News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns - Page 6

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.

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.

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.

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, 01:13 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.

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?

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.

DaddyTickles · 2012-03-26, 01:21 PM

If you can't kick people off a continent then you need some other kind of win emblen. Something that says well done or bad luck, ding ding next round.

Otherwise its just an endless skirmish.

Arius · 2012-03-26, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

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.

Which is why I thought of "mothership" bases that would temporarily appear at a random place in the sky or at shore for the losing empire to get them back on the continent. Sort of like an "invasion".

I wrote a topic about that here.

Boomzor · 2012-03-26, 01:30 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

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.

That's very much the point.
As long as there is another layer, a grander picture to discover, it will never end until everybody stops playing and collectively agrees to never play again. That's the only point where you actually can assign a winner, but to most it's a loss cause we don't get to play at all any more.

There's always going to be the question:

THEN WHAT?

The real point? Trying our absolute damnedest to overcome a challange that may very well prove impossible, but as long as we're all entertained in that endeavour, it doesn't have to end.

THAT is the meaning.

Arius · 2012-03-26, 01:33 PM

You're gonna have to motivate the losers. I think a proper loss is more motivating for both empires then denying them a win/loss.

Its about motivating people.

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, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Boomzor

That's very much the point.
As long as there is another layer, a grander picture to discover, it will never end until everybody stops playing and collectively agrees to never play again. That's the only point where you actually can assign a winner, but to most it's a loss cause we don't get to play at all any more.

There's always going to be the question:

THEN WHAT?

The real point? Trying our absolute damnedest to overcome a challange that may very well prove impossible, but as long as we're all entertained in that endeavour, it doesn't have to end.

THAT is the meaning.

Okay, I'm not sure if you've ignored my posts so far or what, but I'm quite clearly saying that there needs to be meaningfulness to the war without there being a "winner"...that "win conditions" are not the way to solve the problem.

And no, the dream of achieving something that should be impossible is not sufficiently meaningful except to the niche that is Planetside's long-term players (us).

sylphaen · 2012-03-26, 02:07 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Okay, I'm not sure if you've ignored my posts so far or what, but I'm quite clearly saying that there needs to be meaningfulness to the war without there being a "winner"...that "win conditions" are not the way to solve the problem.

And no, the dream of achieving something that should be impossible is not sufficient meaning except to the niche that is Planetside's long-term players (us).

I am not sure I understand what you mean since I agree with what you say.

What I am understanding is that you say most players will still need something meaningful that happens more often than a "victory" which would never materialize.

From that understanding, we are well into the realm of offering a stats summary pop-up every time a base battle concludes to players who participated in that battle.

It's not long-term, it happens often, is entertaining/interesting to look at and would be as meaningful as in a round-based FPS.

If people are motivated by that, by all means, we can forgo the "overall long-term goal motivating objective" headache.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by Vancha

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.

OK, but let me ask the question, then. Are you opposed to them running a "Test" server? They could use it to test patches, just like Everquest uses its test server, but also, it could test, on a long term basis, victory condition ideas. Two birds with one stone.

I think that they might find the demand to be on the test server to be high, despite occasional resets in order to get fresh test scenarios. And I just had a thought- game world resets do not mean stat resets, in case anyone was afraid of that.