End Game: Pros and Cons - Page 8

Kipper · 2012-03-12, 10:28 AM

Surely 'end game' is a personal thing - you're at endgame when you've unlocked all of your sidegrades and specced yourself exactly how you want to. It doesn't mean it ended for anyone else and they're still going to shoot you if they see you whether you have a fancy helmet or not....

The game could take snapshots so that stats show who is currently winning (with the most territory) and who made the most gains and losses yesterday, last week, last month, last year, so you can take bragging rights (and temporary titles/unlocks) for empires, outfits or even individuals and you can be the winner of a day/week/month and get their titles even if its your first day - and without worrying that you'll never catch up with the 3 year veteran on overall points/kills.

The overall battle must be persistent tho. If one empire loses everything, they need to find a way back in by taking something back (you're going to need a sanctuary/mothership just in case) - after all - the less territory you have with approximately 33% of the worlds troops, the easier it should be to defend what you have and expand from it - so the war really ever shouldn't end anyway.

Events wise - I'm all for events ranging from random AI based ones such as a technical failure takes down the shields on a random base for an hour, or makes the turrets go crazy and start shooting up anything that moves. Or an artefact spawns randomly in the world and it has to be located, collected and removed to a base to get access to a treat. These things could just happen every so often to make the world more dynamic and give people diversions.

And then scheduled 'live' events - alien (dev) invasion, disease, whatever else from time to time to give people a chance to win at something or become a hero for a while. Then history forgets, the war continues, and so on.

Winning a 'day' as an individual might get you a title for a week or two, winning three days consecutively, or three out of five, might get it you for three months etc... but everything can be lost (or permanent titles are next to impossible) so that battle heroes change from time to time. The higher the status - the longer you keep it.

Maybe something like a reputation - individual and outfit, that increases when you do good stuff, and decays over time - the higher the rep, the more flamboyant the title/cosmetic gear.

Masahiko · 2012-03-12, 11:01 AM

In a large sandbox game such as this i think players make the end game for them selves more so than Devs. Many recent MMO over thought the end game and shoe-horned in PvP endings to make it have something.

A good example is SWTOR open world pvp and how over engineered it was. On the servers i played on it was not fun at any point playing there as it was just a large zerg of people or nobody at all trading cap points for quest rewards.

DAoC on the other hand gave people zones said go fight. Oh btw here are some keeps to take over. But people have the similar war stories about DAoC that i have from PS1.

The best thought i have is give players tools to define what they want the end game to be. Some players will go for that massive base v base battle while smaller outfits will be those Special ops kind of people causing having behind enemy lines.

If outfits want to fight each other it should be something organic, like a fight over a base that one side controls and the other wants such that they throw all the resources at that base to secure it. While not the same as a clearly defined Death match or first to 0 tickets loses, its lets players set the goals of what a victory is.

Eve is a great example of tools that let the players create the end game.

tl;dr If you guys make the tools the players will make the end game.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-12, 02:46 PM

Originally Posted by sylphaen

If there is a victory based condition on relics, the combat will gravitate around one object somewhere. Imagine a rabbit gameplay x10 where 1000 people all rush towards a spot on the map...

Territory control would become a hindrance towards capturing victory items. The empire with those items would move them deep, deep, deep inside their territory like PS1 mods.

That's a fair point, and a good reason to have not one but three artifacts. When there's 3 artifacts there are 3 potential targets, so you won't have everyone in one place.

Also the value of the artifact matters a lot. If the artifacts are only mildly effective unless you have all three of them, then the desire to take one is reduced.

For example, suppose each artifact had 2% bonus to whatever, but you get an extra 4% if you own all three. So it would be something like this:

1 artifact = 2%
2 artifacts = 4%
3 artifacts = 10%

Taking one artifact is not a particularly huge bonus, but it is a bonus, and holding all 3 would be particularly difficult. Also - you wouldn' thave many places to put it.

Another way to help diversify is to only allow 1 artifact to be stored in each facility. So you can't pile them all up in one place, you have to spread them out.

On Indar, each empire has 3 facilities near their warpgate, with 9 facilities total. So in order for an empire to control all 3 artifacts they would also need to control 3 facilities, and they would have to defend all 3 from the other two empires who might try to take the artifacts back. It would be spread out across the entire front and be incredibly difficult, but it would be a noteworthy achievement for the empire.

I think this would address your (valid) concerns.

Justaman · 2012-03-15, 08:22 AM

Originally Posted by Higby

The very nature of a fiercely competitive game without a victory condition is a conundrum I've been wrestling with since starting on this project, it usually comes down to having to rely on "smaller" victory moments.

Keeping with the idea of a persistent world, a win condition, would mean the end of the persistence.

The easiest solution to this is that the "win" condition is not a complete "win". An incomplete "win" would still allow the "lose" faction to continue playing, but from a severely crippled vantage point, so that they truly feel that they have lost.

The "carrot on a stick" must be tasty enough to drive interest to attain the "win", but it cannot be overpowering. It needs to feel rewarding/desirable with a feeling of victory, without breaking up the game-play for the "lose" faction(s).

Each time a "win" is effected (and I don't mean a base cap) over an enemy faction (since 2 enemies, can happen up to twice at a time), possible boons are granted to the "win":

- lump sums of resources for the "win" faction
- large exp gain bonus wile "win" condition is sustained
- "win" faction base defenses gain bonus values of some sort to increase effectiveness/sustainability
- "win" faction units/vehicles gain bonus movement speed if out of combat for a set time

- possibly a non-obstructive video playing in your HuD that dramatizes the victory/loss consequences for both the "win" and "lose" faction to explain what happened from a role-playing/story perspective of the PS2 universe (as to not break up game-play and add to immersion), "win" condition streaks or long duration sustains will progress the story at intervals, in favor of the "win" faction. This would reduce the feeling of repetition by making it feel like some form of progression happening within the game.

The "lose' faction would be reduced to no ground foothold. Having an un-capture able location, severely takes away from the feeling that you have actually won.

The "lose" faction, having all its planet-side forces killed, is now left with whatever is still orbiting the planet. And must re-establish a new foothold.

Immediately following the "lose" condition (no available spawn). An option is available to "vote" where to re-establish that faction's presence. Players can click on a hex in their map to place their vote (or this voting can be left to Leadership specced players).

The vote has a 60 second timer. If 50% of online players do not vote without the limit, a random location is chosen .

OR, no voting, just random hex(s) that is furthest from any point of high value.

Then, some form of structure/vehicle/THING (such as a portable base/outpost) is dropped from orbit as a spawn point. Has anti-tank/air automated defenses,a large shield, and invisible to radar (not actually invisible) . But IS destroy-able with enough of a beating. (if all get destroyed, through sheer superhuman coordination, they drop more till a foothold is finally attained)
- multiple would drop scattered around the hex and adjacent ones based on faction population (mostly to deal with player density), or have multiple hex's choose-able during the vote phase, to better disperse players
- cannot spawn vehicles/aircraft
- light assault would have the option to hot-drop somewhere in that hex/adjacent hex's of the structure/THING (only until the first normal spawn point is available)

With the surprise factor, the "lose" faction would be able to take one if not many, solid foot-holds to re-establish the fight, and get back into the war.

A "win", without ending the persistence.

You could even do something like League Of Legends does with their Free to play cash shop, and have a special currency that you can only get in game (from a "win" ? ), that's only usable on specific things. Its just enough to give someone a taste and keep them jones-ing for more. :P

Serotriptomine · 2012-03-16, 01:58 AM

Originally Posted by Higby

What do you guys think of the idea of a weekend type event like that? During the week it's your standard persistent PlanetSide experience, during the weekend there are win conditions and you can sort of play "matches" which reset when someone "wins" or at midnight or something?

Maybe there are different servers you can play on that are set up like that?

NOTE: I have no idea if that'd work from our point of view, I'd have to think about it, so please consider this just me contributing to the conversation rather than an actual idea about something being added to the game.

I would have to say it would most definitely have to be on a sub-server during the weekends.

There would be no reason NOT to have this OPTION.
But switching the main servers to this game mode would be disruptive in a lot of ways. I would play a couple of hours during the weekend on a sub server with this "rule-set" for sure. As long as you could tie in your "real time stats" and gain "x" bonus for competing in this event?

What do you guys think.

EDIT: Pulling people out of the main game would be an issue indeed..

Synapse · 2012-06-12, 07:07 AM

Edit: was linked to this thread and didnt check the date before posting. ugh. Reporting my own post and asking for it to be deleted...

Did the planetside world end when vanu took all the continents in 2004? No, it just kept going. You're all confusing "a larger metagame" with "a victory condition"

The game badly needs a larger metagame right now, imo.

captainkapautz · 2012-06-12, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Higby

What do you guys think of the idea of a weekend type event like that? During the week it's your standard persistent PlanetSide experience, during the weekend there are win conditions and you can sort of play "matches" which reset when someone "wins" or at midnight or something?

Maybe there are different servers you can play on that are set up like that?

NOTE: I have no idea if that'd work from our point of view, I'd have to think about it, so please consider this just me contributing to the conversation rather than an actual idea about something being added to the game.

I think the whole "Todays overall winner is <insert faction>" on the website that was in PS1 is more then enough "endgame".

That was in PS1, right?

I'm not just imagining that, am I?

Kaotc · 2012-06-12, 07:52 AM

Originally Posted by Miir

I still think the best approach would be something similar to Dark Age of Camelot and the relic's.

Basically have each empire have some sort of trophy (alien artifact) that can be captured and stolen. The act of stealing it will be a long process of key battles ending with the artifact base. Once an enemy empire captures the base they have to escort it back to their territory. During the transportation back they have a chance to be attacked by either remaining empire. If they succeed in getting it back to their empire they would get some sort of bonus. <insert reward ideas here>

Perhaps taking it a bit farther. After a set period of time the artifacts could lose their power and disappear. (technically a reset) So even if your empire holds all artifacts. It's just for a month or a couple weeks. Not to unbalance things.

Then using in game resources each empire could rebuild a new artifact for their main base and the process would start again. The building process would take 'X' amount of game resource to occur and the artifact that was generated each time would have some sort of random benefit to their empire.

Perhaps this could even be used as a tool to help balance population or the game. Maybe the artifacts that spawn for an empire with a low population could help to balance the battlefield.

i think the DAOC system would fit perfectly in the PS2 persistant enviroment.

do this!

Ohanka · 2012-06-12, 07:57 AM

Originally Posted by Higby

Yeah, it's something I've thought about from time-to-time. We have talked about "tournament mode", which would be something like an instanced battlegrounds where you could have 20v20, 50v50, 100v100 matches with a clear victory condition so you could have an outfit battle, or fight against rivals on your same empire from different servers, whatever. The worry has always been pulling people out of the primary game mode which many think should be sacrosanct. The very nature of a fiercely competitive game without a victory condition is a conundrum I've been wrestling with since starting on this project, it usually comes down to having to rely on "smaller" victory moments.

please don't put this in the game =/

Pyreal · 2012-06-12, 11:39 AM

Someone mentioned the EVE Tournament, and that sounds like something that could be worked into PS2 that would add a little flavor one or twice a year.

Thinking on EVE and longevity for PS2 I couldn't help but think about Corps in EVE.
Corporations in EVE are player formed, controlled, and staffed enterprises. All corp members work for the betterment of the Corp through POS building and a multitude of operations that give the players a drive and focus.

Something similar could be applied to Outfits in PS2. On a basic level you are fighting for your Faction (similar to EVE), but on a more personal level you could be fighting for the betterment of your Outfit.

I'm not advocating a separate gaming instance or event. But goals Outfit members could collectively work for for the stature/pride/recognition of the Outfit.

As a simple example: Outfit Achievements.

Field xx members/squads and capture xx bases/towers within xx time.
Fulfilling this Grand Achievement grants your Outfit a Tower/Biodome/Amp Station as a Base.

The Base would fly the Outfit logo for a year/permanently as long as certain criteria were met. The Base would still be conquerable but would still fly the Outfit logo beside the Faction banner.

Or maybe they would be awarded an Air Tower ACE, but you get the idea.

TL;DR: Give players a more personal focus by rewarding Outfits with
semi-permanent rewards for completing Achievement.

LegioX · 2012-06-12, 11:50 AM

WW2ol had the best end game system. Talk about bragging right for each side. Gave the game a sense of purpose.

GuyFawkes · 2012-06-12, 11:54 AM

Originally Posted by captainkapautz

I think the whole "Todays overall winner is <insert faction>" on the website that was in PS1 is more then enough "endgame".

That was in PS1, right?

I'm not just imagining that, am I?

It was , and all thats needed . Maybe have a winner for rabbit events and such , anything else is just fluff and unrequired.

DashRev · 2012-06-12, 12:26 PM

Please,

No weekend events
No win conditions
No "endgame"
No tournaments

There are other FPS games where I can find those things. No one else is making a massive scale persistent warfare game with modern technology. It seems like everyone believes that you need to cater your game to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to grab the largest portion of the market as possible. The problem being that everyone else is trying to do that exact same thing and in the process they come out with these homogenous bundles of generic FPS features rolled into another bland shooter.

Pick one thing and do it very, very well. Do it exceptionally well. Planetside takes place on a massive scale that no other FPS even approaches. That is your hook. Everything added to PS2 should be furthering that goal.

PrISM · 2012-06-12, 02:49 PM

Weekend events are fine as long as they are similar to the PS1-type events, like all-faction tech, etc...

GuyFawkes · 2012-06-12, 03:08 PM

Originally Posted by DashRev

Please,

No weekend events
No win conditions
No "endgame"
No tournaments

Pick one thing and do it very, very well. Do it exceptionally well. Planetside takes place on a massive scale that no other FPS even approaches. That is your hook. Everything added to PS2 should be furthering that goal.

The occasional event has for a long time been part of the planetside ethos , pre-bending meteor storms and so on . Only thing is now , instead of rabbits, we get massive rabbits. It all adds to the community building process .