Can anyone win? - Page 8

Anubisstargate · 2012-07-05, 02:53 PM

In a persistent world how is taking a hex a win? Its different to planetside, with that you took over a whole world, that's classed as a win. You won over that whole planet. With this the safe zone's are far too close to the hex's you take and a lot of people like seeing how well they did from the massive results.

If your team mates in your faction sucked and you lost all but 1/8 of the map and you captured one base you really call that a win? And stop comparing it to other FPS games, those games you play short matches and you do it for K/D ratio's and rank. This game now has those stats but the goal is taking over area's, its a territorial game.

Maybe if a base took a very long to capture and each and every battle was amazingly intense, that is classed as a win, having a one on one fight and defeating that person is classed as a win. But what did you achieve that win for? You kill a person to achieve your path, you take over a base to achieve resources. What's the difference? That base will be captured by the enemy as soon as you're not looking, then you capture it again? And it circles.

Ok so like all war, you fight and fight and fight, we're fighting for control and resources. Now how come there seems to be unlimited resources? Also what is there a war for? Area's that can never be fully controlled? War is always started from land, throughout all of history land is the primary fuel to start a war. This is land you can never truly earn, you can lose it as soon as you gained it. That ties in with war because that happens, although there will always be a victor. Whether that be via an actual winner or a mutual agreement.

DarkChiron · 2012-07-05, 03:03 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

Ok so like all war, you fight and fight and fight, we're fighting for control and resources. Now how come there seems to be unlimited resources? Also what is there a war for? Area's that can never be fully controlled? War is always started from land, throughout all of history land is the primary fuel to start a war. This is land you can never truly earn, you can lose it as soon as you gained it. That ties in with war because that happens, although there will always be a victor. Whether that be via an actual winner or a mutual agreement.

You're right. The game goes on forever and in the end is completely pointless to even play. No base capture means anything. No fights mean anything. Even if you capped the whole world, so what? It's going to be reset anyway. And even if it isn't, you'll just lose territory eventually anyway.

Is that really the outlook you have towards games?

Otleaz · 2012-07-05, 03:10 PM

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

If this game isn't the game they want, they can ask for it to change. Fine, whatever. EXPECTING the game to radically change on fundamental levels is the actual elitism here. Not me saying "Dude if this game doesn't sound like something you want to play, maybe it's not something you'd like to play". This game cannot possibly cater to everyone, and if it doesn't, that's alright. Everyone doesn't have to like or want this game.

Fundamental levels? The thing being talked about here are the farthest thing from fundamental.

The things being talked about here would at the least only be integrated into the UI. Is the game going to all the sudden going to make a radical change in direction because they decided to add a "Congratulations!" and a +1 once a faction controls a continent?

Even if they do decide to start changing the direction of the game because of how unimaginably popular the feature is(hypothetically), the things they would change would be along the lines of capturable warp gates and off shore sanctuaries.

Is it really a bad thing? Do you really think it will be less fun to have a facility you absolutely must defend tooth and nail compared to having it impossible to attack?

Anubisstargate · 2012-07-05, 03:17 PM

I've played games from a very young age, I've done nothing but complete them. Throughout the later years of playing games I've enjoyed nothing but multiplayer games, kinda got the feel of never completing a game appealed to me. I'm not saying this game should be completed, I'm saying there should be a victor to what we are doing. You speak to others as if they've never played games before and I'm sure there are hundreds of years of experience within these players, so stop talking down on them.

The game as it looks (will be different in beta) is very different to its predecessor planetside 1. As I've stated and others have stated many times before. In planetside 1 you can capture a whole world. That was your victory. In this you can never take everything over. Maybe if the playerbase was smaller you can take another continent while people are running around on another. A whole continent dominated is a victory. Its that sensation of achieving something bigger than bases.

Although if you still want to debate this all I'm going to say is. Small things amuse small minds. And if you want to argue that then look at your own posts and see what you've said about being happy with just capturing bases, those are small things in comparison.

DarkChiron · 2012-07-05, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

The things being talked about here would at the least only be integrated into the UI. Is the game going to all the sudden going to make a radical change in direction because they decided to add a "Congratulations!" and a +1 once a faction controls a continent?

I kind of said they were doing this already and never said they shouldn't.

Why are we disagreeing again?

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

The game as it looks (will be different in beta) is very different to its predecessor planetside 1. As I've stated and others have stated many times before. In planetside 1 you can capture a whole world. That was your victory. In this you can never take everything over. Maybe if the playerbase was smaller you can take another continent while people are running around on another. A whole continent dominated is a victory. Its that sensation of achieving something bigger than bases.

It was my understanding too that in the original you didn't really gain anything from a global conquest. If that's wrong, then I had a misunderstanding from that point.

I didn't mean to be 'talking down to people', so if it came across that way apologies all around.

Infektion · 2012-07-05, 04:00 PM

Sledgecrushr · 2012-07-05, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

.
If your team mates in your faction sucked and you lost all but 1/8 of the map and you captured one base you really call that a win?

Sorry this is a loss buddy. In PS2 I think on any continent you could have two "winners", one of the factions will most definitely be losing.

Anubisstargate · 2012-07-05, 04:06 PM

If you look deep down you don't gain anything from any game unless you play pro and earn money

. We enjoy the games we play and find our own enjoyement out of these games delivered to us.

Also no you do not get anything from capturing a world in PS1, but to accomplish that is a big feat. Why be happy with catching small fish when there are bigger ones in the sea. People strive to be bigger and better at what they do and majority of games accomplish that feeling through a ranking system. If you're number one then you've accomplished being the best at the game. Though I do feel bad because what else has that person got to achieve after that? Lol!

Too many don't strive for something better anymore, most people are happy with what is given to them and would let life walk on by as they sit and watch it.

Also I didn't mean the 'small minded' comments towards you darkchiron since most of your comments if not all have been unbiast and fair towards the community.

Otleaz · 2012-07-05, 04:08 PM

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

Why are we disagreeing again?

I don't like your face.

Sephirex · 2012-07-05, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

I don't like your face.

Keeping it classy.

ArcGuard · 2012-07-05, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

And stop comparing it to other FPS games, those games you play short matches and you do it for K/D ratio's and rank.

Pretty much stopped taking you seriously there. I play games to have fun, not to "win" or "improve my k/d" or any other arbitrary carrot on a stick.

DarkChiron · 2012-07-05, 04:28 PM

Originally Posted by Anubisstargate

Also no you do not get anything from capturing a world in PS1, but to accomplish that is a big feat. Why be happy with catching small fish when there are bigger ones in the sea. People strive to be bigger and better at what they do and majority of games accomplish that feeling through a ranking system. If you're number one then you've accomplished being the best at the game. Though I do feel bad because what else has that person got to achieve after that? Lol!

I think continent caps are a matter of time (as much as they can be done in the current layout). That should be something to strive for. I think I'd try for it even without the game dangling a carrot in front of me (because really it's a logical progression from individual base caps), but if people need a little Achievement and/or a medal to pin to their vest, then that's fine, I suppose. I worry though about those poor guys who couldn't log in on time.

Also I didn't mean the 'small minded' comments towards you darkchiron since most of your comments if not all have been unbiast and fair towards the community.

I'm glad I edited my post then.

I can be careless with words sometimes and I'm trying not to be because it leads to misunderstandings and giving impressions I don't wish to give. This thread is a sign I obviously still need to work on it.

Originally Posted by Otleaz

I don't like your face.

Yeah?! Well I don't like... uh.... that Z! YEAH! You're not Zorro, sir.

Crator · 2012-07-05, 04:33 PM

For me, it's not necessarily about a carrot. I just want a overall arching goal that can be spun into many objectives. Then some way to track the progression of that overall arching goal. Some way to display a rank system for an entire empire for a given amount of time. This will give the mission system in PS2 more of dynamic nature imo.

And yes, PS1 did give you something for sanc locking another empire. You got their ES weapons and vehicles for a period of time after.

Anubisstargate · 2012-07-05, 04:51 PM

Also what's with these pin the medal comments and rubbish? Has that got anything to do with winning? No it doesn't.

Also Arcguard, you stopped taking me seriously because you're the type of player to have fun. So is everyone like you? No they are not! A lot of people play games all types of games to have fun, to win, to achieve something. Everyone's opinions are as important as the next person's. Like I said, there is hundreds and thousands of years worth of gaming experience in the playerbase. Do you truly believe everyone single one has played a game for the sheer aspect of having fun? Having fun for most is a side line feeling to knowing that you're good at the game, that you can win at a game. Loads of people love the feeling they get that if they are on that team they have a high chance of winning because they are good. If you're one of those that say "This game isn't for you then" if you're out to have fun, play minecraft or something! And if you don't like that comment then stop saying to others. Don't give people medicine if you cannot take it yourself so to say.

kaffis · 2012-07-05, 07:15 PM

Every inch of ground gained is a victory. That doesn't mean the war's over. The war will never be over; the enemy cannot die.