How fun is it to lose?

ITOS · 2012-04-08, 07:07 AM

I apologize if this has been brought up before, I looked around a bit but couldn't find any recent threads about it.

Many seem to worry about faction balance on a continental scale with territory and resource control. I regard that as a relatively easy thing to balance. What has me worried is the balance in the actual battles and, more importantly, how fun it will be to fight a losing battle?

First I'm going to state that it is important to motivate people to fight a loosing battle. For the winning team, getting a challenge and overcoming it is very rewarding. How fun is it to set up a tank raid and find the territory empty because the defenders saw no point in sticking around to lose?

Secondly I'm going to state that most players will not defend a territory for resources only. I'm basing this statement on the assumption that a majority of the players will be people who jump in for an hour of fun and pay little attention to continental strategy.

Thirdly I'm going to tell you about some of my fondest memories from PlanetSide. These memories are from those hectic assaults on bases or towers where neither side would give up. Where the chat would alternate between warnings about MAX crashes at the BD and gal drops on the roof. The memories of finally breaching the interlink of tower hold and sweeping away the rest of the defenders like an unstoppable wave.

Maybe it's just me but I enjoyed those moments in PlanetSide, perhaps more so when I was the one on the receiving end. They gave me a reason the stay and fight a losing battle, the simple reason of being fun.

Planetside 2 seems to be going for a much more dynamic, flowing battle. From what little I've seen there doesn't seem to be many choke points where you as a defender can bite in and hold back an opponent with a large population advantage. With faster capture when holding surround territory it would seem less likely that we are going to see the type of sieges that were in PlanetSide 1.

All these changes will obviously be for good and for bad but the key point, what I want this topic to discuss, is how it will affect the fun of losing. Will I as a mediocre support oriented player be having fun while getting pounded by a superior enemy?

ringring · 2012-04-08, 07:20 AM

*lose not loose ... sry

Well, it depends on the balance between attack and defence .. defence should always be stronger, so the incentive to defend would be to farm kills and therefore xp.

What is the incentive to attack? The feeling of winning plus, in ps1, the squad leader gained command xp. I presume the same will apply in ps2.

Canaris · 2012-04-08, 07:21 AM

ob·sti·na·cy
[ob-stuh-nuh-see] Show IPA

noun, plural -cies for 5.
1.
the quality or state of being obstinate; stubbornness.

2.
unyielding or stubborn adherence to one's purpose, opinion, etc.

3.
stubborn persistence: The garrison fought on with incredible obstinacy.

4.
resistance to cure, relief, or treatment, as a disease.

5.
an instance of being obstinate; an obstinate act, viewpoint, etc.

Gamers have it in abundance

Bazilx · 2012-04-08, 07:23 AM

If your Empire is weaker than the enemy you won't just lose battles constantly, you will be pushed back until the fact that you are defending fewer territories and having bigger numbers compenate for whatever else you are lacking.

Your side will have less resources, but once you reach that threshold, you will win just as much as the enemy.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-08, 07:51 AM

I never lose, its all depends on how you play the game.

Hmr85 · 2012-04-08, 07:53 AM

Some of the best fights I have ever had in PS1 have been on the losing side of the battle. So in regards to how fun is it to lose. It can be extremely fun. Sometimes its nice to take a break from rushing the enemy and constantly being on the offensive. Playing Defense killing from the walls of the facility make for some fun and unique game play.

Spoof · 2012-04-08, 08:09 AM

Some of the best times were had in the ebb and flow of winning while losing, especially in locations where the front line extends across large open ground. You gain ground, and are beaten back. Push forward again, and retreat when the vehicle column chews you up. Regroup and push...

And the real fun is when the line retreats and you're left behind, surrounded by the enemy surge, fighting hand-to-hand, scavenging for ammo as you crouch behind a tree or rock with enemy tanks driving by, scanning for infiltrators with darklight, ducking out to catch a straggler off-guard, swapping to enemy weapons to mask your presence, jamming a tank, scuttling across the road, fleeing through the treeline, trying to make it back to your squad...

I'm going to miss scavenging.

NCLynx · 2012-04-08, 08:16 AM

I remember fighting losing battles on countless occasions only to end up winning. Holding out until reinforcements come was always awesome. Of course, that didn't always happen but it was story-worthy when it did.

Destroyeron · 2012-04-08, 08:35 AM

I'm happy as long as I'm killin blue and purple.

Skitrel · 2012-04-08, 09:58 AM

Kills motivate, people will stay and defend against superior forces because the potential kill earnings are much higher compared to the deaths you'll take. With TTKs drastically decreased earning one or two kills per life shouldn't be a big deal, a well placed grenade here or there, a couple of surprise popouts and unloading of clip from a balcony, not a particularly difficult task. People will stick around because large attacking forces mean more kills for defenders, a well placed grenade being well worth it, a MANA turret on a doorway to a capture point sounds like death for anyone that comes through the door and so on.

ITOS · 2012-04-08, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Hmr85

Some of the best fights I have ever had in PS1 have been on the losing side of the battle. So in regards to how fun is it to lose. It can be extremely fun. Sometimes its nice to take a break from rushing the enemy and constantly being on the offensive. Playing Defense killing from the walls of the facility make for some fun and unique game play.

Originally Posted by NCLynx

I remember fighting losing battles on countless occasions only to end up winning. Holding out until reinforcements come was always awesome. Of course, that didn't always happen but it was story-worthy when it did.

What I'm worried about is that PS2 wouldn't allow for as much of that in favor of fast flowing gameplay. While I haven't seen much of the bases and the gameplay around them it would seem like there are many many more ways to get in and around, which is a big disadvantage when you are on the defensive.

Originally Posted by Canaris

ob·sti·na·cy [snip]

Gamers have it in abundance

Even so, obstinacy risk leading to frustration if there is no sense of achievement or fun.

Originally Posted by Bazilx

If your Empire is weaker than the enemy you won't just lose battles constantly, you will be pushed back until the fact that you are defending fewer territories and having bigger numbers compenate for whatever else you are lacking.

While I agree that things will reach a turning point, I am more focused on the actual period during which you are being pushed back. This period of losing would have to last for a while to allow for periods of winning as well so it's not a matter of enduring 10 min of losing as it might be in round based games.

So assuming that you would be losing during a considerable amount of the playtime, would it be accepted by the majority that this time would be boring? Or would it lead to players leaving for greener grass?

Originally Posted by Destroyeron

I'm happy as long as I'm killin blue and purple.

What will you be when blue and purple are killing you? Will you feel like quitting or will you enjoy the fight anyway?

EDIT:

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Kills motivate, people will stay and defend against superior forces because the potential kill earnings are much higher compared to the deaths you'll take. With TTKs drastically decreased earning one or two kills per life shouldn't be a big deal, a well placed grenade here or there, a couple of surprise popouts and unloading of clip from a balcony, not a particularly difficult task. People will stick around because large attacking forces mean more kills for defenders, a well placed grenade being well worth it, a MANA turret on a doorway to a capture point sounds like death for anyone that comes through the door and so on.

Having a bonus for defending against superior forces could be a good way to motivate people to fight a losing battle. Perhaps a timer based thing to see how long one can endure and push you to hold the line till the next bonus.

Aractain · 2012-04-08, 10:22 AM

I would love a resource bonus for fighting in an area with low friendly poulation.

ITOS · 2012-04-08, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by Aractain

I would love a resource bonus for fighting in an area with low friendly poulation.

Been thinking some more about it. The game could auto generate "Last Stand" missions which means that you should hold the base for a set amount of time that depends on how outnumbered you are and how many control point you hold.

Completing X number of "Last Stand" mission could get you an "Alamo" award.

Cosmical · 2012-04-08, 10:40 AM

Well, im going to play as whichever faction is underpowered and undermanned because i prefer being the underdog. So i guess i must have fun losing?

Skitrel · 2012-04-08, 10:42 AM

Originally Posted by ITOS

Having a bonus for defending against superior forces could be a good way to motivate people to fight a losing battle. Perhaps a timer based thing to see how long one can endure and push you to hold the line till the next bonus.

I like this idea, some sort of points bonus as an understaffed defender holding out to the bitter end. Not sure how they'd calculate that, keeping tabs on number of attackers/defenders, but it's a very good way to add incentive towards holding out to the bitter end rather than just dropping out when you know the base is going to be lost.