone all weapons/certs etc. for that week, with no competitive statistics measured, just so sit back and blow **** up.

If SOE wants to add a competitive element to planetside, the top players in each season (per class, faction, top outfit, etc) could be invited to SOE Fan Fest for an all out, "battle of the elite" game.

It would add publicity, competition, and bring the community together.

[Neurotoxin]

A three-way revolutionary conflict isn't going to see peace, not even for a minute, not even when the servers are down.

This war doesn't end. Maybe campaigns for individual continents may occur (maybe have a rotating continent system similar to the caverns in PS1) so an owned continent can be locked and one that was previously owned becomes unlocked.

[indirect]

No.

[IMMentat]

How would any reset fit into a Persistant world???
Dumb idea, though I understand the desire to gave a goal.

Planetside is a sandbox war simulation, for the most part, we set our own goals.
I think the AI commander missions will help there, and I can certainly see the merits of outfit/empire leagues played separate from the continental fights, kinda like outfit wars but more frequent and better advertised (maybe even turn it into an e-sport).

[ChillerDuu]

I'd rather have it not reset. I just kind of like it that way to where the world is completely changed by the players and not reset.

[p0intman]

Originally Posted by Madfish

One of the key issues with PS is a sense of no actual progress.

What do you guys think about an end game criteria - hold X amount of territory for X time etc etc, which leads to the game finishing. Everyone who took part gets a "Tour" medal, the winning faction gets a medal and the best outfits and players also get awards.

The planet then resets for it to start all over again.

The reset would also be a great time to introduce new technology / equipment ready to go.

Thoughts? Still just doing the same thing again and again, or would it give a sense of a greater task?

No. What do you not understand about the foreverwar?

[Landtank]

If they brought back continent locks and sanctuaries then this problem would be partially solved, as then you could win continents and feel accomplishment.

I personally enjoy the foreverwar, and wouldn't ever, ever want a reset.