News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns - Page 5

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.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 10:46 AM

The best kind of end game or final goal... is one that is not defined by a system, but by the players. When you remember a battle and struggle yourselves for what ever reason it was significant to you all. Konwing that while the game was not "won" that what ever big, glorious battle that just occured had a conclusion even if it was momentary.

It could be a resource pipeline that has been fought over dozen's of time ,but in this moment had a significance that was worth defending/taking. It could be a canyon pass that is essential to supplying reinforcements/stopping the convoy from getting any where near the objective. It could be the biggest, craziest "fur ball" you've ever seen in the skies due to two major flight based outfits having thrown down the gauntlet and go all in against each other in a seemingly random instance.

These unique circumstances that simply happen... are the ultimate form of "end goal". A community inspired, lightly mechanics driven event. The more structure that they allow for /us/ to make it happen, and the less /they/ have to do so... the better it will be in most situations. This is not to say however, they cannot do things at times too, but from their perspective they have to do so neutrally which can be hard based on perception, let alone mechanics.

Shamrock · 2012-03-26, 10:59 AM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

The best kind of end game or final goal... is one that is not defined by a system, but by the players. When you remember a battle and struggle yourselves for what ever reason it was significant to you all.

Couldn't agree more, some of the best fights I had were sitting defending a final base against the other two factions that were trying to zero base us. Just holding out against the odds felt like victory.

And yes I will miss the animations and really hope they get round to implementing them at a later stage.

Mechzz · 2012-03-26, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Shamrock

Couldn't agree more, some of the best fights I had were sitting defending a final base against the other two factions that were trying to zero base us. Just holding out against the odds felt like victory.

This. Is very true for my experience of PS1 also.

What would work for me in terms of a "win condition" is to follow up such an epic fight with a clear empire-wide clarion call to ... insert awesome goal here.... (don't mind what it is, just that the empire gets behind it).

The empires would swing in to action, only to be immediately derailed by whatever wily scheme the other empires come up with, and 3 days later we're still hard at it.....bliss!

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

This. Is very true for my experience of PS1 also.

What would work for me in terms of a "win condition" is to follow up such an epic fight with a clear empire-wide clarion call to ... insert awesome goal here.... (don't mind what it is, just that the empire gets behind it).

The empires would swing in to action, only to be immediately derailed by whatever wily scheme the other empires come up with, and 3 days later we're still hard at it.....bliss!

This is simply organizational. This is community driven. There doesn't /have/ to be a system for this. The only real way to ensure this happens every time, is if every faction is officially led by someoen form SOE whose job it is to be "Grand Ultiamte General of all things (Faction Name)" and they basically cameo leading by declaring some sort of goal that we all generally follow for how ever long. Other wise, we have to deal with our own community and our own leadership, which is harder and full of alot of innate problems, but makes a whole lot more sense.

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 01:37 PM

Stop imagining the illusion that one team can conquer all territory in a 3 FACTIONS game. It cannot, should not and will not happen unless there is a bad balance in the game.

A 3 FACTIONS game is meant to auto-regulate itself by proposing a 33% vs. 33% vs. 33% fight where the underdogs will attack the empire with the most terriotry.

There is also the inherent flaw of a 3 factions system where the game enters in a 66% vs. 33% situation, which is unbalanced and unstoppable.

Elimination of an empire (by making it possible or by having all its players log off from a 66% vs. 33% that happens against them too often or too long) followed by a 50% vs. 50% of player population should not and would not happen in a properly balanced game.

Please, forget the "one empire wins it all" idea, it's ludicrous. If you still believe in it, please, tell me how you deal with the 33% of players of the first losing empire who were eliminated (through a 66% vs. 33% that cannot be stopped). If you even find a decent solution for that, tell me how you will prevent PS from always becoming a swift double-team followed by a boring 50% vs. 50% ? Also, how would you prevent from all that happening when everyone goes to bed and populations imbalances appear ?

If this kind of elimination is ever implemented, it would happen once from people being so excited to see what happens and never happen again (like people stopped killing generators (or tried to stop it) because it made the game boring).

______________________

Formal victory conditions should be there as a driving factor to give a dream of dream of "victory" but really, it would not really add a lot to the game imo (unless devs think of a good solution that is fair, competitive and rewards exceptional effort from a whole empire).

Why dou you play round based FPS ? For stats ? To feel that you are improving ? To win ? To get "ranks" ? To unlock weapons ?

Planetside offers all of that at a larger scale, on a seamless battlefield. I believe that transforming it in a free-for-all elimination game would not add anything. Now if there is a victory condition implemented to keep people happy, I couldn't care less. It might even spice things up if it's very hard to achieve and requires empire-wide effort.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 12:13 PM

Alright, there needs to be some clarification here. Is anyone advocating "win conditions" doing so for any reason other than to make battles more meaningful?

If not, we need to get away from the idea of a win condition. A win condition isn't an incentive to keep playing long-term. A win condition is temporary. Meaningfulness comes in a persistent form.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Alright, there needs to be some clarification here. Is anyone advocating "win conditions" doing so for any reason other than to make battles more meaningful?

If not, we need to get away from the idea of a win condition. A win condition isn't an incentive to keep playing long-term. A win condition is temporary. Meaningfulness comes in a persistent form.

It has always been my vision that winning would take weeks or months. Maybe never if the teams are evenly matched. But the possibility of winning would certainly motivate me to play more, and longer. Both of which would increase sales for the cash shop.

That said, if someone wins once per week, that would get repetitive. Design it so that wins occur 3 times per year or less, and that's different, I'd play hard and often until either we win, or I get tired of trying to influence it, and then a month later I'd pick it up again and go at it full force. For me, I might play hard every night and all weekend for 6 months straight before I quit for a while.

Now, people burning out and quitting for a month or two every so often really cannot be avoided. SOE should know that from their other MMOs.

A win condition is temporary, knowing that you are fighting for something, even though it may never come, that's long term.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It has always been my vision that winning would take weeks or months. Maybe never if the teams are evenly matched. But the possibility of winning would certainly motivate me to play more, and longer. Both of which would increase sales for the cash shop.

That said, if someone wins once per week, that would get repetitive. Design it so that wins occur 3 times per year or less, and that's different, I'd play hard and often until either we win, or I get tired of trying to influence it, and then a month later I'd pick it up again and go at it full force. For me, I might play hard every night and all weekend for 6 months straight before I quit for a while.

Now, people burning out and quitting for a month or two every so often really cannot be avoided. SOE should know that from their other MMOs.

A win condition is temporary, knowing that you are fighting for something, even though it may never come, that's long term.

We had what you're talking about. World locks, where an empire captured every base in the game. I'm sure there's someone who stayed subscribed to achieve that, but I think it'd be reasonable to say that for 99% of players, that wasn't something that kept them playing.

Also, what is the "something" you're fighting for? Say you achieved a "win" after 4 months, what meaningfulness would that have to you on the day after? How would that keep you playing?

I know the prospect of a months-long battle is probably exciting to someone who, if I'm not mistaken, still hasn't played Planetside? But if it basically amounts to a four-month-long "round", it won't hold much meaning to anyone.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 12:56 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

We had what you're talking about. World locks, where an empire captured every base in the game. I'm sure there's someone who stayed subscribed to achieve that, but I think it'd be reasonable to say that for 99% of players, that wasn't something that kept them playing.

Also, what is the "something" you're fighting for? Say you achieved a "win" after 4 months, what meaningfulness would that have to you on the day after? How would that keep you playing?

I know the prospect of a months-long battle is probably exciting to someone who, if I'm not mistaken, still hasn't played Planetside? But if it basically amounts to a four-month-long "round", it won't hold much meaning to anyone.

I've played WW2 OL. The idea of fighting for victory is therefore not something that's alien to me or that I will, after achieving it, say "oh. What now?". Because "what now" is; take a break for a week or two, then get back in the fight for the next war. WW2 OL is a bit too slow of a game, just like BF3 and CoD are too fast; I've been dreaming of a properly paced MMOFPS with victory since at least 1997 when Novalogic talked about the "integrated battlefield" and I was following WW2OL's forums dreaming of this in the year before it released.

I think that to even use the word "round" in a 4 month context cheapens the very name "MMOFPS" into "Battlefield" or "CoD".

honestly, I think that, unless someone comes up with an idea that everyone likes, it might be best to just have a Victory Server, which no one is forced to play on but anyone can choose to play on, which implements, and long term tests, some of the victory ideas.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I've played WW2 OL. The idea of fighting for victory is therefore not something that's alien to me or that I will, after achieving it, say "oh. What now?". Because "what now" is; take a break for a week or two, then get back in the fight for the next war. WW2 OL is a bit too slow of a game, just like BF3 and CoD are too fast; I've been dreaming of a properly paced MMOFPS with victory since at least 1997 when Novalogic talked about the "integrated battlefield" and I was following WW2OL's forums dreaming of this in the year before it released.

I think that to even use the word "round" in a 4 month context cheapens the very name "MMOFPS" into "Battlefield" or "CoD".

honestly, I think that, unless someone comes up with an idea that everyone likes, it might be best to just have a Victory Server, which no one is forced to play on but anyone can choose to play on, which implements, and long term tests, some of the victory ideas.

Well if you're already an MMOFPS fan, then I don't think this issue applies to you, in the same way it doesn't apply to most of us here. The problem is, we're a niche section of the market. We continue to enjoy this type of game despite the lack of a "point", but that's not good enough to keep most people playing (which, while not being an issue for your yearly FPS franchises, is an issue for an MMOFPS, hence their low populations)

And yes, I would go as far as saying the MMOFPS' so far have wasted their persistence and might as well have had rounds. As I said a few pages back, a persistent world is meaningless unless it changes inexorably over time.

Originally Posted by Boomzor

Actually, that was just who is currently leading, by a very very large margin I might add. The other empires eventually diminished and equalized that lead. Nobody went in, said Gratz, gave them a pixel medal and went on to reset the game.

Same as nobody is winning the sport of football. We're not done playing it yet.

That's irrelevant. You could have a message come up on the screen, have the world reset and have the victors given miniature top hats, but still, the day after when the bases have all been recaptured and all the continents are being contested as usual, the victory the day before isn't going to keep anyone playing.

If you want a "win condition", you need a way to make it meaningful...permanently meaningful, otherwise the problem you're trying to solve will still exist.

Boomzor · 2012-03-26, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

We had what you're talking about. World locks, where an empire captured every base in the game.

Actually, that was just who is currently leading, by a very very large margin I might add. The other empires eventually diminished and equalized that lead. Nobody went in, said Gratz, gave them a pixel medal and went on to reset the game.

Same as nobody is winning the sport of football. We're not done playing it yet.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 01:14 PM

Originally Posted by Boomzor

Actually, that was just who is currently leading, by a very very large margin I might add. The other empires eventually diminished and equalized that lead. Nobody went in, said Gratz, gave them a pixel medal and went on to reset the game.

Same as nobody is winning the sport of football. We're not done playing it yet.

Why.. must a reset occur and some sort of congratulation ceremony be held for it to be a victory?

Arius · 2012-03-26, 01:06 PM

I used to play Planetside on my older machine with a different email, so I'm afraid I propably wont get in the beta.

By removing sanctuaries, they had to give the losing empire a way to get back into the fight on the continent if they wanted to. Without the Sanctuary, getting a foothold on lost continents would be impossible. They are both denying the winners a victory and the losers a loss.

In my opinion, I wonder what they were thinking when they did this but beta isnt out yet, so we'll have to wait and see. Maybe everything turns out to be genius.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by Arius

I used to play Planetside on my older machine with a different email, so I'm afraid I propably wont get in the beta.

By removing sanctuaries, they had to give the losing empire a way to get back into the fight on the continent if they wanted to. Without the Sanctuary, getting a foothold on lost continents would be impossible. They are both denying the winners a victory and the losers a loss.

In my opinion, I wonder what they were thinking when they did this but beta isnt out yet, so we'll have to wait and see. Maybe everything turns out to be genius.

Now this i certainly understand. There is no true place or way to reorganize after a "total defeat/victory" now. The reason for this was to keep battles fast and fluid... but the sanc was not just a time sink. In fact, the only aprt that was truly a tiem sink was the shuttle. Beyodn that it was pretty fast and simple to get to conflict. You may be right in the fact that they may want to revisit this idea in particular and balance accordingly because there is no real way to win or lose without a reset in these circumstances.