A Winnable PS? Dev Discussion read inside.

MrVicchio · 2002-11-27, 04:58 PM

(*(**( REALLY GOOD DISCUSSION HERE THOUGHT YOU GUYS MIGHT LIKE IT )**)*)
Author Topic: will inability to actually WIN cause frustration?
Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 09:54 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here's the thing - in most games you have the possibility of ultimate victory - you reach a certain number of flag captures (CTF), or you kill all of the enemy (last man standing), or whatever. It seems that in Planetside there is ultimately no victory condition. The faction "sanctuary" or home base cannot be taken over. Plus, I imagine that as an empire gets progressively more taken over, the concentration of players at the remaining locations will increase (because they will be forced to spawn in ever fewer locations), thus at some point it will be impossible to take certain facilities, because there will be far too many enemies spawning there.
So, with it's emphasis on constant war, won't you start wondering what the point is? After all, if you can never really win, what IS the point? You can never claim victory...and the idea that you actually make a difference in this persistent world is kind of false, don't you think? No matter what you do, at some point your enemy will recover and put you on the defensive, and so on...

Seems to me like it might make more sense if they allowed victory to take place, and then the server was reset. They could allow you to retain certs, experience, stats and so on, but you would know that for, say, the month of March, your empire WON!!! You'd have bragging rights. What kind of bragging rights will you have with the current setup - we own more continents than you, for a little while?

********** DEV REPLY *************
****************** DEV REPLY *******************
SmokeJumperPS
Station Admin
Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-27-2002 10:08 AM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaed,
Just discussing here:

a) What do you "win" in Counterstrike or Tribes 2 that is not transient? The games reset every 20-30 minutes erasing all record of the game that you just played.

b) Do CS or T2 keep permanent statistics on your character, clan, or games? No...but Planetside does...and we'll make ya famous if you (or your Outfit) is doing well. (Something you have to do manually outside of those other games and which hasn't been very effective to-date.)

c) Yes, you may lose the Technology Plant you just captured, but the fight was good, and the folks you were with will remember the fight...just like in other games. And I think that eventually you will work with a very large group of people to do coordinated strikes against bases and continents in some seriously raging battles. It's a whole different level of challenge.

Okay...those things being said, the intangible thing I *think* you're talking about is that moment of winning at the end of a 20-minute game of T2 (or whatever). I agree...that's a good thrill. But I believe that the first time you work with several Outfits to do coordinated strikes on multiple continents to achieve continental locks (or other things we haven't unveiled yet), by surprise in prime time, then you'll be VERY happy with the game.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. You'll decide later if I'm right or wrong here.

***** FORUM HOUNDS REPSONSE TO DEV **********

Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 12:09 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by smokejumper:
a) What do you "win" in Counterstrike or Tribes 2 that is not transient? The games reset every 20-30 minutes erasing all record of the game that you just played.
b) Do CS or T2 keep permanent statistics on your character, clan, or games? No...but Planetside does...and we'll make ya famous if you (or your Outfit) is doing well. (Something you have to do manually outside of those other games and which hasn't been very effective to-date.)

c) Yes, you may lose the Technology Plant you just captured, but the fight was good, and the folks you were with will remember the fight...just like in other games. And I think that eventually you will work with a very large group of people to do coordinated strikes against bases and continents in some seriously raging battles. It's a whole different level of challenge.

Okay...those things being said, the intangible thing I *think* you're talking about is that moment of winning at the end of a 20-minute game of T2 (or whatever). I agree...that's a good thrill. But I believe that the first time you work with several Outfits to do coordinated strikes on multiple continents to achieve continental locks (or other things we haven't unveiled yet), by surprise in prime time, then you'll be VERY happy with the game.

Of course, the proof is in the pudding. You'll decide later if I'm right or wrong here

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'll address each of these points in order:

a) I'm not talking about casual pick-up games, I'm talking about competetive ladder play, the kind that clans/tribes (i.e. those forming outfits) live to play for. A victory in this context means a lot more than one in a pick-up.

b) Well, T2 does sort of, but that aside, you're right. This is a good point.

c) I'm not saying the battle won't be good, or the feeling of victory in that case won't be satisfying. What I'm talking about is a feeling of frustration that may come from the fact that yes, you won that Technology Plant, but so what? It's not going to advance your cause against the enemy, because you CAN'T WIN. You can never rid the world completely of your enemies.

Overall, I think the game will be a blast, and I'm looking forward to it more than I've looked forward to any game before. But imagine something along these lines:

As months of furious fighting pass, the Vanu and the NC decide that it would be in their best interest to tackle the TR together. So they coordinate their offensive and bring it to the TR as hard as they can. This offensive is highly effective. After several weeks of hard fighting and careful planning and strategizing, the TR is down to one continent.

The fight continues. Hard work is waged by each side, but the TR just can't keep defending. Finally, they are down to their final sanctuary. They are trapped inside the building, which is ringed by thousands of Vanu and NC troops. Defeat is certain. Except that defeat is impossible, because of game design...wouldn't this be frustrating?

This is obviously a fictitious scenario, and perhaps parts of it are impossible, maybe the Vanu and the NC can't work together or whatever. But I'm talking more about the concept. A war waged ceaselessly across continents is all fun and good when it comes to participating in battles, but a big focus of this game is the idea that we are fighting for domination of an entire planet. But that goal is always out of reach.

[CONT'D]

Glaed
Station Member
Registered: Nov 2002 posted 11-27-2002 12:10 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[CONT'D - post was too large]
I almost think it would make more sense to have a set up where winning is possible, but due to game balancing it is very difficult and thus may take months. I think the game would still qualify as persistent if it was around for months, instead of just 20-30 minutes like most FPSs. And what happens if it becomes very clear that one of the empires HAS lost, even though that is technically impossible? i.e. whenever you spawn at the sanctuary, as soon as you leave you are dead, because the enemy just controls everything. Would game reset be considered in that situation, or would the devs take matters into their own hands and help the defeated empire in some way, either through forced or rewarded recruitment, or through gifts of technology or weapons that will allow them to come back?

Once again, I am very excited about this, I will play and a lot of people from my tribe will as well, we are already working on forming an outfit and so on. But I can see some of the more impatient and winning-focused members of our outfit getting frustrated if it becomes clear that they will never win the war, especially if the way things turn out is a kind of ebb-and-flow war: you take over a bunch of enemy continents, until they are rather concentrated in small areas - then because of this concentration, your attacking efforts are no longer successful, they turn the tide, retake their land and push you into a fairly small area - but now YOU are concentrated, so you push them back - wash, rinse, repeat.

Then again, this is all hypothetical. You're right, the proof is in the pudding. I'm going to play, period. And from what I've seen so far, the devs have done a lot of thinking about this (a lot more than me), I'm going to have faith and hope that if things turn out like this, the devs will take appropriate steps to ensure that play is "meaningful" - at least, as meaningful as a game can be.

MrVicchio · 2002-11-27, 05:00 PM

*** DEVS REPLY ****** DEVS REPLY ***** DEVS REPLY *****

SmokeJumperPS
Station Admin
Registered: Sep 2001 posted 11-27-2002 12:51 PM user search report post
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glaed,
Thanks for the well-thought out post. I think you're right...for some people...and the topic you've brought up is something we've discussed at length.

We've bantered about the idea of setting up servers that have time length victory conditions, or some spectacularly difficult victory conditions that would cause a reset of servers after announcing a winner.

Those things may happen. We'll be watching the game in beta very, very carefully and listening hard. Lots of things can happen. But we're going to try and swing the 24/7 concept first...simply because it's the hardest challenge. The other stuff is easy in comparison. The other ideas may still exist side-by-side with the more persistent servers. We'll see.

http://boards.station.sony.com/ubb/p...ML/000362.html

Hamma · 2002-11-27, 05:03 PM

Interesting thread

MrVicchio · 2002-11-27, 05:07 PM

It was more then the usual info in the Dev posts, thought you might like it

Your friendly Forum Hound

Zumthor · 2002-11-27, 05:36 PM

I agree with Glaed. I think the servers should reset every 6 months or so. Characters and Certs and everything should carry over, but all the bases and stuff should be reset and a winner should be announced. I would rather loose than never have anyone win.

Zarparchior · 2002-11-27, 05:36 PM

Just to give thanks where credit is due:

Thanks MrVicchio! Hounding this so us lazy opinionated people can just post on this forum is exceedingly noble of you. You get 3 thumbs up!

As for this: HOGWASH. What people fail to realize is that all games are like this. For example, in CS, TFC, the godly Natural Selection, or T2 you *do* fight the same fights over again with no change. You won a game of NS? Congrats! It has no effect on your future games whatsoever. You will play that same map again, even, so all you worked for previously was for null. Look familar?

As for bragging rights, the same thing occurs: "We took your base more than you took ours. Neener neener!" As opposed to: "We won more games than you. Neener neener!"

Is it me or do I see direct similarities?

Zumthor · 2002-11-27, 05:42 PM

Good point

Tobias · 2002-11-27, 06:11 PM

All your Base Are Belong To Vanu!

sYn pHrEAk · 2002-11-27, 07:01 PM

A winnable PlanetSide would be totally unacceptable. I agree the unwinnable way would be bizarre if two sides just happened to both start hammering on the third side and not each other and that third side just never died. This is the only real problem I see with there not ever being a winner. I hope they figure out some way to prevent this.

However, the winnable PS senario brings about a couple of problems. First of all one of the ways that this could be implemented mentioned was to have a timelimit.....

A timelimit....... GH3Y!!
When was the last time you saw countries at war go, "Well, it was great fighting with you guys for these six months but that was the time limit so we have to set everything back the same and start over!" Bah. Besides it would be upsetting if one side had just started doing a good job controlling a large majority of the bases and then OOPS reboot start over. The unwinnable game will reset itself over time by the groups fighting back to regain their lost territory.

Another yet unmentioned problem is this: VS manages to take over NC's last base while defending themselves against the TR. But the TR starts attacking harder and all the NC bases VS has gained are spread out evenly between VS and TR. The battle between these two lasts a long time. What about the hippies... er I mean NC? They just can't play their characters on that server until TR and VS finish it up? Or are they forced to join one of the two remaining sides and learn all the new equipment just because they got beat? I don't think anyone would think of this as acceptable (but please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So it all depends on how you view the game. If you see the game as a quest to take over the planet and totally annihilate the other 2 groups, then you will never get a total sense of victory or defeat. I could see where this would get frustrating.

However, if you look at each battle for a base as a game of Quake or Tribes, then PS won't be much different than the two for you. PS shouldn't frustrate you at all. Your outfit attacks a base and if you take it over, you won. If you don't you lost. Or you're defending a base and get attacked. If you lose it, you lost. If you defend it successfully, you won! Just like a regular FPS (with either a lot of walking, driving, riding, or sitting around in between each game.) Everyone will just have to look at the game like this or be frustrated at never winning.

Just a last thought, do people in EQ ever complain about not winning? there is no ultimate end for them. But thats another point to argue another day.

�io · 2002-11-27, 07:22 PM

Well as i said in the thread i think a time limit would be cool. A HUGE time limit but still a timelimit none the less. I mean after a year of constant battle with no winner you start getting bored.

Hamma · 2002-11-27, 07:30 PM

I would not mind seperate servers for such a gametype.

But the idea is for it to be a persistant world, its what originally got me hooked on the idea of this game. I've played enough 30 minute rounds of various games for it to get old after a while

Doesent matter if the timelimit is 5 minutes or 5 months. It's the same 'ol

Zarparchior · 2002-11-27, 07:30 PM

Originally posted by sYn pHrEAk
Another yet unmentioned problem is this: VS manages to take over NC's last base while defending themselves against the TR. But the TR starts attacking harder and all the NC bases VS has gained are spread out evenly between VS and TR. The battle between these two lasts a long time. What about the hippies... er I mean NC? They just can't play their characters on that server until TR and VS finish it up? Or are they forced to join one of the two remaining sides and learn all the new equipment just because they got beat? I don't think anyone would think of this as acceptable (but please, correct me if I'm wrong.)

So it all depends on how you view the game. If you see the game as a quest to take over the planet and totally annihilate the other 2 groups, then you will never get a total sense of victory or defeat. I could see where this would get frustrating.

Just a last thought, do people in EQ ever complain about not winning? there is no ultimate end for them. But thats another point to argue another day.

Holy cripes... You bring up some good unmentioned points! The example of the eliminated team is one I never really thought about until now... Kudos to you.

While the EQ one is also a good example, people would say, "well, i want to shoot people with my snipr rifle JOIN VANU WE ROCK and eq sux0rs." I, for one, have no comeback for that.

sYn pHrEAk · 2002-11-27, 08:47 PM

I mean after a year of constant battle with no winner you start getting bored.

So they declare Vanu winner and it starts over the constant fighting again. Theres maybe 5 minutes of no fighting because they're resetting the servers, then its back to constant fighting just with base control reset to how it was day one. I don't see where it would make that big of a difference other than nullifying any recent hard work that had been done.

Another example: Say there was a Quake Capture the Flag server without any time limits or capture limits. People come and play and play and play and play and play and play and play. At any point (hours to years) you can decide who is winning in two ways. You could take the total captures and see which team is winning. Or you could take like a log and split up the captures into 30 minute sections and get a total Win/Loss count. In most cases both methods would reveal the same team as the winning team at that point. So whats the point of splitting it up into Wins and Losses?

You tell me....

�io · 2002-11-27, 08:51 PM

The difference is you have a defined winner not just a winner of the moment.

Tobias · 2002-11-27, 08:55 PM

While the EQ one is also a good example, people would say, "well, i want to shoot people with my snipr rifle JOIN VANU WE ROCK and eq sux0rs." I, for one, have no comeback for that.

Im Vanu and i play Eq.... of course it never ends. But the High end game is boaring as snot mosta the time. And us druids have little place in it.