A Winnable PS? Dev Discussion read inside. - Page 4

Nohimn · 2002-11-30, 07:17 PM

I like the idea of there being a timelimit set at several months, but I think it would be better if:

A. There are no continent limitations
B. The game is reset when one empire is obviously crushing the other two.

And about the arguement over the empires. Please calm down, the game hasn't started. And I doubt a hippie would pick up a gun and start killing people, I doubt mad scientists can't spell, and I doubt old people would be able to take recoil from a rocket launcher. Let's all calm down.

SandTrout · 2002-11-30, 07:49 PM

A)A hippie wouldn't touch a gun, but an anarchist(observe Punk culture) might.

B)Many scientists can't spell very well, why do you think they abbrievieate everything. Note: This isn't me tying to insult scientist or the Vanu

C)Rocket Launchers don't have recoil, they have open backs that let the gas go out the back. A rocket launcher like a Bazooka is often reffered to as a recoilless rifle.

While on the subject of recoilless rifle, I dont think the Dev team understands the term, because the machine-gun on the Harrasser and Marauder most definately have recoil and do not have ope back ends.

Doobz · 2002-12-01, 02:13 AM

^

observe Punk culture

excuse my spam, but i have to do it once a month, and this month the burden of my spam fell on this forum.

thank you, and excuse me.

Nofx, Ramones, Misfits, Zero Down, Bad Religion

m0rphiu5 · 2002-12-01, 02:44 AM

the machine-gun on the Harrasser and Marauder most definately have recoil and do not have ope back ends.

good point, although i don't like dissing the Devs, they are makin the best game on the planet, they deserve respect for that accomplishment atleast...... but they are obviously not military weapons experts as such, they r game designers/graphic designers/programmers etc.

sYn pHrEAk · 2002-12-02, 01:47 AM

I doubt a hippie would pick up a gun and start killing people, I doubt mad scientists can't spell, and I doubt old people would be able to take recoil from a rocket launcher

Zarparchior · 2002-12-02, 05:23 PM

I've got two words for you dreamers about "winning" PS:

It'll never work.

Jinxmasta · 2002-12-02, 07:39 PM

Sytadel · 2002-12-02, 10:39 PM

Yeah he kinda makes a point. The odds of anyone 'winning' are second to none. And hey, if it doesn't work, I'm sure the devs will whip up something to fix it all.

m0rphiu5 · 2002-12-02, 10:49 PM

i think it should be possible to win,it may never happen, thats beside the point, atleast you know that you CAN actually do it..... it gives alll the players something to fight for, it gives a goal to work towards, the fact that it might never happen makes little difference.

i think a time limit would kill the game, 2days, 2 years, doesnt matter..... it would be just as bad, all your work down the toilet.

Zarparchior · 2002-12-03, 01:12 PM

Please everyone. Enlighten me in the ways of winning PS. Obviously, I must be missing some great cosmic truth in the world because frankly - that kind of game looks sux0rific to me.

Any kind of "winnable" situation in PS would no longer make this game constant. As soon as you've won (or lost), then all you worked for is SHIT. Bases captured, certs recieved, kills made: all gone. Do I want to pay for this? Of course not. If I wanted a game that involves teamwork, is "winnable," and does not have constant character progression then I would play Natural Selection. It is free* after all.

But let's put that aside. Assume you can win. You wouldn't be able to. There are THREE empires! If the TR dominated the VS until they were pressed against their last base, the TR would not have the power to take it. Why, you ask? One reason would be because the VS would have EVERY ENTIRE SOLDIER defending it. They wouldn't be able to spawn anywhere else anyway, so why fight somewhere else? And the TR would be insanely stupid to use the bulk of their forces to kill the VS because it would be leaving them very open to attacks from the NC. Why? Because every team is fighting TWO fronts: One for the VS and one for the NC in the example of the TR. Sure, dedicate all the forces to the destruction of the VS. You end up getting second place because why you're off a killin' the VS's base the NC come and rox0r your own. GG guys, right? Of course not. After a few trials of the above, no one would ever use enough force to capture a main base because of the fear of a counterattack. So the game would end up as unwinnable anyway.

Either way, I win.

Lazare · 2002-12-03, 02:24 PM

but when you really get to the point where one empire is about to "win" Sony must control the situation until they got a expansion that gives the ppl the possibility to leave the Planet and go on to another. Imagine what can be implemented from this point on? OMG space warfare, massive indoor fights in spacecrafts like stardestroyers and craftworlds. More Pilots. "Real" orbital drops from a space fleet onto a planet that is held by an enemy empire.
Ok it would be hard having whole planets designed. but you can also use small astroids where bases are build upon. but thats future-music like we say in germany

Zarparchior · 2002-12-03, 03:42 PM

That idea is EXCELLENT!

But unrealistic. Not because no one would play it, not because it would be too hard for the devs, not because I hate snipers. The sole, lone reason would be: not enough people.

If this thing spanned an entire solarsystem, it would have much too much empty space. I've seen huge and ornate zones in EQ go to waste because of everything that comes out with each expansion. Why go to place A when you can go to B, C, D, E, F, G, H, etc.? There are only so many places a person can be at any given moment and at the time of this documentation, the numerical figure for place is 1.

So let us say the assume 3k of people per server. PlanetSide within itself is huge, but GalaxySide? You'd be lucky to run into some evil and tyranical TR soldier every other day! This would only make the game less fun. Infrequent battles in itself isn't so bad as long as you can get to them... but if you combined that with the new travel time for this gigantic solarsystem it would simply be Nott Gud.

**edit: Grammar and spelling additions, as opposed to corrections.

Jinxmasta · 2002-12-03, 03:56 PM

Oh and I doubt any empire would be strong enough to take over if it was possible because once they take all the bases with one left for the each of the other empires, the people of those empires will be so packed together that it should be easy to fight back and take more bases.

Serbitar · 2002-12-14, 01:56 PM

Suggestion:

Victory conditions are:

A Faction must hold say 60% of all the bases for say 10 hours.

If victory conditions are met, then everybody is warped back to sanctuary, bases belong to nobody. (STATS; BEP and EVERYTHING else remains the same). So some kind of base reset.
And the winning faction gets a WIN.

The conditions have to be set in a way that the WIN condition istn easily reached. About 1 time in a month would be ok.

To all the people who think that all their WORK will be resetted: No way. Without this win capturing bases is senseless, except for the fun of it. So there is NO work that could be destroyed.

PROs:
The Faction generals have something to PLAN for. They have motivation and folks know that they are working for some WIN and not for nothing.

CONs: Some people dont like the idea of this.

DONT underestimate the fact that people want to WIN in some way and tell the others that they are better.
This is NOT an MMORPG where the fun is just sitting there and talking. Fighting must allways have a goal.

�io · 2002-12-14, 02:48 PM

I, like you, think there should be a win condition (even if it is near impossible) but a lot of people don't like the idea seeing as it is a persitent world and stuff. Myself i think no win in a MMORPG is fine, the goal there is to kill monsters and level up not kill other players but in a MMOFPS i would like to see a victory condition, something like you said capping a big amount of % and holding them for a good while. I don't see it happening soon though.