Disappointed in what Planetside 2 has to offer - Page 3

FriendlyFire · 2012-03-09, 12:06 PM

How about this idea to keep it interesting:

Make it so Resources shift under the continents, so that all bases will provide some resources but every couple of days certain areas of the map provide a higher amount of resources.

This way there would be an ever changing battle over the same map.

Zerikin Loukbel · 2012-03-09, 12:08 PM

Some sort of global campaign would be neat. I think part of the lack of persistence feeling is that once you took a base or even a continent in PS odds our it would be taken by the other faction while you were logged off. What the first PS really lacked was some sort of campaign/long term goals for factions to work towards. Great I we own all of Cyssor again, so what? I think PS2 could benefit greatly from some sort of long term campaign system where every x weeks a faction "wins" and is awarded kudos, resources and xp, etc.

Another idea would be a way to actually keep a continent under control for a longer period of time if you do get the entire thing. Perhaps you could lock a cont for x number of days by having the controlling faction donate x amount of resources. Owning the cont could give you certain bonuses (kinda like owning a continent in Risk) and contribute towards the campaign points.

ringring · 2012-03-09, 12:12 PM

I don't get the moan about if you capture a base someone else just comes along and recaptures later and it's all for nothing and meaningless. Why can't there be a reset?

If it's all meaningless perhaps computer games are not for you, try RL.

SurgeonX · 2012-03-09, 12:18 PM

I think what you really want is to have a sense of owning a base.
And I think the way in which you do that has to be quite open and organic, so that it is possible to put a different stamp on each base, each time you own it.
Otherwise they would just feel too similar after a while.

So how about allowing Outfits to spend Outfit Points on an owned base by adding and annexing their own Outfit buidlings to it?
Buildings that could then be destroyed by the opposing Empires.
If there was a set area around or within the SOI that any Outfit could spend their points on, then you could build from a selection of specific buildings/modules, and put them wherever you want.

Outfits who work together could build some amazing setups.

So the bases would grow from their current footprints to being almost like a small town or city, with the base at the centre.

To me, that would take PS2 into a completely different dimension.
Both in terms of pushing gameplay to another level, but also in persistence.

I hear/see "tell me about your PlanetSide War Stories" quite often.
To me this adds an extra dimension to it.
Because then you'd have extra stories like, "remember when we held Baal for 10 days, and us, The Purple Ninja's and the Vanu Soldiers built that amazing setup. With that awesome turret layout."
"Yeah, and then the TR and NC banded together and dropped 50 Gal load's and destroyed the whole thing."

That.
Would be amazing.

megamold · 2012-03-09, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by SurgeonX

I think what you really want is to have a sense of owning a base.
And I think the way in which you do that has to be quite open and organic, so that it is possible to put a different stamp on each base, each time you own it.
Otherwise they would just feel too similar after a while.

So how about allowing Outfits to spend Outfit Points on an owned base by adding and annexing their own Outfit buidlings to it?
Buildings that could then be destroyed by the opposing Empires.
If there was a set area around or within the SOI that any Outfit could spend their points on, then you could build from a selection of specific buildings/modules, and put them wherever you want.

Outfits who work together could build some amazing setups.

So the bases would grow from their current footprints to being almost like a small town or city, with the base at the centre.

To me, that would take PS2 into a completely different dimension.
Both in terms of pushing gameplay to another level, but also in persistence.

I hear/see "tell me about your PlanetSide War Stories" quite often.
To me this adds an extra dimension to it.
Because then you'd have extra stories like, "remember when we held Baal for 10 days, and us, The Purple Ninja's and the Vanu Soldiers built that amazing setup. With that awesome turret layout."
"Yeah, and then the TR and NC banded together and dropped 50 Gal load's and destroyed the whole thing."

That.
Would be amazing.

pretty much everything you summed up you wanted the dev team has hinted at for being added after release

however i do not like the "town/city" idea since vehicle combat is one of the pillars of this game, a huge city would just make that city a bf3 map filled with buildings like cod

also i think some people need to look up what persistance actually means

if you get bored of this setup equally fast as any other map and lobby shooters then i think you are just bored of fps games in general

Zerikin Loukbel · 2012-03-09, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

This is kind of off and on topic but has it been mentioned anything regarding a lattice structure in PS2? If it's going to be a free for all then yeah this couple help a tad with repetition but in the end it's going to basically be the same issue.

There is not lattice this time. Last I heard the speed at which you can capture a territory increase the more adjacent territories you control. You can still capture territories without any adjacent, it just takes longer.

EightEightEight · 2012-03-09, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by RadarX

What type of long term rewards would you be interested in? Do you feel an entire faction should receive rewards for the efforts of some? Ultimately what motivates your participation in a large scale conflict?

I think if we take over the Map like full Red Full Purple Full Blue there should be something gained and then the map resets to all neutral.

Although based on what I have been seeing that is going to be a lot hard in PS2 then it was in PS1

The gains could be anything from a huge xp bonus to a mark on the world showing that faction took over the world once twice or how many ever times it was

megamold · 2012-03-09, 12:49 PM

Originally Posted by EightEightEight

I think if we take over the Map like full Red Full Purple Full Blue there should be something gained and then the map resets to all neutral.

Although based on what I have been seeing that is going to be a lot hard in PS2 then it was in PS1

The gains could be anything from a huge xp bonus to a mark on the world showing that faction took over the world once twice or how many ever times it was

what? i'm sorry but, hell no
if they want their territory back they have to pry it from my cold dead hands

but a reward for owning a cont isnt a bad idea

also of note : you cant completely own a cont since every faction is supposed to have a home base that cannot be captured

GoldDragon · 2012-03-09, 01:08 PM

So, here's a recap the ideas that seem pretty solid so far and that I agree with....

Originally Posted by Beagle

A friend of mine talking about Planetside 2 posed an idea very central to this thread's topic of discussion - he talked about how in a game (I believe it was DAOC) you could pool your guild's resources to make a castle better defended, adding extra strength to the doors, putting in boiling oil traps, etc. It'd be interesting if you could fortify PS2 bases, but it was something that took a long time - so if you held a base for a day, lets say, you could finish some installations of a couple extra security systems and slightly reinforce the door. If you'd held it for a month, it'd be a veritable alcatraz armed to the teeth, and it'd require considerable effort to assault it (maybe even a cease fire between two of the empires to take on the third).

You could let the player design it a bit too as long as it wasn't open to making abusively hard base layouts. As in, let engineers decide where to set up some cover, or a machinegun emplacement, or a turret, and then they plop it down and in a few hours or in a day it'll be done building. It can be really fun to engage your designer brain and start doing base decoration.

Just some ideas for thought.

Originally Posted by FriendlyFire

How about this idea to keep it interesting:

Make it so Resources shift under the continents, so that all bases will provide some resources but every couple of days certain areas of the map provide a higher amount of resources.

This way there would be an ever changing battle over the same map.

Originally Posted by SurgeonX

I think what you really want is to have a sense of owning a base.
And I think the way in which you do that has to be quite open and organic, so that it is possible to put a different stamp on each base, each time you own it.
Otherwise they would just feel too similar after a while.

So how about allowing Outfits to spend Outfit Points on an owned base by adding and annexing their own Outfit buidlings to it?
Buildings that could then be destroyed by the opposing Empires.
If there was a set area around or within the SOI that any Outfit could spend their points on, then you could build from a selection of specific buildings/modules, and put them wherever you want.

Outfits who work together could build some amazing setups.

So the bases would grow from their current footprints to being almost like a small town or city, with the base at the centre.

To me, that would take PS2 into a completely different dimension.
Both in terms of pushing gameplay to another level, but also in persistence.

I hear/see "tell me about your PlanetSide War Stories" quite often.
To me this adds an extra dimension to it.
Because then you'd have extra stories like, "remember when we held Baal for 10 days, and us, The Purple Ninja's and the Vanu Soldiers built that amazing setup. With that awesome turret layout."
"Yeah, and then the TR and NC banded together and dropped 50 Gal load's and destroyed the whole thing."

That.
Would be amazing.

I will admit, there are days where taking the same base over, and over again gets to me. But there is still nothing else like PlanetSide, never really will be either. Publishers are to afraid to try and do something this massive, SOE is the only one trying. This is important here because they don't have anything other than their PlanetSide experience to pull from as a reference.

I also feel SOE needs to start looking into ways to keep thing interesting, and the ideas being generated so far are a good start. Honestly, I think changing resource "values" based on the day/month/week isn't bad idea. One thought is the longer you fight over a continent the less resources it produces like using up the natural resources of a warzone. I can see the issues in this, but it's an idea.

PlanetSide is still unique, not matter what they do or don't do. As repetitive as it may be, I have always come back to it because of this. The community is fantastic, the game is always engaging (and occasionally aggravating but hey, that's shooters), and the memories made on Auraxis are lasting. On top of all that, the relationships forged between PlanetSide veterans are some of the strongest friendships I have ever witnessed in an MMO. The day someone shows me a game that can achieve that better than PS, I will call hacks.

Skitrel · 2012-03-09, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

Maybe it's a bit of a gimmick, but what if the longer you hold a base the more pimped out it gets? So lets say the TR take a base, all that happens in the beginning is that some of the colors outside change to red/black. Then over the next several days more of the base components change color, TR banners start appearing around the base, maybe some of the turrets start changing from NS to some TR specific turrets and so on. Basically the base slowly turns into a TR fortress. Maybe the amount of resources it puts out increases over time too.

It's not end game or anything, but it would be good for strategy. A "level 5" base for the TR would turn into a symbol for the empire that's fiercely defended (like Oshur is now eh you TR bastards

), while the resources it gives out makes it a prime target for the other empires. Once another empire captures it the base reverts to "level 1" and slowly builds itself up for that empire.

I like this idea. I like it a lot in fact, I think it could use expansion though.

What we know about PS2 is that the more hexes you have next to a hex you're attack the quicker you'll be able to take it. We should expand this mechanism. Bases should become tougher and tougher to attack, to the point where attacking them should be all out suicide unless either mounted by a ridiculously large force or taken cleverly by cutting supplies to the fortress and lowering it's level.

Bases should be supported by bonuses earned through owning other bases. So if you own Base A and Base B with a solid line of owned territory between the two then Base A gains the benefit of having more powerful turrets, automated defences, etc etc. What if we expand this further. If Base A and sector X is owned at the same time then Base A has a shield, in order to assault Base A the enemy HAS to take down the shield by assaulting the generator sector in order to take it.

What if bases of sufficient level gain enough automated defences to be quite defensible without players there. Individuals or small enemy groups would get slaughtered attempting it. What if in the event of said base coming under attack the faction gets a warning that they've broken into the base (gotten past the first line of automated defences) and at that point the defending faction knows it's a large force and need to go defend it, or lose it.

What if Bases give real, tangible, unique benefits to your whole faction, a special technology for example, only producable at that base. This suddenly makes keeping that base all the more important.

There are lots of ways to add more depth to the game, of course balancing is an issue but in the event of 1 faction ever becoming too strong you can always count on the other 2 factions to take advantage of the enemy being spread thinly.

I think the issue isn't so much persistence, it's not so much the gameplay becoming boring, I think it's the value, they want to feel like they're fighting over something they NEED, they want to feel like this fight is IMPORTANT.

The players need more motivation, they need to feel like there's a reason to fighting for each base, a reason they should care about owning base X, either because it's become a central base of operations due to owning it for so long, or because it gives something unique. They need to care about the location they're fighting for, more so than just, "it gives us more resources".

snok · 2012-03-09, 01:16 PM

I think the OP poorly defined the problem he sees as 'persistence'. Sure, PS2 has a persistent map compared to normal FPS. Is that enough for it to be fun for a while? Sure. Is that enough to engage a large enough playerbase to keep a dev team employed on PS2 for many years to come? I have my doubts. Like it or not, an endgame is what would truly set PS2 apart from all other shooters ever made.

Look it doesn't need to be complicated, nor would it require a full map reset upon the winning condition. Picture this, each empire has a home continent. It doesn't need to be nearly as big as a normal continent, call it a sanctuary if you want. On this continent are a few bigger, tougher bases that each have more and more defenses and are much tougher to take, culminating in a final base or empire capital city. In order to unlock this continent for fighting one empire would need to build up a lead in global points and/or possibly lock a set number of connecting continents, or some other non-trivial mechanism that would take the entire empire working together to achieve. Some sort of offset timer would probably be in order to bring the final assault into normal server primetime hours, and there could also be a time limit to complete the assault before the continent re-locks for added challenge.

If and when one empire captures anothers capital city, the home continent locks and has a timer (days to weeks) before it can be assaulted again. If one empire is getting picked on you have the timer ramp up to months after a set number of caps in a row or something.

Now, if you're the type of soldier who just thrives on killing and could care less about a wider stratiegic game, fine, you could ignore this system and kill till your hearts content. The problem lies for players who desire a deeper game, with an actual objective other than a killcount or k/d ratio. Once the shine wears off and you're max BR/CR and all you're left with is capping the same bases over and over ad naseum, there just isn't anything to keep these players coming back.

Think of the type of battle that would result from one empire desperatly trying to defend it's home territory from a focused attack, it gives me goosebumps. You could have medals or ribbons for each conquest and THAT is the type of things that would create lasting memories and a totally unique gameplay experience.

In the end I ask you, what do you have to lose from an endgame? It would create a deeper, more meaningful experience for those who desire such a thing. For those who don't, I can see nothing but benefits as it would create more intense battles and you can still ignore it and kill whore all day long if thats what your heart desires.

I fully understand that this would not be something that is going to happen before release. I'm fine with that, PS2 will be just fine the way it is for a year or more it would likely take to develop this type of system.

Bags · 2012-03-09, 01:17 PM

PS2 is persistent. If you capture bases they are yours until someone else steals it.

DviddLeff · 2012-03-09, 01:27 PM

Long term goals in PS are catered for (perhaps not well) by individual and outfit based goals, to get to the BR/CR/specialisation limit or train new techniques or recruit new members to expand.

Now, empire focused long term goals are what PS2 needs to look towards, but we have seen no evidence of them yet. I would like to see both territory based (ie capture the continental footholds and push the other empires off a continent to capture it completely) and technology based (ie hold x amount of tech plants for x amount of time to unlock a new weapon/vehicle).

EightEightEight · 2012-03-09, 01:39 PM

Originally Posted by megamold

what? i'm sorry but, hell no
if they want their territory back they have to pry it from my cold dead hands

but a reward for owning a cont isnt a bad idea

also of note : you cant completely own a cont since every faction is supposed to have a home base that cannot be captured

lol I wasn't talking about just a continent I was talking about the entire world. So if all the continents are your color (except the spawn points) then you get a big bonus and then they reset to neutral, meaning you won the entire world

Raymac · 2012-03-09, 01:59 PM

OK, I didn't read the whole thing, but from the OP, it sounded like Valcron's issue is less abotu a lack of persistance and more about a lack of defense.

As others have said the fact that a base is yours until someone comes in and takes it as opposed to an artificial reset is the very definition of persistance. so, just because someone can take the base away from you doesn't make it any less persistant at all. Getting more rewards doesn't change that at all either.

However, with the changes to the maps, I think we may see more of the result you are hoping for. Thanks to the sliding scale of timing for territory captures, along with larger numbers of players, we may see more stable front lines and fighting over land instead of just base-hopping all day long.