Originally Posted by Malorn
We want it to be a way that outfits can compare strategic impact and get some recognition for their efforts and to develop some server pride and community to achieve that victory condition.
|
Woah, slow down there. So that moonshine you've distilled tells you to develop a system by which there is intra-faction competition? When there isn't even a fully developed system by which the factions compete against each other?!?!?!?
The very nature of Planetside is that there is no endgame, there is no victory condition, or at the very least, the victory condition is near impossible to meet. I only recall one story that a faction was pushed back to their home cont. That's part of what makes it fun. When you "finish" a game, what do you do? You move to the next game. Is this what you want?
Originally Posted by Malorn
What would you like to see?
|
We'd like to see PS1 implemented on ForgeLight.
Higby and crew stated way back that this is what they tried when ForgeLight came out. They said they had lattice (but wanted to try hex) they had vehicle hacking (but didn't have cross faction models for rides - btw, wouldn't a color swap have sufficed?), they had deployables (but it strains the Server processing). Look at PS1, even when it came out, the graphics were poor even by 2003 standards. This was by design so the server can handle the code to manage that many people, vehicles, and deployables. The graphics didn't make the game fun, the core mechanics did. Don't get me wrong, ForgeLight makes for some beautiful eyecandy. But when the processing that goes on to track the statistics that you're tracking is bogging down the game, maybe you don't need it all. Just a thought, but downgrade the graphics to make processing space on the servers.
Think back, whats your favorite game of all time. Did you play for the graphics alone or because it was a fun game?
You really have only 2 problems with PS2. Problem one is the size, we've discussed that, you're aware of it, and eventually, there will be more continents and interconnectivity to allow for the ebb and flow of global conflict. "Size matters" Remember that slogan? You couldn't have been more right and then fail to deliver. Sorry, but facts are facts.
Now the second is the polarization of play styles. There are those that want to play PS2 like PS1, well I guess those that expected to be able to play like it was PS1 on methamphetamines, like Higby and told us it would be. and there are those that have accepted PS2 for what it is and play the way the game has them play, blindly following the stated rules of engagement.
I blame this partly on the F2P model and partly on the infancy of the game mechanics. F2P allows anyone to join and stay. You don't have to invest anything but time if you so choose. This keeps players in the game who don't, necessarially have server or outfit loyalty. Nor should they really be expected to - they've invested nothing so there's nothing to lose, no attachment to what goes on. The ones that have invested cash or a portion of their life into grinding for certs, etc are limited by the basic game mechanics. There's not much to do but grind. They get to where they max out the certs they want and go "that's it? all this and now what?".
People say there's no "meta-game". I see it slightly different - there's not enough people interested in playing the limited meta game that the current mechanics provide.
Odd huh? That although I'm a huge critic of PS2 I understand that the problem is not the mechanics we lack in the game, but the inability of most current players to leverage what they do have. But I also remember the first few months after PS1 was released. noone was CR5. Noone had command structures built, everyone was just a toon running around trying to make a name for yourself. But guess what? people still had the organization to take base after base after base in an organized effort to take over the world. People simply shouted what we should be doing. They were leveraging the basic chat to organize between squads.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents. We want a Big Huge Giant world where we can fight all over the place. We want to be able to break continent locks and ghost hack a controlled territory to pull forces away from the main lines. We really do want to drive through 3 warpgates and across 2 continents to get the immersive feel of the vast expanse of Auraxis. The meta game will follow and actually be developed by the interaction of the players, not by the devs. The devs simply make it easier for the players to implement metagame. But when there isn't much to do but grind exp, you really can't have a meta-game.
And that is why you're trying to implement a mechanic like WDS to create that level of abstraction by which you can direct the playerbase to conceptualize a metagame. As I said before, you can't force the metagame. The metagame comes from the playerbase's use of the inherent game mechanics. Make the game big and people will stay, make the game fun and people will pay, do both and the metagame will rise on it's own as people become invested in a large expansive world full of conflict. Each faction trying to gain the upperhand through strategy and, occasionally, downright brute force (zerg has it's place). But until taking and controlling the bases and continents is relevant and has a tangible effect on the global struggle, noone will do anything but grind exp.
2013-10-22, 09:50 AM
Don't feed the trolls, unless it's funny to do so...
Hybrid Mode
