News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns - Page 4

TheBear · 2012-03-25, 08:26 PM

On the topic of a long term objective, I would simply point out that BF3, MW3, etc donn't have objectives past micro-objectives. They seem to do really well.

From the other perspective, WoW, EQ, etc, don't have Meta objectives (really), or at least hadn't for years.

Planetside's staying power is that unlike MW/BF I get to fight different fights, different ways, all the time. I get to have the same player base to depend on, which creates a community where people can grow as team.

That's our long term objective.

PS2 is doing a lot to tear down the down time between objectives, and is doing a lot to make sure that fights move constantly to different parts of the map. So we don't have cyssor-side every night.

Warborn · 2012-03-25, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Graywolves

You win/lose when you successfully hold a base and drive the enemy off. If you give the argument that it just gets taken back then that's just part of it being a persistent world, it's not like you're going into matchmaking and getting the same map 3 times in a row. When you're fighting over the same base again, there is context as to why.

I like how he put in that enter/exit animations was something that Planetside's peers didn't have. Hopefully they come in later.

You're simply assigning a characteristic to winning a base without deferring to how that actually feels in experience. Taking a base is a small sense of satisfaction, yes, but as they say, familiarity breeds contempt. I remember my first base capture in Planetside 1 and how everyone was so excited. How excited do you think people get after several years of capturing bases daily? In short order, base captures become routine. You will experience them many times a day. This is really the only thing that provides a semblance of win/lose in the original Planetside, and it might be compelling enough to keep fans interested for a while, but nonetheless it will eventually be seen as prosaic and unremarkable to take a base.

The only reason I have seen people offer for there not to be a grander, harder-fought win condition is the same useless reasoning people oppose any idea on these forums. It didn't work that way in Planetside 1, therefore it shouldn't work that way in Planetside 2. The fools and their pedantic nonsense about what "persistent" means in a game where it is possible to win is just so much hot air. Neglecting the main, driving force behind competitive games of any kind -- that being the prospect of victory or defeat -- out of some kind of loyalty to a shitty game that came out a decade ago is absurd.

Stardouser · 2012-03-25, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by TheBear

On the topic of a long term objective, I would simply point out that BF3, MW3, etc donn't have objectives past micro-objectives. They seem to do really well.

And BF vets are calling for there to be more than that to the game. I know, I lead that charge over at Mordor. Not getting a response from DICE is why I'm here following Planetside.

Doing well in sales isn't, strictly speaking, a mark of quality.

Console players would be calling for the same thing if they had every experienced anything like it and if their hardware wasn't too limited to even play larger BF maps. Dust 514, however, might set off a wave of complexity in the console world.

Anyway, point is, if I wanted to be stuck in a meaningless stat padding KDR game, I'd just stick with BF3.

Warborn · 2012-03-25, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by TheBear

On the topic of a long term objective, I would simply point out that BF3, MW3, etc donn't have objectives past micro-objectives. They seem to do really well.

Games like BF3 are ones people do not pay any money for beyond the initial release and an expansion every year or two. They bleed players quickly and need to roll out a BF4 or whatever after a few years.

Planetside 2 is a game that will need to rely on people spending money on in order to be profitable. It will need people to be interested in it for years because PS3 is a long way away if it's coming at all. You can't rely on the superficial stuff that entertains people in BF3 for a game like this. People need to be invested in their character, their empire, their server, for best results. And making there be a bigger picture beyond fighting for the same bases every day is a part of that.

Without something much more hard-fought to really create roots for people in, the game will bleed severely in time and with every big new shooter that is released. Without trappings well-beyond what every other shooter on the market provides (easy-come-easy-go objectives and a bit of character development) the game will become victim to the lifecycle of every other shooter. And I doubt that is what they envision for their standard-setting MMOFPS.

NEWSKIS · 2012-03-25, 09:12 PM

As far as animations, I'm on the fence and will see if it changes anything in beta.

As for the win condition discussion, you have to find something thats worth fighting for, but doesnt give you an rediculous advantage. Say for instance after completing some victory condition, you get 20% more health for a week. Sure its a great incentive to fight over, but makes the winning side have a big advantage that could snowball. On the other hand, a merit doesnt create an advantage but isnt as much of an incentive to fight. Anything more than say bonus resources or experience for capturing a continent has to deal with that dilemma. Its a balance between advantage and incentive.

So I'm not sure what a good solution would be if there even is one. The storyline changing idea is an interesting one, but I don't know if that would be enough of a long term goal to keep people fighting.

oosik · 2012-03-25, 10:13 PM

Victory conditions

What I would like to see are things like:

Weekly Empire winners: most territory occupied, most tech plants taken (or bases), most kills, best k:d, most xp.

Weekly Outfit winners in each Empire: same as above.

Weekly Individual winners in each Empire: same as above, but also things like most aircraft kills, most Max kills, most vehicle kills, etc.

Weekly winners in the individual and outfit categories get station cash or other stuff.

Extend this to monthly.

Further extension: Yearly? Make this the biggest station cash payout. Maybe some other intangibles, like the Yearly Empire winner gets to preview a new continent or something.

To enhance this, have in game propaganda playing. "NC, you are only 1,205 kills behind TR for the week! Go NC, go!"

Or, "TR, your lead over VS for territory for the month has shrunk to 486 square kilometers. Let's get moving TR!"

Have each category have its own Empire propaganda line.

Stardouser · 2012-03-25, 10:17 PM

Originally Posted by oosik

Victory conditions

What I would like to see are things like:

Weekly Empire winners: most territory occupied, most tech plants taken (or bases), most kills, best k:d, most xp.

Weekly Outfit winners in each Empire: same as above.

Weekly Individual winners in each Empire: same as above, but also things like most aircraft kills, most Max kills, most vehicle kills, etc.

Weekly winners in the individual and outfit categories get station cash or other stuff.

Extend this to monthly.

Further extension: Yearly? Make this the biggest station cash payout. Maybe some other intangibles, like the Yearly Empire winner gets to preview a new continent or something.

To enhance this, have in game propaganda playing. "NC, you are only 1,205 kills behind TR for the week! Go NC, go!"

Or, "TR, your lead over VS for territory for the month has shrunk to 486 square kilometers. Let's get moving TR!"

Have each category have its own Empire propaganda line.

That's not a bad idea and has nothing to do with a reset!

And I don't know how, but somehow maybe they could have Outfit awards...though I'm not sure how you'd assign credit for things to an outfit over the hundreds of zergers in the area.

Raymac · 2012-03-25, 11:23 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

You're simply assigning a characteristic to winning a base without deferring to how that actually feels in experience. Taking a base is a small sense of satisfaction, yes, but as they say, familiarity breeds contempt. I remember my first base capture in Planetside 1 and how everyone was so excited. How excited do you think people get after several years of capturing bases daily? In short order, base captures become routine. You will experience them many times a day. This is really the only thing that provides a semblance of win/lose in the original Planetside, and it might be compelling enough to keep fans interested for a while, but nonetheless it will eventually be seen as prosaic and unremarkable to take a base.

The only reason I have seen people offer for there not to be a grander, harder-fought win condition is the same useless reasoning people oppose any idea on these forums. It didn't work that way in Planetside 1, therefore it shouldn't work that way in Planetside 2. The fools and their pedantic nonsense about what "persistent" means in a game where it is possible to win is just so much hot air. Neglecting the main, driving force behind competitive games of any kind -- that being the prospect of victory or defeat -- out of some kind of loyalty to a shitty game that came out a decade ago is absurd.

You may turn out to be right, but I disagree with your conclusion. First off, if you do the same exact thing over and over then of course it will have a tendency to get old. However, that's an argument against ANY game having a long lifespan. In fact, from what we've learned from Planetside, the massive scale and persistant nature of the game make it so that every battle is unique. Planetside 2 is already improving on that by having MANY more things to fight over instead of the same exact stairwells in the same exact copycat towers or 1 of 5 different bases. Continent locks do not "fix" the problem of repetition. Anyone that has played Planetside any amount of time has locked a continent more times then they can remember.

Now, I'm not against an idea of a larger, grander kind of objective, but locking a continent is not the answer. It was flawed in Planetside 1 so it would be a mistake to simply plug that stupid mechanic back into Planetside 2. A better way can be done.

blbeta · 2012-03-26, 12:40 AM

Originally Posted by Warborn

Winning and losing are the entire point behind competitive games involving more than one person. You can't have a thrilling competition without the prospect of victory to spur you onward. Without a purpose of winning, the game loses its starch. Nobody cares. It becomes routine. It isn't an accident we try harder during a playoff game than during practice. By forgoing any win scenarios in Planetside 2, they put a fairly low ceiling on how invested players would ever be liable to get in the game.

For me, in Planetside, each tower or base was a winning or losing situation. Each fight with someone was a win or loss. I didn't need someone to tell me the score. I enjoyed the fight. I didn't need a scoreboard, although I enjoyed K/D ratio.

I do realize many people need that "end" goal put in their face. I hope the new mission system gives more of a sense of that for others.

For those that think Planetside is just a bigger BF3 or the like, I imagine it is unlikely you played Planetside. If you did and that's all you got out of it I'd be surprised.

For me figuring out the loadouts, strategies, and the countless options of how to support your empire is the score.

I am not against a larger "win condition", just as long as it doesn't kill the feel of "Planetside". I expect with the mission system and perhaps story line, they could come up with some really good goals. Just as long as "The Bending" doesn't come again.

cellinaire · 2012-03-26, 04:57 AM

Originally Posted by blbeta

For me, in Planetside, each tower or base was a winning or losing situation. Each fight with someone was a win or loss. I didn't need someone to tell me the score. I enjoyed the fight. I didn't need a scoreboard, although I enjoyed K/D ratio.

I do realize many people need that "end" goal put in their face. I hope the new mission system gives more of a sense of that for others.

For those that think Planetside is just a bigger BF3 or the like, I imagine it is unlikely you played Planetside. If you did and that's all you got out of it I'd be surprised.

For me figuring out the loadouts, strategies, and the countless options of how to support your empire is the score.

I am not against a larger "win condition", just as long as it doesn't kill the feel of "Planetside". I expect with the mission system and perhaps story line, they could come up with some really good goals. Just as long as "The Bending" doesn't come again.

Awesome. Agree 100%.

--------------------------------
I wonder about the number of 'global domination' which has ever happened in PS1. Care to enlighten me, anyone? I only remember 1 case...(Vanu, of course =) )

Just curious.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-26, 05:09 AM

You know PS2 is doing pretty well in the public eye when vehicle enter/exit animations are the top concern.

His second concern was a bit less laughable to me and gets to a big part of the soul of Planetside - the motivation to take territory and facilities. The idea of winning and accomplishment are important, but they also have to worry about those win conditions having poor gameplay consequences.

I remain convinced it is entirely possible to have satisfactory win conditions without completely locking out the enemy teams. Just like in battlegrounds of WoW or Conquest maps in Battlefield; you need not take every objective, you just need to control enough of them. Alas many other threads on this subject already.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 05:22 AM

Winning hats, getting on weekly/monthly leaderboards and being given war honours won't provide the meaningfulness you're looking for. It's the same short-term skinner-box reward system as everything else. You've pushed Planetside 2's button and been rewarded with your regularly scheduled package of dopamine.

At the start of the next period, what's changed? Which one of those will have utilized Planetside 2's persistent world? Which of those couldn't have been done in Battlefield or CoD?

The closest thing to those that would provide meaningful progression without physically affecting the environment itself would be if instead of implementing content in patches, they could be "won" over time by empires. Lets say 5 new pieces of content are added in a patch (be they new deployables, attachments, certs, implants, weapons etc.), instead of them all being immediately available, an empire would unlock one every X hundred of hexes they captured (the mechanic would probably need to be more complex than that, to promote defensiveness as well as capture).

That way, instead of some meaningless patch note saying "your empire has captured a blueprint for a new item and through diligent work your scientists have added it to your empires arsenal", you'll have actually participated in the evolution of the game.

Yes, some empires will attain them quicker than others, but I doubt one empire will win so much more often than another that they end up unlocking the last item while the other is still working on their first or second...

Atheosim · 2012-03-26, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Winning hats, getting on weekly/monthly leaderboards and being given war honours won't provide the meaningfulness you're looking for. It's the same short-term skinner-box reward system as everything else. You've pushed Planetside 2's button and been rewarded with your regularly scheduled package of dopamine.

At the start of the next period, what's changed? Which one of those will have utilized Planetside 2's persistent world? Which of those couldn't have been done in Battlefield or CoD?

The closest thing to those that would provide meaningful progression without physically affecting the environment itself would be if instead of implementing content in patches, they could be "won" over time by empires. Lets say 5 new pieces of content are added in a patch (be they new deployables, attachments, certs, implants, weapons etc.), instead of them all being immediately available, an empire would unlock one every X hundred of hexes they captured (the mechanic would probably need to be more complex than that, to promote defensiveness as well as capture).

That way, instead of some meaningless patch note saying "your empire has captured a blueprint for a new item and through diligent work your scientists have added it to your empires arsenal", you'll have actually participated in the evolution of the game.

Yes, some empires will attain them quicker than others, but I doubt one empire will win so much more often than another that they end up unlocking the last item while the other is still working on their first or second...

I think it would be cool if when you "lock" a continent EVERYBODY on the winning team gets unlimited, no-cooldown access to orbital strikes.

On a more serious note, this is a good idea, but the issue of balancing comes in to play firstly, secondly there isn't much stopping people from stacking the winning team. Other than that I'm all aboard on that gravy train.

Tamas · 2012-03-26, 06:12 AM

Well I enjoy BF series since 1942 (first one) and it was nothing but killing (with objectives). With PS2 it gives me more objectives and a desire to establish my chosen faction dominance. Having said that, I'd love to have some more depth in long term objectives.

If PS2 was still early in development I'd suggest adding "Faction Research". It's a resource sink which works in relation to captured bases. There are research/resource/military facilities that contribute to unlocking tech for a faction. It would unlock more weapon options/upgrades - this would be done after X time passes and the "bar" fills up - having resources, research facilities would speed up the progress.

In theory future vehicles could be unlocked this way - a long term goal. Factions capture/gather resources into a pool, when reached they get a new vehicle (even though it's common pool). The more territory you control the faster you unlock it. IT could also provide timed bonuses for your faction that expire and you need to research again (it's nothing major, more like 5% agility increase/speed/armor etc.).

Furthermore it should be a choice for each player where does he want to contribute. A player sees all the option and selects the one he thinks would be best. Of course it will take longer if everyone spreads out, but if a general consensus within the faction is reached and everyone donates/selects the same research - it is faster.

Just an idea I had for some time.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

On a more serious note, this is a good idea, but the issue of balancing comes in to play firstly, secondly there isn't much stopping people from stacking the winning team. Other than that I'm all aboard on that gravy train.

Unless they pull another BFR, a couple of implants or attachments shouldn't be appealing enough to switch empires over when you consider that someone decked out in certs will apparently be on par with a day-one character.