The real question is, will they have learned their lesson?

MrVicchio · 2011-07-13, 05:23 PM

PS was an amazing game, but it suffered what has been the bane of all MMO/PVP games.

"Hey guys, let's attack over here, it's undefended!" Syndrome.

There has been only one MMO that had people attacking AND defending objectives: Dark Age of Camelot. It's spiritual predecessor WAR was a miserable experience of futile "Attack the empty keep for the PVE Reward".

WoW's PVP is much the same, Alterac Valley is a race to the PVE bosses.

I suppose you could make an argument for Eve, but Eve is it's own critter, and the combat, situation and loss/gains are completely different.

So will SOE find a way to make attacking undefended points not worth it? Defense not a "where is everyone?"

This is what will make or break PS2 in terms of game structure. They could nail the lag, make the most awesome classes, the most in-depth abilities, eye candy that blinds...

But if the game is a boring exercise in PVE Objective taking and PVP not happening...

I've often thought about how to make this happen on a real time basis. And there are no good alternatives. If all the good PVP is instanced, the game will feel like CS with some social aspects. If you funnel via bottlenecks.. it will feel forced.

I'll admit, my reading on what's in store is currently lacking, this is my biggest concern, right here, right now.

Redshift · 2011-07-13, 06:04 PM

There is no PvE in planetside

If someone attacks an undefended area with a small force someone will respond and try to fight them off, if it's a massive force they'll end up fighting them at the next base along, i assume this will be the same with the territories in PS2

MrVicchio · 2011-07-13, 06:13 PM

Originally Posted by Redshift

There is no PvE in planetside

If someone attacks an undefended area with a small force someone will respond and try to fight them off, if it's a massive force they'll end up fighting them at the next base along, i assume this will be the same with the territories in PS2

I was more commenting on attacking undefended points, sorry for not clarifying.

SwiftRanger · 2011-07-13, 06:21 PM

From what I understood taking over deserted bases/territory far away from the action is already being discouraged since it doesn't net you as much resources as conquering areas on the real battlefront does.

basti · 2011-07-13, 06:23 PM

Forcing the attackers to always go for the defenders makes continental tactics useless, and would just cause a constant, never ending zerg war.

Haro · 2011-07-13, 06:32 PM

I think they could mess around with hack times (if they will still use the same model of base capture) to help prevent this, or they could improve the lattice system to make it so that battles can be concentrated on a few bases.

Thinking back to when I played PS, however, I don't really remember all that much of this. Usually, wherever a base could be captured, there was a battle, but then again this was in 2003-2005 mostly.

Overall, I don't think players should be punished for being opportunistic, but rather they should be rewarded for fighting where the battle is thickest. Maybe xp bonuses based on enemy proximity and strength? There's a lot of room for ideas.

MrVicchio · 2011-07-13, 06:41 PM

XP bonus can help. I like that.

I'm just jaded by all the failed PVP I've seen since the early days of PS.

Rarntogo · 2011-07-13, 06:44 PM

Even though I do not consider myself a killwhore I am an XP/BR whore. If there is no reward for an empty base capture then I will stay where the action and XP is. I think most will do that especially in the here and now. Keep working towards the objective. I cant say what will happen in the future but hopefully SOE will enhance the game throughout to keep everyone interested and working toward the same objective. I say they get it right this time around.

SavageB · 2011-07-13, 08:01 PM

Originally Posted by MrVicchio

PS was an amazing game, but it suffered what has been the bane of all MMO/PVP games.

"Hey guys, let's attack over here, it's undefended!" Syndrome.

There has been only one MMO that had people attacking AND defending objectives: Dark Age of Camelot. It's spiritual predecessor WAR was a miserable experience of futile "Attack the empty keep for the PVE Reward".

WoW's PVP is much the same, Alterac Valley is a race to the PVE bosses.

I suppose you could make an argument for Eve, but Eve is it's own critter, and the combat, situation and loss/gains are completely different.

So will SOE find a way to make attacking undefended points not worth it? Defense not a "where is everyone?"

This is what will make or break PS2 in terms of game structure. They could nail the lag, make the most awesome classes, the most in-depth abilities, eye candy that blinds...

But if the game is a boring exercise in PVE Objective taking and PVP not happening...

I've often thought about how to make this happen on a real time basis. And there are no good alternatives. If all the good PVP is instanced, the game will feel like CS with some social aspects. If you funnel via bottlenecks.. it will feel forced.

I'll admit, my reading on what's in store is currently lacking, this is my biggest concern, right here, right now.

I think it will be all about the "resources" they mentioned, if people are smart ( which most arent) hopefully they will figure out the most Xp per say will be where the most valuable resource may lie at that time on the map. I think resources will be a game changer in that category of mindless attacking of bases just because.

MrVicchio · 2011-07-13, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by SavageB

I think it will be all about the "resources" they mentioned, if people are smart ( which most arent) hopefully they will figure out the most Xp per say will be where the most valuable resource may lie at that time on the map. I think resources will be a game changer in that category of mindless attacking of bases just because.

I do hope so

It gives one hope for thought, we won't know till it plays out though.

Punker · 2011-07-13, 08:24 PM

If there's a tactical advantage to take an undefended base even with no immediate XP/Reward gain for going there, then definately. People who stay with the Zerg 100% of the time make slow progress and are nothing more than fodder.

Talek Krell · 2011-07-13, 09:57 PM

To my knowledge there's not really been any mention of a lattice system in PS2. My gunner expects that it will be replaced with the territory control system, which I think would help address this.

The idea is that in order to capture a base you would first have to capture the territory between that base and another base you already own. So in order to attack something you have to draw a big purple/red/blue line through enemy territory first, which gives defenders time to arrive.

Simple idea, far reaching implications. Battle lines would be entirely freeform, and any base could, hypothetically, be captured if you can work your way to it. Any advancing of your territory would show up on the world map though, telling your opponents what you intend and giving them time to respond. And if part of the front becomes overextended then a pincer maneuver could surround it and cut it off. Such a tactic might even work when sieging a base, capturing the surrounding territory to cut it off from supply. NTU draining for the new age.

BorisBlade · 2011-07-13, 10:46 PM

Only the very very very early days of PS was it not right. once they got the lattice system in there were no probs. If you mean you dont want people to attack a base where people arent at, then you might as well stop playin games. The lattice system kept the choices limited, but still left options. And you want ot attack that base thats not defended, its part of the strategy. They can always respond and most always do. We rarely get a base with no fight unless there are just so many other things for that empire to cover they cant handle em all, aka gettin double teamed by the other two empires.

In short, unless you mean the first few weeks before the lattice system, i dont see what your problem is at all, makes no sense with the current system.

And they get around the lattice system in ps2 at the moment with their mini sectors or whatever they are. As you capture teh areas around another area you start gettin bonuses to make capturing it easier. So if you go to the middle of the enemy area with nothing capped around it, you could start a hack or whatever but it would take so long or have so many other downsides that it really discourages doin it, but is still allowed so you could mix up the gameplay if you really wanted that area. Not until you get the sectors bordering a specific sector does it become feasible to cap.

Lunarchild · 2011-07-16, 07:33 AM

The missions are also there to provide additional incentive to go to spots where there are enemies to fight. As following missions will net you rewards. What kind of rewards? I am guessing XP and resources.

Lartnev · 2011-07-16, 08:55 AM

I think the mission system will help coalesce the masses into fighting around the front lines. Capturing undefended bases behind enemy lines should still be possible because even though you can't benefit from unconnected territory you're also denying it to the enemy.

Part of the problem with PlanetSide is you don't know someone's hacking a base until it's hacked and, aside from proximity warnings, you don't know in what strength. Hopefully certain towers (and possibly spotters like in Battlefield) will provide that missing intelligence to commanders and that could set up a cool parallel game of attack and defend between outfits.

There'll be a lot more sectors in PS2 than there were bases in PS1 so the odd rogue hack shouldn't have the same significance. Finally since some sectors will be more valuable than others (coupled with better intel) it should be more obvious which sectors behind your lines should be defended - and combat for those who do defend them.