Becoming Disappointed. - Page 4

Raymac · 2012-06-01, 02:45 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

It's quite simple I think. There needs to be a clearly defined win/lose objective. On the CoD scale it's a matter of a small map win/lose objective. On a PS2 scale it should be a matter of cont win/lose. Simply grinding map regions to facilitate continuously doing the same thing over and over will not suffice. I am bored myself already thinking about it.

That's based on the premise that "winning" in Planetside came ONLY from locking a continent. It was an artificial win to begin with, and accounted for most of the downtime in the game.

Plus you never permenantly "won" a continent. You'd be fighting for the same continent again the very next day, or even just a couple hours later. By your rationale, "continuously doing the same thing over and over" was exactly what was done in PS1. So many people are stuck in this PS1 "cont locking is the only win" type of thinking. Get out of that rut. Continent locking sucked.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-01, 02:49 PM

Pushing an empire off a continent was one of many "win" conditions of the game. Its not the only one. No one is saying that.

You can win a 1 on 1, you can "win" in Squad VS Squad, you can "win" a base, you can "win" a Continent, you can "win" the game ( Sanctuary lock ).

Just like there are many levels of loosing. You can "loose" a 1 on 1, you can "loose" in Squad VS Squad, you can "loose" a continent, you can "loose" the game.

With permanent impenetrable footholds, one of those options goes away. That also means the joy of winning, also goes away. And everyone likes to be the winning underdog that was there when a Continent was opened and won.

SGTalon · 2012-06-01, 02:53 PM

If i wanted a game that i can "Win" i will play Diablo or BF3. Did you ever "WIN" Everquest or WoW?

There is no "win" in a 3 sided persistent MMO. If someone wins that means someone loses. If 2/3 of the players lose and can't play people are going to quit.

Do you guys not remember the times that you got locked out and couldn't leave sanc? Was that fun? No when things like that started is when i started looking for another game.

I think eliminating the ability to lock a team out of playing is a smart move.

As to the certs and abilities things? It is just game mechanics. This IS the future. You don't think there will be the ability to get little nanobots out there to repair your tank or plane? As long as it stops when you get hit, and can't over-regen incoming damage i don't see why it is an issue.

The issue about getting rewarded for taking and holding ground does not seem like a problem to me either. As long as it doesn't end up with a pull 50 tanks thing like someone mentioned, i can't see it as an obstacle.

Raymac · 2012-06-01, 02:54 PM

You lose a goal, but you improve the gameplay. The gameplay around a cont locked sucked because it was boring downtime. Yeah, the map changed color, but it was surrounded by an hour of 9:1 troop advantage gameplay. Then some more bickering in command chat about where to go next. Then the downtime of slowly starting a new front. The gameplay part of cont locks was one of the worst parts of the game.

On the other hand, we gain a new game goal - winning territory. Before we only fought over bases and skipped all the land. NOW we get to fight over the land between the bases. That is much better gameplay. I'd consider that a net gain by a longshot.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-01, 02:55 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

With permanent impenetrable footholds, one of those options goes away. That also means the joy of winning, also goes away. And everyone likes to be the winning underdog that was there when a Continent was opened and won.

How does taking away one of those options take away the joy of winning? When i kill someone I will rejoice with the joy of winning.

Also you forget that with the hex system your adding in another layer of winning to the game, so removing 1 (cont locks) is supplemented with another new mechanic thats actually adding more win conditions.

It's not a question of win conditions it's a question of game play and flow.
The question to ask is not, can I win, but how will having footholds affect moment to moment play. By there very nature its going to make it hard to push very far into enemy territory assuming even pops. that's the only real concern I see. Will we have battle lines that stay pretty much stagnant without much variation.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-01, 03:00 PM

Originally Posted by SGTalon

If i wanted a game that i can "Win" i will play Diablo or BF3.

I think you misinterpret what people are saying. Not one single person is asking for the game to end, and reset, or have an overall win condition.

However, you can't have darkness with out light. and you can not have Glory with out someone loosing. Taking a continent is part of many ways to "win" over the opposition. Its removal is another step backwards in what is supposed to be a war game.

To counter your Sanclock comment. I assume you were not part of the retaking then, so did not feel the accomplishment of coming back. Not saying Sanclocking was the best thing ever ( It had flaws as to options when it happens for the loosing side ), but to remove it completely is the wrong approach.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-01, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by Gonefshn

How does taking away one of those options take away the joy of winning? When i kill someone I will rejoice with the joy of winning.

That's only one forum of "win" among many. For some, its enough, for others, they need more, perhaps at a higher level. Hexes are great. But I do not recall many armies stopping at just one town.

How about instead of impenetrable footholds, The Capital bases are brought back.

TrenchcoatNinja · 2012-06-01, 03:05 PM

Isn't winning a crossover from the "session-based" gameplay that's mentioned frequently around here? And from single-player games before that of course.

It seems that this game is forward thinking for not having a traditional win condition, and rather letting emergent gameplay declare those conditions.

MooK · 2012-06-01, 03:06 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

Lets lock the forums down then.

This is pretty much why I've stopped replying in threads like this. It's usually a few people voicing their concerns, and then a bunch of people either unruly and defensive or pushing that it's unacceptable to talk about anything negative until the game comes out.

All of the concerns you voiced are concerns I have. This is a discussion forum, we should be able to discuss them without people challenging whether we've played planetside, or whether the game is out yet. If the devs want to elaborate on our concerns, that's great; but it is not and will never be the place of another player to downplay your concerns simply because they disagree with them.

Back on topic a bit:

I am glad that a lot of things I had concerns about (infiltrators, base designs and the like) were elaborated on. Unfortunately, the concerns you've listed (locking down a continent: TotalBiscuit was spot on with his immediate counter during the vid) definitely make me wonder if I'll enjoy the game (I'm not a fan of newer CoD/BF games.)

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-01, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by TrenchcoatNinja

Isn't winning a crossover from the "session-based" gameplay that's mentioned frequently around here? And from single-player games before that of course.

It seems that this game is forward thinking for not having a traditional win condition, and rather letting emergent gameplay declare those conditions.

Again. I do not think anyone is asking for a end game win condition ( Credits! ), just not to take away the win milestones. Even a Sanc lock did not end the game, it simply changed the game play you needed to do to move forward.

SGTalon · 2012-06-01, 03:09 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

I think you misinterpret what people are saying. Not one single person is asking for the game to end, and reset, or have an overall win condition.

However, you can't have darkness with out light. and you can not have Glory with out someone loosing. Taking a continent is part of many ways to "win" over the opposition. Its removal is another step backwards in what is supposed to be a war game.

To counter your Sanclock comment. I assume you were not part of the retaking then, so did not feel the accomplishment of coming back. Not saying Sanclocking was the best thing ever ( It had flaws as to options when it happens for the loosing side ), but to remove it completely is the wrong approach.

You are right, I never was involved with the retaking. After sitting in sanc for 2 hours on my game night and not able to get on to the pop locked continent that was the only place to go, i decided to go play something else.

There will be plenty of "win" moments in this game. Personally i see something like a sanclock as a broken aspect of a game. If you are denying the ability for someone to play the game you are shooting yourself in the foot as a game designer.

MooK · 2012-06-01, 03:15 PM

Originally Posted by SGTalon

You are right, I never was involved with the retaking. After sitting in sanc for 2 hours on my game night and not able to get on to the pop locked continent that was the only place to go, i decided to go play something else.

There will be plenty of "win" moments in this game. Personally i see something like a sanclock as a broken aspect of a game. If you are denying the ability for someone to play the game you are shooting yourself in the foot as a game designer.

If we were ever poplocked out of a continent, we would make our own battles somewhere else. PlanetSide was about more than just running and gunning, so I actually found a lot of fun in draining bases, establishing a defense and making a push. In the cases when we would break open a continent, it felt great.

MrBloodworth · 2012-06-01, 03:30 PM

Originally Posted by MooK

If we were ever poplocked out of a continent, we would make our own battles somewhere else. PlanetSide was about more than just running and gunning, so I actually found a lot of fun in draining bases, establishing a defense and making a push. In the cases when we would break open a continent, it felt great.

Gonefshn · 2012-06-01, 03:42 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

That's only one forum of "win" among many. For some, its enough, for others, they need more, perhaps at a higher level. Hexes are great. But I do not recall many armies stopping at just one town.

You made my own point. I was trying to point out that there are more than one ways to "win"

Who said the army will stop after taking a hex?

I just think it's the wrong argument being had here. Talking about a feeling of satisfaction is so subjective and really the only change here is scale. Taking a continent is no different than take a base really. It's all just "success" in a different coat. If you thought capping continents gave satisfaction in PS1 why can't taking a base, which should be harder in this game, especially near footholds give a similar satisfaction?

I share some of your concerns but it's more about how footholds will change the gameplay and make it more stagnant and repetitive. I have no concerns about feeling satisfied with a "victory" so long as the current design allows you to push around the map succesfully.

The Janitor · 2012-06-01, 03:43 PM

Man, there are going to be SO many of these threads from now until the game comes out... Hell, maybe even after it comes out, too!

Of course, by then they may change to "auto-repair isn't good enough" at which point I will laugh and link to this post cause I so called it.