End Game - Page 6

Fate · 2011-12-20, 07:26 AM

God, the worst kind of player in PlanetSide 1 is the one who insists "No, it's an MMORTS..." This COMPLETELY RUINED the FPS aspect of the game. These are the people who MAX zerged bases, killed Biolab generators in the first 5 seconds of a Biolab fight, and insisted on using 75% continental pop to win a continent. I will always say that SOE claims it's an MMOFPS. Until SOE changes the description of the game then you're fucking wrong. Anyone who loved this game and disagrees with me should log into this mess today. It's basically a game filled with grenade spam, MAX spam, BFR's, and dead generators. It's boring and it sucks now with no hope of the current game getting any better.

Xyntech · 2011-12-21, 05:05 AM

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

The game used to be unique, it used to be fast paced, it used to be amazing, but over the years with each addition and change the game pace has slowed, im not just talking about surge, the overall pace the game flows, its a boring snorfest of defensive weapons now and the only thing that crushes those defences is overpowered shit like the gal gunship or BFR's...or a mega zerg.

The lack of development support and their inabilty to patch broken shit and balance properly does not help things, but this game used to be able to be compared to tribes or unreal now its just that POS SOE left out and forgot about.

Part of the problem is probably the fact that the game was originally balanced with hundreds of players, fighting in one area, in mind.

There has been a lot of discussion about how effective things like cover fire should be and how long TTK's should be in PS2, with a lot of good points made about how you have to be careful not to make things too lethal since you will have dozens of people shooting at you, not just one or two.

Planetside 1 knew this all too well, but unfortunately that very thing that kept things balanced when there were tons of players can just as easily ruin balance when you lose those numbers of players.

Hopefully PS2 can just balance itself against large numbers of players again and not worry about suffering PS1's fate for a long time to come.

Crator · 2011-12-21, 08:32 AM

^^^ Wasn't that why they had empire population benefits?

CuddlyChud · 2011-12-21, 02:10 PM

I think endgame has a slightly different meaning for FPSs vs MMOs. For a game like PS2, the war could never end. It just wouldn't make sense. So there would be no ultimate win condition. However, in games like CoD and Battlefield, the end game is ultimately your score. Your sense of achievement comes from getting a good K/D or SPM or something like that. I think thats the kind of end game the Devs for PS2 are probably going more for. They mentioned killstreaks and stat tracking and such.

Quovatis · 2011-12-21, 02:17 PM

I can't believe there are so many posters in this thread that think it's a bad thing for a FPS to have actual objectives. As was pointed out, you will have players that play for objectives, and players that play just to kill shit. There has to be a balance between the two. The game won't be successful if it's a pure deathmatch game like Quake, and will similarly fail if a single objective changes the entire game experience.

yonman · 2011-12-21, 02:37 PM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

....Your sense of achievement comes from getting a good K/D or SPM or something like that. I think thats the kind of end game the Devs for PS2 are probably going more for. They mentioned killstreaks and stat tracking and such.

I hear this allot in this thread - the "score is win" hypothesis. It works for FPSs but not because the players are content to pad their stats for all eternity but because there's a new COD/BF/CS/whatever *every year*. People get their stats "reset" when there's a new game around and they have all the thrill and excitement of mastering a brand new game.

Planetside does not enjoy this luxury - it does not become a new game (or you get BFRs, good god). It does not get a new look and feel. New concepts are rare (rabbit events?). Generally, the new content / expansions will add new dimensions to the existing game (in a best case scenario).

Remember, we need a consistent, motivated casual player base. Us PSUers are all nice and have our amusing grudges and weird epeen struggles but we number in the few thousands at best (of active forumites - guessing here, no real idea). We need tens of thousands. Hundred of thousands. That's where casual gamers come in - you need them to be there for us to actually have anything to work/play with.

So, I ask you lot again:
If planetside is to survive beyond the shelf life of an average FPS (COD series installments for example), how do you think it should be done? The standard ideas have already been tossed out naked (and unarmed) to the wolves and torn apart. Anyone got anything new or creative?

CuddlyChud · 2011-12-21, 05:03 PM

I feel like I am a casual gamer. Planetside was the only game that I've played for a long time (2003-2008). Ultimately I think Planetside's downfall in this regard was due to its poor gun play mechanics. Once you got over the novelty of doing gal drops or zerging from base to base, things like adadadad strafing, lag, damage degredation, etc... really became noticeable.

While its true that CoD comes out with a new game every year, that doesn't mean its success is tied to a new game every year. Counter-strike hasn't really changed much in a decade.

As long as the fundamentals are fun, I don't see why personal achievement isn't enough of an "endgame." I probably would have kept playing Planetside off and on if it weren't for the subscription cost.

I haven't really read through the entire post, all I'm trying to express is that I don't think a specific "win" condition is necessary, and I think that ultimately the large battles and hopefully good gun and vehicle gameplay will be enough of a hook.

*Edit*
Also, bring back winner of the day! That was great, and I was sad to see that go.

Death2All · 2011-12-21, 05:21 PM

I thought that the point of the addition of the resources mechanic was to promote a never ending fight with "meaning". It's a constant battle for resources that you need to create vehicle, weapons etc. Rather than fighting over bases and benefits which at the end of the day have no real meaning, because they're passive and just simply give you the benefit of owning a base anyways. So what's the real incentive other than seeing an entire continent being your empire's color.

I guess "technically" PS1 had a win mechanic, when you would start up the launchpad and see who "yesterday's winner" was. I mean it didn't really mean much, it's not like the map reset afterwards or anything. The empire who owned the majority yesterday would most likely continue to own that territory, so if it were a stalemate they could continue to "win" everyday.

I understand the need to "win" in a game but I don't think there really is a place for "winning" in an unwinable game such a PS. The entire game is meant to be played with skirmishes and proxy battles all over the world. A "victory" is just capturing temporarily owning a territory and then moving on to the next one.