Take Advantage of PS's Potential!

lewsrand · 2003-05-08, 11:35 PM

I've read all the arguments about PS just being a straight FPS, and thats fine, but there are a large group of us who are looking to add an extra dimention to FPS games. There are enough FPS games out there where its just capture the base, and thats fine for small groups that you play with on servers of 32/64 people.
But here in PS we have a massive world. We have thousands of people and a real war. Why waste the potential of the game and leave it at the same old thing? Why not take it to where FPS REALLY belongs? A complete war, where what you do matters, where losing a big fight can mean disaster for your empire, where capturing the supply depot or the capital or the continent means big things for your side. Wheres the pressure behind the battles? Wheres the feeling of desperation as you fight for the last stronghold? Wheres the agony of total defeat or the enjoyment of winning the war after weeks or months of fighting? This is what Planetside is missing, the emotion behind the battles. Add that incentive, make things matter!
And yes, you could completely win and just reset the world (keeping your char) after conquering it, even ww2ol does that - its not revolutionary.

SpartonX · 2003-05-08, 11:51 PM

i've been pondering about clans that might have X amount of people could get territories. it might be good, it might not be, but i don't think there will ever be despiration for an empire, but a clan that owns a % of a contenent, and was anhilated down to it's last base would give a sense of despiration. it might open some more aspecs up

Lion of Judah · 2003-05-08, 11:54 PM

some of those dynamic are in the game, like controlling the tech labs....or the dropship centers...they offer bonuses, but only on that continent.

SpartonX · 2003-05-09, 12:06 AM

Originally posted by Lion of Judah
some of those dynamic are in the game, like controlling the tech labs....or the dropship centers...they offer bonuses, but only on that continent.

ur right, what i was trying to say was that if clans could have an official territory that would have to link from base to base back to a main base of thier choosing (that way there could only be one territory per clan). that might open up the aspecs of goals and further teamwork not just in clans, but between them as well because there would be a sense of despiration for clan members due to the fact that they would want to protect thier land, as well as the fact that there is the threat that they could loose all thier territory. like i said early, i never said it was a good or bad iadia, just a sugestion

r3d · 2003-05-09, 12:07 AM

Thatd be kind of dumb, I like how someone can cap a continent, and if someone else on the other side owns bases near the gate, they just bring a GAINT force through and start owning everything.
They said they dident want the war to end. Persionaly I think alot of people would get pissed if someone form another team went walking aroud your sanc killing people.

SpartonX · 2003-05-09, 12:09 AM

Originally posted by r3d
Thatd be kind of dumb, I like how someone can cap a continent, and if someone else on the other side owns bases near the gate, they just bring a GAINT force through and start owning everything.
They said they dident want the war to end. Persionaly I think alot of people would get pissed if someone form another team went walking aroud your sanc killing people.

i agree

glsauron · 2003-05-09, 01:09 AM

Whats the point of a Sanctuary if you dont have protection on it?

That said, having clans "own" territory would defeat the purposes of empires. Empires are the big picture (you nation), your outfit is your group/wing/battalion(?regiment?) and the squads/(cant remember right now) are your company and (unit above company, cant remember...battalion?).

An endgame would defeat the MMO role. MassiveMultiOnline NEVER end. Whats the point of fighting if the game is just gonna reset anyway? The fun is the fight, win...or lose. People will the drawn to the fact of playing with massive battles. But when it starts (or never gets above) unorganized chaos people are gonna move on. Why do you think ladders and tourneys are so popular.

Griefers are gonna have to be handled some way too. And dont say that P2P will take care of them. AO, UO, EQ, they ALL have grief players. Theres a LAN cafe just opened about 2 mi from my house. 5/hr or (3 free hours and 4/hr) membership and people will find a team dmg CS game, join up, and just start AWMing people on their own team soon as they spawn. They die too, but it really Fs the game up. P2P doesn't (and wont) stop it.

lewsrand · 2003-05-10, 02:38 AM

QUOTE]An endgame would defeat the MMO role. MassiveMultiOnline NEVER end. [/QUOTE]

Massively Multiplayer online RPG games do NOT end.
Massively multiplayer online WAR games DO end. Then the war begins again.

Whats the point of fighting if the game is just gonna reset anyway?

Um that would BE the point of fighting - FINAL VICTORY! Yes, you did it, your empire won, you managed to beat everyone elses ass and totally dominate. You've accomplished something.

Whats the point of fighting if you can never really accomplish anything?

The fun is the fight, win...or lose. People will the drawn to the fact of playing with massive battles.

Yes the fun is in the fighting - when you can WIN or LOSE. Currently, you can never win or lose.
Massive battles that don't count are just deathmatches. MMO games are deeper than that, or should strive to be.

OneManArmy · 2003-05-10, 02:44 AM

well if you could lose people would bitch and complain. and you can't win if you cant lose, so.......

lewsrand · 2003-05-10, 03:16 AM

Why exactly would anyone bitch and complain? THE WAR IS RESET AFTER AN EMPIRE WINS! Whats to complain about?

WildCard101 · 2003-05-10, 07:34 AM

Some people will bitch about losing... they are called sore losers. Actually winning the war seems like something worth fighting for. I doubt they will put that in tho, since the release is 9 days away. And verents forumula for successful pay 2 play MMOG prolly includes a "never-ending" war/gameplay experience.

lewsrand · 2003-05-10, 02:52 PM

Well the war would be never ending - reseting it after a victory you would be fighting all over again.

Matuse · 2003-05-10, 03:48 PM

The problem would be just how to actually win the game for the reset. If the condition is control of all of the continents..well, it'll never happen. With 2/3rds of the players opposing you, the more territory you control, the more you concentrate your enemies into a smaller area. If your empire has 8 continents, then you have a thousand of the enemy on each of the others...how can you possibly defeat that? No way. So that won't work.

Option: Make death penalties MUCH more severe so that people can't get back in to help...then you have people who die and are forced to wait (making up a number here) 30 minutes before they can get back in...what do they do in the meantime, play solitaire? Won't work.

Only way would be to make the requirements for winning to be much smaller. What would they be? 1 empire controlling 6 continents? Possible, but highly unlikely. As soon as you lock 5, I'd bet that the opposing 2 empires would band up and push you out.

Bsod · 2003-05-10, 04:55 PM

It would be cool to have sanctuary attacks. For example if the Terran republic had continental locks on Hossin, Esamir and Cyssor then for however long they had those continental locks they could Hart drop onto the New Conglomerate sanctuary. Thats my plan for a sanctuary attack.

lewsrand · 2003-05-10, 07:07 PM

yes, currently its impossible to win - BY DESIGN. that doesn't mean you couldn't come up with a system to do so.

The reasons you can't win right now are tied into some other problems, like defending a continent after you've locked it. Most people don't want to sit around and stare at the sky, so yep, guess what, its usually not locked for long. Also, theres no real direction to attacking a continent, its a random melee for various bases. If each continent had a capital city that had to be capped to control the continent, then not only would there be more direction, but capping and holding a continent would be much easier.

It would also make fighting for a continent much more interesting when you have a better objective. Holding the capital and some surrounding bases back (for supply lines) would be very hair-raising. The objectives for winning the war would be holding a certain number of capitals, or even all of them if it proved to be possible. You wouldn't have to hold every single base on every single continent.