End Game: Pros and Cons - Page 4

Crator · 2012-03-09, 11:51 PM

I don't think the answer to the problem is separating the player base onto another server or magically wisping them away to a locked map where people play against each other in smaller groups.

I rather like the DAoC idea that someone mentioned above me. The solution needs to be incorporated within the main game somehow. Make it so outfits own their own bases on maps different from the bases that you incorporate into the game already. Then have something of a lattice type system that connects to the outfit base maps. An empire would have to lock the connecting continent to gain access to the outfit bases and attempt to steal a relic 'Al' la' DAoC' style of sorts.

EDIT: To add, for the devs, you've got your work cut out for you in map designing in the above scenario. And don't think us PS vets still don't want enter/exit vehicle animations too!

Good job so far though!

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 12:13 AM

Originally Posted by Synapses

There is a similar idea to what your talking about in WWII Online and it works great, but I still think it wouldnt really fit Planetside because this war never ends, ever... Its constantly on going and in lore there may be cease fires for one reason or another but its still a war, that never ends.

Change the lore a bit then? The PS1 war was only permanent because of the arbitrary rule of being unable to cap sancs. 2 empires would team up in an official or unofficial alliance, wipe out the third, then go at it themselves. Wars over in months.

Death2All · 2012-03-10, 12:20 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Change the lore a bit then? The PS1 war was only permanent because of the arbitrary rule of being unable to cap sancs. 2 empires would team up in an official or unofficial alliance, wipe out the third, then go at it themselves. Wars over in months.

What does this add to the game though? If the point of the game is that it never ends, why would you add a winning condition? What do you get, other person satisfaction and an E-boner that you won? The whole game is about constant victories through the capture of bases and territories. You capture a base and then it's yours until someone takes it back. That's whole point of the god damn game. Why would you want to change that just so you can say you "won" even though the game will be reset and it doesn't matter anyways?

MonsterBone · 2012-03-10, 12:26 AM

I think we dont need an "end game" we need a "goal". It could be as simple as putting an outfit name on each base or tower they capture AND have that outfit name on the map.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by PrISM

You've missed the concept of Planetside entirely.

No. The sorts of events you should be looking into are those similar to Planetside in that they don't change the core concept on which the game is based upon.

Please explain the concept of planetside then, because all its ever been is a massive scale persistent fps in a sci fi setting.

Persistent does not mean eternal, though. So what if its broken up in cycles? Its not as if anything that was done 6 months ago will have any measurable impact on the fight today anyway.

@Higby, I personally would love a ww2ol style cycle. There would be some ferocious fighting in weeks leading up to the end. And there is nothing in the lore that says the fight must go on forever.. that assumption is and was always ridiculous. The only reason PS1 wasn't won was because the sancs were arbitrarily made uncappable, else eventually 2 empires would have teamed up, steamrolled the third, then turned on each other.

Death2All · 2012-03-10, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Please explain the concept of planetside then, because all its ever been is a massive scale persistent fps in a sci fi setting.

Persistent does not mean eternal, though. So what if its broken up in cycles? Its not as if anything that was done 6 months ago will have any measurable impact on the fight today anyway.

@Higby, I personally would love a ww2ol style cycle. There would be some ferocious fighting in weeks leading up to the end. And there is nothing in the lore that says the fight must go on forever.. that assumption is and was always ridiculous. The only reason PS1 wasn't won was because the sancs were arbitrarily made uncappable, else eventually 2 empires would have teamed up, steamrolled the third, then turned on each other.

Planetside is a massively multiplayer online first person shooter set in a persistent never-ending universe. Players fight for the capture of facilities and continents.

Hell, it was even the motto for the game "For land. For power. Forever"

I think it's strongly implied that the fight never ends. That it's a constant struggle for power and territory. That the fight never ceases because all the soldiers can respawn.

So what if it's broken down into seasons? Oh I don't know...It just sort of goes against the entire point of the fucking game.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 12:37 AM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

What does this add to the game though? If the point of the game is that it never ends, why would you add a winning condition? What do you get, other person satisfaction and an E-boner that you won? The whole game is about constant victories through the capture of bases and territories. You capture a base and then it's yours until someone takes it back. That's whole point of the god damn game. Why would you want to change that just so you can say you "won" even though the game will be reset and it doesn't matter anyways?

It adds a goal for the entire empire, adds bragging rights, could be the excuse for some nifty special events and added chaos in the week or two leading up to the end of the cycle. It adds another layer of things to be capped on top of bases and territories, the entire planet.

What do you feel it takes away from the game? You say the point of PS1 was capping bases and territories. That will still exist, and will still matter to the same extent that it mattered in PS1. It doesn't change.

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

I think it's strongly implied that the fight never ends. That it's a constant struggle for power and territory. That the fight never ceases because all the soldiers can respawn.

Yet its going to end next year, give or take.

But if the fact that the war is eternal must exist, then just as the soldiers respawn, so does the whole war, as the vanu reset everything and start over again when there is a victor. They can bend a planet apart, they could reset the factions back to the beginning of the war and see how it plays out again. Maybe its an experiment. Who knows.

Neverending was never, not once, actually important though. Just lore fluff.

WellWisherELF · 2012-03-10, 12:41 AM

Let's say, on the first of every month or two, both average territory owned and total facilities captured over the past month are accrued, and the faction with the highest score over that period of time get's a one time moderate resource bonus, as well as an XP boost that lasts maybe a week.

That's that. It would give players a sense of accomplishment for winning a "season", as well as maybe an achievement or statistic that gets tracked for "Total Seasons Won". Enough rewards to give players a sense of having "won" over a period of time, and enough incentive to give players a sense of having contributed to the war effort.

HELLFISH88 · 2012-03-10, 12:42 AM

End game used to be world locks...........

Death2All · 2012-03-10, 12:45 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

It adds a goal for the entire empire, adds bragging rights, could be the excuse for some nifty special events and added chaos in the week or two leading up to the end of the cycle. It adds another layer of things to be capped on top of bases and territories, the entire planet.

What do you feel it takes away from the game? You say the point of PS1 was capping bases and territories. That will still exist, and will still matter to the same extent that it mattered in PS1. It doesn't change.

Yet its going to end next year, give or take.

But if the fact that the war is eternal must exist, then just as the soldiers respawn, so does the whole war, as the vanu reset everything and start over again when there is a victor. They can bend a planet apart, they could do that.

The goal for the game already exists. It's to capture territories and collect resources.That's the goal. People are going to do that regardless because you have to or else you can't buy shit. That's the incentive.

What does it take away from the game? It doesn't necessarily take anything away, but rather it undermines the entire purpose of the game. What's the point of saying your game is persistent and never ending....when it does

I'm all for adding events that temporarily change the pace of the game. It doesn't have to end or reset though, that's all I'm saying.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-10, 01:10 AM

If PS2 even has a concept of "end game" it has failed.

Graywolves · 2012-03-10, 01:13 AM

Forcing a "Victory" and reset breaks the persistence and brings a feeling like the end of masturbation. It was fun and felt good especially at the end.

But now you don't feel like doing it for a while and just want to take a nap.

And for some odd reason you feel disappointed in yourself.

Don't turn Planetside into a circlejerk.

captainbaka · 2012-03-10, 01:17 AM

Planetside is about a massive all out war, that never ends. I think that anything like this just wouldn't be true to the game.

CutterJohn · 2012-03-10, 01:27 AM

Originally Posted by DeeTwoEh

The goal for the game already exists. It's to capture territories and collect resources.That's the goal. People are going to do that regardless because you have to or else you can't buy shit. That's the incentive.

Right. And this is a goal on top of those two goals, something for the entire empire to collectively strive for.

What's the point of saying your game is persistent and never ending....when it does

Then don't say its neverending? That was used to describe PS1. PS1 also had the bending. Which never happened according to PS2. This isn't a sequel, its a reboot.

Persistence just means the effects carry on from day to day, and when you're logged off stuff is still happening. Doesn't give a time frame though, and PS1 was only loosely persistent... What happened one week had very little effect on what happened the next.

I'm all for adding events that temporarily change the pace of the game. It doesn't have to end or reset though, that's all I'm saying.

Sure. I just don't believe it would alter gameplay in any noticeable way to do it.

Rat · 2012-03-10, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by WellWisherELF

Let's say, on the first of every month or two, both average territory owned and total facilities captured over the past month are accrued, and the faction with the highest score over that period of time get's a one time moderate resource bonus, as well as an XP boost that lasts maybe a week.

That's that. It would give players a sense of accomplishment for winning a "season", as well as maybe an achievement or statistic that gets tracked for "Total Seasons Won". Enough rewards to give players a sense of having "won" over a period of time, and enough incentive to give players a sense of having contributed to the war effort.

I think this is a pretty slick idea...with a system like this, you wouldnt need to have a world reset if all that is tracked is bases captured during a "season"..it wouldnt really matter how much real estate was owned at the beginning...only how much was taken during the event cycle.