Winning condition

[brinkdadrink]

Should there be a winning condition and if so how.

I think if the sanctuary is now on an island as the last base then if it is taken then that counts as a win and a loss for the respective factions. With 3 empires this will work well because the third empire will start to fight the winning empire to stop them from winning. The reset could make it so everyone loses 1 cert on the winning team. This is just to help with always striving for the top.

Just my thoughts

[Bags]

Everyone would empire hop or quit if they lost certs for losing.

[brinkdadrink]

the loser doesn't lose a cert, the winner does. That way the winning team gets the win but they lose a cert. This is only under the assumption that it takes a while to successfully win. Its kind of a trade off for winning and you dont have to win and instead dont let the other team win. If you go for the win to many times in a row you will be at a disadvantage.

[Bags]

the loser doesn't lose a cert, the winner does. That way the winning team gets the win but they lose a cert. This is only under the assumption that it takes a while to successfully win. Its kind of a trade off for winning and you dont have to win and instead dont let the other team win. If you go for the win to many times in a row you will be at a disadvantage.

Yeah, no offense but this is really dumb. I don't want to be penalized for my team me winning.

[Raymac]

I get a little frustrated with the idea that Planetside even needs a "winning condition". Take Call of Duty, for example. Sure you can win a round, but so what? After a quick stat sheet and reload, you are right back doing the same exact fighting on the same exact map. I can't think of a game where there is a real "winning condition" as people mention Planetside lacks.

Sure you still win or lose battles, except in Planetside, the game doesn't stop just to tell you if you won or lost. The action continues, and you just have to figure it out. You arn't going to get a big "YOU WIN!" in Planetside, but we've all played those battles where you feel it.

[brinkdadrink]

yea ignore my lose cert idea. Thinking about it i dont know why i thought of it. deffinatly wouldnt not work out well.

[Miir]

I don't think there is an easy answer.

I keep thinking if you push one empire back to it's sanctuary to do some epic end game...won't it just crash the server? Is there not population limitations on each area? How could everyone be pushed back to one place? You would have the bulk of the losing empire in the sanctuary plus the attacking force. BOOM! Server meltdown there is your end game/win condition.

Besides maybe medals, rewards for winning I can't see an easy solution to end game.

[CutterJohn]

Winning the factions ES equipment was the big prize. I doubt it happened more than a dozen or two times in all of PS though(outside times when one empire had 90% pop), since the goal was completely unrealistic.. Take both of the enemies home continents. Fine in theory, except that the third empire, having nobody to fight, would mess it up.

Plus the benefit lasted a stupidly short time.

Make it easier, make it last a day.

[Furret]

Repost from an earlier thread:

I'm not sure why you would want a floating base. The sanctuaries should definitiely be invadable, assuming the empire who's sanc is getting invaded has lost every single CC on the planet.
No towers, no bases, no nothing.

Maybe the sancs have radar, but they're open to all until every last troop is cleared out.
And have a 5-6 hour timer, at which point everyone is kicked out, the empire who got shoved back into their sanc gain a point, and the empire regains their two home continents.

Example.
TR and VS decide on a temporary alliance to wipe out the NC (Bad idea). The entire map is cleared of NC Control Consoles, and the NC sanctuary is opened.
The possible ways this battle can go are as follows:

1) The NC, with the advantage of infinite respawns, tons of vehicle terminals, and only three bases to defend, hold off, and kick off the TR and VS. If they do so in 6 hours, the NC retake control (completely; towers and bases) of their home continent and one cavern, do not gain a point, and the massive battle resumes.

2) The NC hold off the assault for the 6 hour limit, when the NC retake control (completely; towers and bases) of their home continent and one cavern, do not gain a point, and the massive battle resumes. The NC are given one point. (Points are bad)

3) The TR and VS manage to wipe out the NC forces even at their own sanctuary, at which point the empire that captured 2/3 of the control consoles loses a point, the NC gain a point, and the NC retake control (completely; towers and bases) of their home continent and one cavern, do not gain a point, and the massive battle resumes. (Losing a point is good)

Assuming the first time any sanctuary has been invaded, the scores would stand:
TR -1
VS 0
NC 1

At this point, the game also shifts so that the NC are given a temporary 5% exp boost, and a permanent 1% exp boost (6% boost for 6 hours). The TR are given a -1% exp 'boost' and a temporary -5% exp 'boost' (-6% for 6 hours).

Instead of exp, SOE could also edit the amount of damage each empire does.

Just to go slightly more in-depth, the VS could "sanc" the NC again, and while the VS are doing that, the TR "sanc" the VS.
The scores would be:

TR: -2
VS: 0
NC: 2

Obviously, this would lead to a -2% 'boost' for the TR and a 2% boost for the NC (re-activating the temporary 5%)

Sanctuaries are complicated, and I think the 'home' team should be given an overwhelming bonus during and after their sanctuary is invaded.
I don't think "sanc-ing" would happen all that often, maybe only when servers fail, or if the VS and TR actually allied (not very likely).

But it would be a hell of a motivation to fight for your sanctuary because losing would result in a point (that are hard to gain and lose) that would last forever.
Maybe the threat of having your name be posted along with all of the other members who failed in the defense.

[DviddLeff]

I want Sanc strikes to go ahead.

If you lose your Sanc then you are forced to fight from the fabled orbital stations, and are able to HART into any locked continent from them until a continent is taken. You also gain an EXP boost for continuing the fight.

[I SandRock]

For my suggestion they would have to make the empire hopping cooldown 1 week or so and only give rewards to those who have been playing for a majority of time on the winning empire.

As soon as an empire wins either by holding the majority of the map for a duration of time or 0 basing 1 or both empires they get some groovy guns unlocked, not necessarily better or powerful but different, fun to use. Perhaps a new vehicle, some cool looking outfits, whatever.

They keep this rewards either for a set duration or until another empire 'wins'.



I think it would add a definite goal to work towards and to achieve, which I found was a major lack in PS.

[Jonny]

I like the idea of a win or lose situation which then resets, and the winners get some temporary reward or something.

I know- each empire has a big chalk board in their home base. Each time you win, you get 1 more 'man point' if you lose you lose a man point.

[Elude]

People the last thing we need is people attacking sanctuaries only to be reset back to normal once they won or lost, all just for some extra bonus that last exactly how long?

How Planetside Next SHOULD do score is by having each team given a separate column of tickets, the more bases you control the faster your score tickets climb, much like how battlefield works. Based on your teams score, you are supplied with more xp, and certs available, the leading team would obviously have more then the other two. Once a team reaches the score ticket limit ( which should take a week or so) everyones score resets but the captured bases stay, which gives the last leading team still an advantage considering they would still have most of the bases.

The game doesn't ever stop, it continues even during a ticket reset, the only thing that changes during that ticket reset is less xp, and certs available.

[I SandRock]

People the last thing we need is people attacking sanctuaries only to be reset back to normal once they won or lost, all just for some extra bonus that last exactly how long?

How Planetside Next SHOULD do score is by having each team given a separate column of tickets, the more bases you control the faster your score tickets climb, much like how battlefield works. Based on your teams score, you are supplied with more xp, and certs available, the leading team would obviously have more then the other two. Once a team reaches the score ticket limit ( which should take a week or so) everyones score resets but the captured bases stay, which gives the last leading team still an advantage considering they would still have most of the bases.

Noway. That's just another grind and keeps PS's overall system meaningless. You actually need a goal to achieve, a clear goal.

Best thing would be to do it like DAoC's relic system. Each empire has 1-2 relics which they put in a specific well protected relic base. This relic gives a unique bonus to whoever holds it. You can capture this relic (on a home continent) and have to take it back to your own home continent and put the enemy's relic in a normal base there (a relic keep can only hold your own relic, or only 1 relic at a time). You then get the benefit of the relic, but it's easier to recapture because it's in a normal base that isnt as well protected.

If you manage to capture all relics or have the majority of relics for like a month then the game resets and you get some nice temp bonus. Just to prevent one side having all relics and never losing them.

[Tikuto]

The 'winning', victorious Empire could have more command abilities available to them. Winning rewards would all be rewarding the Empire somehow, and commanders could have control of them.

Commanders would have more abilities like possessing an Empire-specific command ability.
Common Pool (all): Orbital Strike
TR: Air Strike (stealthed and thundering upon destination)
NC: Barrage Strike (an elongated strike of artillery)
VS: Covert Strike (orchestrated, silent and deadly)All have Orbital Strike unless an orbital warfare expansion changes that. And all will have their own Strike command abilities too (2). The empire who takes a key location may temporarily possess that enemy Empire's Strike ability. e.g. NC take a VS key location. NC commanders are now able to decidedly use Covert Strike or their own Barrage Strike (2).

[Jonny]

People the last thing we need is people attacking sanctuaries only to be reset back to normal once they won or lost, all just for some extra bonus that last exactly how long?

How Planetside Next SHOULD do score is by having each team given a separate column of tickets, the more bases you control the faster your score tickets climb, much like how battlefield works. Based on your teams score, you are supplied with more xp, and certs available, the leading team would obviously have more then the other two. Once a team reaches the score ticket limit ( which should take a week or so) everyones score resets but the captured bases stay, which gives the last leading team still an advantage considering they would still have most of the bases.

I guess that would give a more lasting positive effect/reward for winning. You'd have to be careful to manage team swappers who just want the extra XP and swap, put a time limit on it or not allow swapping from an empire with less x-number less bases to one with more bases.

[Elude]

Noway. That's just another grind and keeps PS's overall system meaningless. You actually need a goal to achieve, a clear goal.

Best thing would be to do it like DAoC's relic system. Each empire has 1-2 relics which they put in a specific well protected relic base. This relic gives a unique bonus to whoever holds it. You can capture this relic (on a home continent) and have to take it back to your own home continent and put the enemy's relic in a normal base there (a relic keep can only hold your own relic, or only 1 relic at a time). You then get the benefit of the relic, but it's easier to recapture because it's in a normal base that isnt as well protected.

If you manage to capture all relics or have the majority of relics for like a month then the game resets and you get some nice temp bonus. Just to prevent one side having all relics and never losing them.

I like it, sounds like large scale capture the flag, but I don't enjoy having an end win/lose scenario where everything resets, and your given a temporary bonus.

This also doesn't give the need to capture as many bases as you can, perhaps if there were a ticket system, and capturing such relics increased the score more then your typical base.

[I SandRock]

I like it, sounds like large scale capture the flag, but I don't enjoy having an end win/lose scenario where everything resets, and your given a temporary bonus.

This also doesn't give the need to capture as many bases as you can, perhaps if there were a ticket system, and capturing such relics increased the score more then your typical base.

Well in the Relic system in DAoC bases help because you need to transport the relic back to your home base on foot and going past an enemy base (which all the roads lead through) means its likely people will be teleporting to that base to cut you off and keel you.

So that's something that would have to be added to PS too then. And you'd have to do some planet hopping i guess, go from warpgate through warpgate to follow the link to your home continent. It's meant to be really hard and require the entire empire to help out.

[Jonny]

Like it or not I think the game probably could use some kind of goal, instead of feeling like the fights always going back and forth and nobody can win or lose. The relic idea is interesting, Id love to see what SOE has come up with.

[I SandRock]

I actually made a suggestion for a PvP system for SWTOR based on both DAoC's relic system and planetsides system:
https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=explorer&chrome=true&srcid=0B6yVSWc88SIHZjQ5N2UzZDItODJiNS00ZWE4LWJmODM tOGRhZjUwNTI3NmIx&hl=en

It probably gives a better idea of how such a system would work. It wouldn't fit planetside like that 100% but I think its a very good way of making PvP have meaning on a grander scale.

[Miir]

You know a relic system like DAoC might work for Planetside.

They could have alien artifacts to collect that would be kept at artifact bases on each map. An artifact base would be the largest most well protected base on the map. Each artifact could unlock some sort of special ability or weapon or vehicle. Each artifact fragment could be a piece of a bigger weapon to collect and build and use for a ONE TIME END GAME USE. This one time use weapon would be like a orbital strike or nuke to fire at the enemy sanctuaries. Which would kill everyone in the sanctuary to give some satisfaction to the winning empire. The losing empire would only have to suffer one respawn if they happened to be in the sanctuary at the time of the end game nuke.

The Artifact base would likely make sense to be in the middle of each map with each empire having a set number of bases to cap to be able to attack it. Once you cap the base you have to defend and hold it to retain any of the benefits.

To win your empire would have to cap and hold each Artifact base and get the nuke. Could be like 10 bases or something.

I think something like that would be cool. I remember relic raids in DAoC being some of the best battles. (minus the lag).

[Elude]

Like I said before, I don't mind the artifact game so long as there actually is no end to the cause, and that it simply gives the winning team an upper hand in xp, certs, ect. I prefer an endless continuing war that carries out forever with leading and losing teams, but never a complete defeat/victory, it just doesn't tie in very well for the type of game planetside is I think. I've always looked at planetside as this endless battle of teams trying to get the upper hand in it.

I just cant come to the thought of having a noob get on planetside for his first time only to have a bunch of shit going on right in his face in the sanctuary before being able to adjust his graphics or controls.

Anyway I think some of our points are a bit moot though considering it seems they might be dealing away with sanctuaries.

My point is, sure have some main focus objectives like capturing relics to give the game more meaning to score, but don't let it completely end the war, only to reset everything, and start over. I personally would go with something more simplified like score tickets per base, and have something like relics as more of a major boost in your score.

[I SandRock]

Like I said before, I don't mind the artifact game so long as there actually is no end to the cause, and that it simply gives the winning team an upper hand in xp, certs, ect. I prefer an endless continuing war that carries out forever with leading and losing teams, but never a complete defeat/victory, it just doesn't tie in very well for the type of game planetside is I think. I've always looked at planetside as this endless battle of teams trying to get the upper hand in it.

That is exactly what made me quit planetside every so often after a few months of play. There being no clearly defined goals. At least with capturing relics its hard and a goal but the game doesn't really end either. You have to recap those artifacts.

[Hamma]

Personally I don't like the thought of an end game or winning condition in PlanetSide. I never really minded the way that it works now and I don't need to feel my entire empire "Won" the day. Some days you did feel like you won the day because your empire was successful.

But I don't like the thought of a big win condition or sanctuary invasion, everyone seems to want to put an end game into Persistent Online Worlds and I just don't think that fits.

[Jonny]

Personally I don't like the thought of an end game or winning condition in PlanetSide. I never really minded the way that it works now and I don't need to feel my entire empire "Won" the day. Some days you did feel like you won the day because your empire was successful.

But I don't like the thought of a big win condition or sanctuary invasion, everyone seems to want to put an end game into Persistent Online Worlds and I just don't think that fits.

Maby it could be an event that is allowed to happen every so often (like month or two) so then people could fight harder to prepare for that time and then try and win. The rest of the time it could be territory control as normal?

[Furret]

I like the idea of a win or lose situation which then resets, and the winners get some temporary reward or something.

I know- each empire has a big chalk board in their home base. Each time you win, you get 1 more 'man point' if you lose you lose a man point.

Someone doesn't read the previous posts =p


I like the idea of getting bonuses for a 'win', however that may be defined. The only problem is, what if an empire 'wins', gets the bonuses, and then 'wins' repeatedly with the new bonuses. There would have to be a good balance between a good reward, but having it not be good enough to unbalance the game.

One thing I really liked (though never understood) was when the vehicle repair terminals were actually functioning.

Something small like that wouldnt unbalance the game, but would be a nice reward for a 'win'.

Another obvious 'win' prize would be that empires vehicles for a period of time.


Also, in order to keep the world persistant, the 'losing' empire would have to use some sort of "orbital purge" which would kill everyone on the island excluding the 'losing' empire.

The vehicle/weapon priveleges would go to the empire that owned each of the home continents which would encourage fighting between the two empire that arent locked in their sanc, which in turn would ease up the pressure on the defending empire.

Just to clarify: the sanctuary would open as soon as the defending empire has no bases on all of auraxis, and would close as soon as the population on the sanctuary reached 100% of the home team.

This means that if even one enemy is on the sanctuary, both attacking empires still have access to the sanctuary. Obviously, this system has a major flaw. One man could run around the sanctuary and not be found for hours, which would not make for a fun time. This would be countered by giving the sanctuaries permanent radar, which they probably should have to aid in the defense.

[Raymac]

everyone seems to want to put an end game into Persistent Online Worlds and I just don't think that fits.

^ This is my main point of contention with a winning condition. It's a persistant world, so if 1 side wins or loses the war then the game is over. It's simply a paradox.

Now, some of the more exciting times I've had in Planetside were during events where the empire is working together toward a goal like the monolith event, but those are special events. I think it should be left that way.

[Jonny]

Someone doesn't read the previous posts =p

Not when they're bigger than my screen. Also i dont see anything about man points. :P

[LordReaver]

Here is my idea.

Instead of two home conts, there is one. Instead of the home wg, you have the sanctuary itself. Enemy cannot under any circumstances (except maybe hilarious bugs) go into that sanctuary, but said owners can always push out. The sanctuary would have all the facilities you would expect.

What this does is it allows for a safe spot to do whatever, while at the same time prevents the empire from being "locked in". Again, this is because they can always leave the sanctuaries safe zone and go fight, but enemy can never enter. It's essentially a one way road. The enemy can push them back into the sanctuary and maybe get some sort of reward, like as a merit or such.

[Sifer2]

Only way I could see it working is if the defeated faction becomes Rebels of a sort. Not having a home base but gaining new abilities like the ability to steal stuff an drop in anywhere or something. So it would become difficult to fight them an they could try to retake their home base an get back in the game.

Really though I think you can't win an MMO. You have to find more ways to keep people interested.

[Rbstr]

Personally I don't like the thought of an end game or winning condition in PlanetSide. I never really minded the way that it works now and I don't need to feel my entire empire "Won" the day. Some days you did feel like you won the day because your empire was successful.

But I don't like the thought of a big win condition or sanctuary invasion, everyone seems to want to put an end game into Persistent Online Worlds and I just don't think that fits.

That's completely how I feel. You can't have a persistent world game in which someone can truly win. You can win stuff like a base or whatever but never end the game.

[Warruz]

I just picture it like Warhammer.

You push far enough, you invade. If you win the invasion then ya get something but get pushed back HARD.

Lets be honest here, in planetside its not often a side is pushed so far back that they have nothing, that is a stars align moment. The logic behind the push back can be as simple as the pushed back side has some sort of last stand ability reseting the ones who pushed them (whoever has all the bases that are linked to their sanctuary ). Getting a XP bonus for the victor, loosing a large amount of their bases( i would say keeping about half the bases if they own them of the bases on the continents that are connected for the sanctuary )and something to show for your victory(badges and something in the sanctuary).

So for example
TR has control of all of the bases that NC connect to via sanctuary and are able to invade.

After some crazy last stand esc event( i picture ALOT of infantry with trenches with taking over the main building and planting a flag :) )

you hear a "Last Stand Protocol Activated" where tons of artillery shells start raining down on the sanctuary and TR bases , making them neutral control however keeping most of the bases on the land that is directly connect to their sanctuary under TR Control.

the Same would happen with NC Instantly gaining half of their bases that are on the lands directly connected to their sanctuary.

This gives a "end game" Goal that can be repeated. Youl want to do it not only for the bonus and bragging rights but for the unique event.

[Skraeling]

You can definitly have a persistant game world in which you can have a win condition.

wwiionline has it. Now thats a rather unique game and situation as its only two sides essentially going it it.

If you want to force battles and have a win condition its easy. You cant cap a base behind the base before it.

Base 1 ----- base 2 ------ base 3 ------ FINAL STAND ----- winnar!

You cant skip straight ot base 3 and then the enemys home base or whatever you gotta go in order.

something like this anyway would work.

[Elude]

You can definitly have a persistant game world in which you can have a win condition.

wwiionline has it. Now thats a rather unique game and situation as its only two sides essentially going it it.

If you want to force battles and have a win condition its easy. You cant cap a base behind the base before it.

Base 1 ----- base 2 ------ base 3 ------ FINAL STAND ----- winnar!

You cant skip straight ot base 3 and then the enemys home base or whatever you gotta go in order.

something like this anyway would work.

Planetside pretty much already works like this, very much like UT2004's onslaught mode but on a large scale.

But what exactly would happen once you've pushed said players into final stand and won or lost, does the game just reset? I don't know I think that's a little lame if it did.

[Skraeling]

The server would start over with everyone 50/50/50.

It worked at lot better with wwiionline as the game world was literally friggin huge. It would take you honestly hours to fly from one end to the other if you so choosed to try it.

This will give you an idea of how big.

http://www.txsquadron.com/uploaded/tx-rahman/wwiionlinemap.jpg

[I SandRock]

That's completely how I feel. You can't have a persistent world game in which someone can truly win. You can win stuff like a base or whatever but never end the game.

Well, you're wrong. Shadowbane did it and it was hailed as a great change by the majority of the community. Global Agenda is doing it.

Not saying that's how it should work. I would prefer a relic system like DAoC. Where there is no win condition, but there is an overall goal to work towards. You capture bases, continents etc. to lay an assault to the relic base and take the enemy's relic back all the way to your own home continent to receive a bonus. Like +% this or +that or even unlock the enemy's weapons, or some of the enemy weapons depending on the relic. Maybe even a vehicle relic.

[Raymac]

Well, you're wrong. Shadowbane did it and it was hailed as a great change by the majority of the community. Global Agenda is doing it.

Not saying that's how it should work. I would prefer a relic system like DAoC. Where there is no win condition, but there is an overall goal to work towards. You capture bases, continents etc. to lay an assault to the relic base and take the enemy's relic back all the way to your own home continent to receive a bonus. Like +% this or +that or even unlock the enemy's weapons, or some of the enemy weapons depending on the relic. Maybe even a vehicle relic.

I'm still against the idea of trying to manufacture some sort of way to have a win condition in a persistant world. However, the more I think about this relic idea, the more I like it. Sounds somewhat similar to base and module benefits that are already in PS, so the relics wouldn't be a huge leap.

[Miir]

Changing focus on to something tangible like a relic is the way to go.

It is a subtle enough change that would give purpose to all the fighting. If your empire has all the relics you are basically winning but the game doesn't have to end. As long as the benefits from the relics aren't game changing than I could see this working quite well.

[Warruz]

Planetside pretty much already works like this, very much like UT2004's onslaught mode but on a large scale.

But what exactly would happen once you've pushed said players into final stand and won or lost, does the game just reset? I don't know I think that's a little lame if it did.

Not much you can do but make the reset a amazing event and a rare spectacle. Depending on who lost would have a separate event and each being absurd over the top bombardments of some sort, In short a * cleanse*.

The reward for getting to this point would be the same much like the rest of all planetside and thats a new situation that invites new tactics and memorable moment. So having a Big Last Stand event with a very trench like fight would be a blast if you ask me.

[Skraeling]

Changing focus on to something tangible like a relic is the way to go.

It is a subtle enough change that would give purpose to all the fighting. If your empire has all the relics you are basically winning but the game doesn't have to end. As long as the benefits from the relics aren't game changing than I could see this working quite well.

I miss dark age of camelot so much :( still havnt found a game that gave me the same high as that thing.... eve online did it for me for a few years, but im needing a new fix.

I actually like your idea better.

[I SandRock]

I'm still against the idea of trying to manufacture some sort of way to have a win condition in a persistant world. However, the more I think about this relic idea, the more I like it. Sounds somewhat similar to base and module benefits that are already in PS, so the relics wouldn't be a huge leap.

Yeah. Let me work out the rough concept of how the DAoC system could be applied to PS and how it could work in that context.

Currently we have 2 home continents per empire. So you could put 1 relic base, or 2 relic bases on each continent. Depending on the type of bonuses and the amount of bonuses would be beneficial as well as gameplay. For instance, let's say you get to unlock that empire's weapons with their relic (I quite like this idea myself). You could split it into 4 parts. One relic could give you that empire's MAX units, one relic could give the guns. One could give their unique vehicles. And then you could do one for something else like bonus xp.

These upgrades don't give an actual direct bonus to combat making you better at that, like more health or more damage. It's important to avoid such bonuses because you don't want an already winning empire to get even stronger and thus unbeatable.

So 4 relic bases, 2 per home continent. To actually attack an empire's relic base, you need to capture the continents/planets giving you a link to their home continent, the same way it works now. The relic bases are protected by a shield like the capitals are now, so you have to take down say 2/3 of the bases linking to it to drop the shield. Once the shield is down, you can actually attack the relic base and take out the relic. You could do a lot of interesting things with the relic base. Like give it 3 towers with underground passages to the base. Give it multiple generators each powering certain things etc. as sort of 'bonus' objectives to make grabbing the relic easier.

Once you do grab the relic and transport it out of the base, you need to get it back to your home continent and place it in a normal base there. To do that you need to transport it either on foot, or like an LLU in a vehicle with a slow speed penalty and only as passenger. Or you could make a specific vehicle which can transport the relic. (This opens up other potential 'bonus' continents that aren't needed to get to a home cont link but like give a better relic transport vehicle).
You have to travel to a specific warpgate that is at the other side of the home continent, go through the warpgate, teleport to a continent directly linking to it, transport it across that continent, to another continent, to one more continent and then your own home continent. It would have to be this many continents for several reasons. First of all you don't want just 2 continents in between home continents because that means getting to enemy home continents is too easy. You also want capturing a relic to not be a daily event, but something you work towards in the long run and difficult to do. You want to give the enemy the opportunity to recapture their relic while it's on the move as well.

I think it would be more interesting with this system to not need a continent lock to link to other continents, but simply control a link to one of the warpgates leading there. This way it means you are given a tactical choice of leaving a continent contested and just getting a strong enough foothold to link to the next continent. Or to secure the entire continent. If you make it like that and make a continent lock take longer or harder to do then it also gives an easier opportunity for the empire who has their relic taken to respawn and attack from bases on the continents it has to be transported across.

If you manage to transport the enemy relic to your own home continent you can't place it in your own relic base but have to place it in a normal base there. OR, what might be better to make a recapture truely easier. You can't place it on your home continent but on a continent directly linking to that, let's call them tier 2 continents. Tier 1 being home continent. Tier 3 being the in-between ones leading to the tier 2 of enemy empires (which link to tier 1, their home continent).

You also don't want 2 empires ganging up on one empire and each launching an attack on one of the home continents at the same time meaning it would be impossible for them to defend on 2 fronts and be guaranteed to lose the relic(s) on one of their continents. To prevent that, well, one way would be to create a bottle neck, like only one tier 2 continent which provides a link to a home continent. That means only one empire can attack home continents at a time. You could also make up some sci-fi story about how both home continents are powered by a MASSIVE HYPER NUCLEAR STAR POWERED DARK MATTER GENERATOR and if one continent is attacked then all the power is given to the other home continent which means nobody is able to travel to this home continent and only one is open to attack at a time :P

An empire's relics should also provide a bonus to their own empire if they have it obviously, otherwise they won't care if they lose theirs. Again, not a bonus that means that if they lose it they are directly affected in combat performance/efficiency.

Changing focus on to something tangible like a relic is the way to go.

It is a subtle enough change that would give purpose to all the fighting. If your empire has all the relics you are basically winning but the game doesn't have to end. As long as the benefits from the relics aren't game changing than I could see this working quite well.

Exactly. It gives a more concrete goal to work towards and accomplish rather than something more arbitrary as "control all the continents' which seems more like a daily struggle that changes hands every day. Which is also something they'd need to work into the system. Making capturing bases and continents a bit harder, perhaps even base/cont locks for a time after capture. Because you do want there to be an actual progress towards capturing a relic that isn't based on daily performance but more like on battles over a weeks period.

[Miir]

Once you do grab the relic and transport it out of the base, you need to get it back to your home continent and place it in a normal base there. To do that you need to transport it either on foot, or like an LLU in a vehicle with a slow speed penalty and only as passenger. Or you could make a specific vehicle which can transport the relic.

This would open up some interesting escort/ambush scenarios for gameplay. Moving focus away from just base caping.

If an enemy was able to stop a empire from transporting the relic they could re-capture it and take it back to their base. This could also open up the door for the third empire to hold back try to ambush and steal the relic.

The only thing I'd be worried about is creating lag. Though I'm not sure if that's a concern anymore. I picture everyone trying to help attack or defend the relic on a map rather than having some battles being spread out over a few bases. I wonder if that would cause any issues?

[I SandRock]

This would open up some interesting escort/ambush scenarios for gameplay. Moving focus away from just base caping.

If an enemy was able to stop a empire from transporting the relic they could re-capture it and take it back to their base. This could also open up the door for the third empire to hold back try to ambush and steal the relic.

The only thing I'd be worried about is creating lag. Though I'm not sure if that's a concern anymore. I picture everyone trying to help attack or defend the relic on a map rather than having some battles being spread out over a few bases. I wonder if that would cause any issues?

That's true, though even during base attacks as it is now the game could handle the majority of all players on one continent to engage into a 3-way fight in the vicinity of one base. And the Monolith event worked somewhat similar to this and didn't cause insane lag from what i remember.

But I'm not sure if it would be viable to have everyone follow the relic either.
I could see the situation unfold like this:


You need to make sure that the base that provides you access out of the continent doesn't get captured and it will need defending.
You need to make sure that the enemy doesn't get a chance to group up at the warpgate out of the continent and block your exit in full force. So you'd need a force to protect the warpgate and prevent grouping up of the enemy.
The same is true of the other side of the warpgate where they could be meeting up.
Probably the biggest factor: You won't have everyone fighting at the Relic base ready to jump into a vehicle and move to cover the relic. A large part of the zerg will probably still be fighting at the relic base as the relic leaves, and a large part will be running towards a base to get a vehicle first, or be spamming chat asking for a ride. Leaving the organised outfits and those who brought a vehicle to cover the relic.


But it would definitely have to be kept in mind when designing the system as well as something that would have to be monitored during beta and perhaps require some measures like a somewhat lower pop cap on home continents.

[brinkdadrink]

I really like this idea. I wouldn't make them relics though, possibly original data chips or something. It would add some new types of fighting and a reward for making it to that point.

[BicOfMarkov]

How about something simpler.

Sanc base captures gain temporary access to capped empire specific goodies.

Capture base 1, you get infi weaps, cap 2, get basic vehicles and maxes, all 3 get all. Require a 15 minute hold. After the 3rd base is held, the sanc is wiped and locked for a half hour. (long enough to suck, not so long people will logout
)

Don't require more than a lattice link to get in but cover that place in defenses and defensible positions.

Make it HARD.

[Rbstr]

I don't mind the relic idea. In fact I think that furthers the cause of true persistence. You could take it a bit further and make the relic wear out over some time (the order of a couple days?) and some kind of condition to build one...like own X thing on Y continent for so long or in such a combination and you spawn one. Only let a couple be active on a server at any given time so empires needed to steal them to get them, mostly.

The real problem I have is anything that involves or requires some kind of reset or similar action (like NPC based repelling of invaders and things) instead of player action to reverse it.

[I SandRock]

How about something simpler.

Sanc base captures gain temporary access to capped empire specific goodies.

Capture base 1, you get infi weaps, cap 2, get basic vehicles and maxes, all 3 get all. Require a 15 minute hold. After the 3rd base is held, the sanc is wiped and locked for a half hour. (long enough to suck, not so long people will logout
)

Don't require more than a lattice link to get in but cover that place in defenses and defensible positions.

Make it HARD.

Because in this case simpler means boring :P

[Timantium]

I get a little frustrated with the idea that Planetside even needs a "winning condition".

This.

[Traak]

The 'winning', victorious Empire could have more command abilities available to them. Winning rewards would all be rewarding the Empire somehow, and commanders could have control of them.

Commanders would have more abilities like possessing an Empire-specific command ability.
Common Pool (all): Orbital Strike
TR: Air Strike (stealthed and thundering upon destination)
NC: Barrage Strike (an elongated strike of artillery)
VS: Covert Strike (orchestrated, silent and deadly)All have Orbital Strike unless an orbital warfare expansion changes that. And all will have their own Strike command abilities too (2). The empire who takes a key location may temporarily possess that enemy Empire's Strike ability. e.g. NC take a VS key location. NC commanders are now able to decidedly use Covert Strike or their own Barrage Strike (2).

How about the TR get a hailstorm. Of bullets.
The NC get a hurricane. Of shotgun pellets.
The VS get the nerfs removed from everything due to NC and TR complaining.

Now THAT's balance!

[BicOfMarkov]

Because in this case simpler means boring :P

I find it highly unlikely any form of Sanct strike that is feasible would be exciting enough for you.

[I SandRock]

I find it highly unlikely any form of Sanct strike that is feasible would be exciting enough for you.

What? Sanct strike?

I gave my suggestion of what is feasible and highly exciting to me and all those who have played DAoC :P

[Tikuto]

How about the TR get a hailstorm. Of bullets.
The NC get a hurricane. Of shotgun pellets.
The VS get the nerfs removed from everything due to NC and TR complaining.

Now THAT's balance!:evildrop:

[brinkdadrink]

I just thought of a possible new winning condition type. What if you empire lock an empire then the lattece links are changed. It will change up the common continents and because the links are switched up the empire wont be empire locked anymore. This means nothing but the links changes but because of that a lot changes.

[Serisno]

When a team meets the win condition we should lock and "memorialize" that server. All the winning factions players get some webpage with their name and stats put on it. Play epic ending video when anyone logs in to that server for the next month or so.

Then automatically transfer all of the current players to new/different servers. Thus splitting up the "winning team" to different servers. Members of outfits will be transferred to the same new server together.

Thoughts?

[MasterChief096]

How bout if an empire manages to sanct lock another empire and then invade that same empires sanct and beat them, the losing empire's characters are all deleted, their faction is wiped from the server, and they are forced to go play on one of the two remaining empires.

The empire that controls the new sanctuary now has two safe zones to spawn to and can choose which one they'd prefer to spawn at.

You can work it in the storyline: The NC managed to invade the VS sanctuary, they gained access to their DNA databases, and wiped them clean, removing the VS Empire's ability to respawn, thus killing all the VS permanently.

You want winning! There's permanent winning for ya right there!

[MasterChief096]

When a team meets the win condition we should lock and "memorialize" that server. All the winning factions players get some webpage with their name and stats put on it. Play epic ending video when anyone logs in to that server for the next month or so.

Then automatically transfer all of the current players to new/different servers. Thus splitting up the "winning team" to different servers. Members of outfits will be transferred to the same new server together.

Thoughts?

I don't like the idea of separating an entire server like that. I want to play with familiar outfits and players and having them all choose a diff server to go play on would crowd the other servers and separate a community.

Perhaps just memorialize the server and have a new server for the same server, if that makes sense.

[SavageB]

I say let the SOE devs do what they are gonna do, and not mimic other games as most of you seem to think is the best way to go about things...They are taking a lot of things from a lot of diff games to come up with there own system, I m looking forward to seeing this in action during beta. Once beta comes then lets shout all the goods and bads at them to come up with the "perfect" system :)

[Graywolves]

There has always been a clear goal in Planetside. Conquer Auraxis and defeat the other two empires and keep holding the ground.

So make the world/galaxy all red/blue/purple and keep it that way. Good luck.


Planetside is a game of territorial conquest, like risk, only everyone is a peice on the board and has a mind of their own. In other FPS games you go into matchmaking and get into a short game and it's over. In Planetside....what you do has value on the war effort toward the conquest. Even if I spend half a day fighting over a bridge I have fun with it and feel worth out of it.

I also feel that if you actually put an "end" to the game, people will probably just rush toward that goal and focus on it too much.

[Senyu]

And here I'll direct you to a WoW video showing the only thing I enjoyed out of playing WoW. Just all those Honor Kills. Its so satisfying to know you've killed so many people and crush them beneath your boot just for that simple satisfaction. I apologize for those who hate WoW and may not watch the video


***x202a;Honor Kills (wow machinima)***x202c;‏ - YouTube

[cellinaire]

That is exactly what made me quit planetside every so often after a few months of play. There being no clearly defined goals. At least with capturing relics its hard and a goal but the game doesn't really end either. You have to recap those artifacts.

IMHO, the 'process' should be the main thing, and 'winning' or 'victory' should be the secondary thing in this kind of games.

I mean, seriously, I must have never played any mmo if I cared so much about the 'definite, defined goal'



(and definitely there's victory in PS1, the problem is, in my opinion, PS1's interval between 'victories' is veeeeeeery very short, compared to RL wars.)

[ringring]

Like it or not I think the game probably could use some kind of goal, instead of feeling like the fights always going back and forth and nobody can win or lose. The relic idea is interesting, Id love to see what SOE has come up with.
I get bored with these type of discussion .... somehow, for some reason people haven't noticed that there are many winning conditions in planetside ...
you capture a tower, how do you feel, good? .. super, you should cos you just won.
you capture a base, how do you feel .... and so on ......

if you want a little score board on how many bases you captured over time then I'm sure the data provided by the game would provide it. iirc this was recorded in ps.

Also, no reset. Planside is persistent, if you want a base go and win it!

[DayOne]

Though an actual outright winning condition is a stupid idea I would love to see continent caps, or something equivalent, coming back in some way.

[sylphaen]

Winning conditions ?

Victory in PS is domination.

Being able to wipe out an empire is a terrible win condition because it promotes ganging up on one empire and playing with 66% pop vs. 33%.

Increasing your overall territory vs. 2 empires is a true win condition.

IF at time T, your empire is holding more than 33% of the global territory vs. even odds (i.e. you manage to gain more territory than you lose with the same amount of resources than enemy empires), then you are winning.

NOTE:
controlling more territory should not increase your resource advantage vs. other empires. Why ? Because snowballing to victory by throwing resources at a problem does not reflect skill and is a terrible mechanic.

NOTE 2:
- Here is a TR victory that should make TR players who made it happen proud:
Populations: TR 33% NC 33% VS 33%
Territory control: TR 40% NC 30% VS 30%

It shows superior skill vs. even odds.

- Here is something that should not be rewarded:
Populations: TR 33% NC 33% VS 33%
Territory control: TR 45% NC 45% VS 10%

It shows steamrolling by gang-raping one empire. It is not fun and makes people stop playing.

NOTE 3:
There are actually 3 victory conditions in PS:
- personal victory: achieving a personal goal, beating someone, surviving a large firefight for more than 4 minutes, etc ...
- group victory: capturing a facility, defending a base, etc...
- empire victory: the situation I mentionned in Note 2


Now do we really want self-congratulation messages to pop-up every 15 seconds saying "Good boy ! You did X kills in a single life." to feel good ?

If having fun in a balanced large-scale battle is not enough for you and you need something else to acknowledge your "victory", I think you are missing out on some of the best aspects of PS.

[Shogun]

hope the "congratulations you managed to walk a straight line" type of popups will NOT make it into planetside 2!
todays games tend to tread the gamers as total mentally disabled. i hate that!
i don´t need a popup to tell me i did something cool.
i´ll know, when i´m still alive and the floor is littered with enemy corpses. or when a base switches sides.

[Warborn]

I like the idea of winning conditions. I like how WW2OL, for example, has campaigns that progress and eventually end and then start anew. It's, personally, a lot more interesting if your empire is actually able to make real gains that contribute toward an ultimate goal. Taking a really hard-fought base one day, and the next seeing it and every other base on the continent taken back, is kind of a drag.

[fod]

i dont like the idea of a winning condition
pushing an empire back to their sanctuary is enough of a win for me

[sylphaen]

Planetside has one significant difference vs. any other FPS game you may compare it with: it has 3 FACTIONS.

It is what makes the game exciting, it is also what makes it so different to any other FPS. Standard win conditions from other games may not be adapted for a 3 FACTIONS game.

Ever heard of double-teaming or 4th empire in other FPS games ? Planetside is unique.

Allowing elimination of an empire is not a good idea. Even if it was implemented, resetting the game when a faction is eliminated would be as lame as gen-dropping. Continuing the game with only 2 factions left would be even more stupid. Giving even more bonuses to winners when they already dominate is terrible too.

________________________

The CORE of Planetside is BATTLES.

Bases and objectives are here to promote fighting and create battles. That's their only true role. The whole map is about providing a reason for battle. Maps provide focal points to crystallize fighting and make it intense. For example, a bridge can become an epic battleground even though it has no bonus or victory condition associated to it.

PS is not about winning, it's about being part of large-scale breath-taking battles.

Winning and losing do not matter. They are only a side-effect of battle. But PS is war and the next battle is right around the corner. Retreat, defend, counter-attack, deny, conquer, etc... PS is a non-stop war made of battles after battles.

There is a war for air-control, war for ground control, war for base control, etc... Why should it be transformed into a fucking lame empire-elimination game ?

Frankly, playing a 66% vs. 33% pop to wipe-out one empire asap and then being stuck forever at 50% vs. 50% pop until everyone logs off and one empire wins at 3 AM is just sad.

PS is an environment to create epic battles. Its equilibrium from 3 FACTIONS is what allows to keep those battles going with minimal maintenance and prevent it from being dependent on resets to rebalance the game every 3 days.

Are people really that addicted to pop-ups saying "you win" ? PS1 players have some of their greatest gaming memories from that game. Yet, strangely, almost no one will say their best memory comes from empire-locking another empire. As a matter of fact, one of the most reported and epic moment comes from the 1%, a story written by RockPaperShotgun where the TR suffered its greatest loss ever and got wiped out due to a bug.

THAT was a heroic moment that those TR players will remember forever and it comes from a loss, not a victory ! How strange ? Can you imagine a pop-up showing up on their screens to tell them "You have lost" ? The victory condition system would be completely out of touch with reality. "Sorry son, we are heroes against all odds". That's what those guys are feeling.

Planetside is not about winning. It's about being there.


Edit:
For those who never read it, here is a link to the 1% article:
http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/12/30/planetside-the-1-2/

I never played TR and I was not there but I did have those few epic moments in my almost 10 years of PS. Not a single one of them was about a winning condition of empire-locking players from opposing teams.

[BorisBlade]

Two things:

First, PS did have sort of "win" that ps2 will not. Capping a cont was essentially a win. You fought long and hard but when you capped the entire cont, you got your cont bonus and sense of victory and the other team moved on to somethin else, you had a chance to take a break and plan for the next assault. Thats a win condition in my book thats not so hugely overwhelming as to make the other empires quit (like a sanc-ing an empire would do), nor does it penalize anyone unnecessarily or overly reward anyone. Worked very well. Its been stated many times that we wont cap entire conts very often in PS2. Much more short lived "hollow" victories in some areas that you lose in relatively short time as you move on and the other empires come behind you. Much less rewarding and very discouraging imo, maybe beta will tweak this somewhat.

Second thing, bonuses for winning must not be that powerful. Even the xp cant be crazy big compared to the losers. You dont want a situation of the winners getting more powerful making them win more and get more powerful while the losers get weaker and so lose and then get even weaker and then lose more. If you ever played that awful MAG game on the ps3 then you see what i mean. The winners just got on a compounding effect where their wins just gave em more power and more wins while the opposite was true of the losers.

[Rbstr]

No artificial resets, no "winning" the game. It ruins the idea of a persistent world.

If two empires suck balls and the other one takes over and keeps everything forever, so be it.
Related: capping a continent isn't winning the game, it's winning a continent, you get bonuses, you keep them until someone takes the continent from you. It's still a goal, goals exist without requiring someone to trigger some kind of end-game condition.

[Mastachief]

THIS is a persistent world.

THERE IS NO END GAME.

What is it with people wanting to screw the game up with simplistic round by round fps concepts.

At a decent population level i believe on werner at least the world was capped twice, once by the VS and once by the NC. This lasted around an hour and took years to achieve.

[SpLiTNuTz]

Sorry but no thanks.. Keep it the same as ps1

[Warborn]

What is it with people wanting to screw the game up with simplistic round by round fps concepts.

That isn't what people are suggesting, but I guess it's easier to knock down straw men you've built for yourself than address actual arguments.

[Shnipah]

in PS1 it would have been awesome that if you sanc locked someone you got to pillage and rape sanc for 12 hours.

never sadder for the smurfs than the barneys destroying your sanc and murdering your women and children.

not sure how it would work in PS2 as you can't ever lock a continent

[Raymac]

THIS is a persistent world.

THERE IS NO END GAME.

What is it with people wanting to screw the game up with simplistic round by round fps concepts.

At a decent population level i believe on werner at least the world was capped twice, once by the VS and once by the NC. This lasted around an hour and took years to achieve.

^ This

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The continent captures were responsible for the longest and most boring downtimes in all of Planetside 1. And to what purpose? See the map change color? Child please.

I'd rather not have at least 30 mins of complete bordedom and no action as you mop up 1 continent then argue about where to go next.

[VanuMAXGuy]

Turning all continents purple is the ultimate goal.

Too bad PS2 won't have continent locks :|

[Ragotag]

I think a winning condition is a very bad idea, especially for a persistent world MMO. Pushing your opponents back to their sanctuary and reaping the resource benefits of controlling the majority of the bases/facilities/land on any given continent should be enough of a reward for any faction.

[Shogun]

if you really need a sort of winning condition, there was some good form in ps1 that would work in ps2, too.

don´t remember what exact system it was, but it was a reward for the empire after a whole continent, cave or battleisle was locked down. this reward stayed with the empire until another empire captured the whole thing back what could take a long time.

we got no contlocks in ps2, but this would work with certain clusters of bases or hexxes. they have all to be captured in order to gain a reward advantage, and this reward will be active until all capturepoints of the cluster are captured by another empire. so it will be a fierce battle to gain such an advantage.

[Fenrys]

I like the idea of having a hard time fighting back out of your sanctuary against a superior (in terms of resource income) force.

Likewise, if the VS have successfully conquered the world, I want to get resources from it as long as possible. I'd take 50% of our pop and camp the TR sanctuary bubble, and send the other half to camp the NC bubble, and send metric shittones of tank shells and flak at anything that dares leave the protected areas.

Victory conditions that reset the map to an easier or more 'fair' state seem lame to me.
If the losers want to get out of the hole they're in, let them work for it.
And let the winners reap the benefits of their success.

[Whalenator]

I like the idea of having a hard time fighting back out of your sanctuary against a superior (in terms of resource income) force.

Likewise, if the VS have successfully conquered the world, I want to get resources from it as long as possible. I'd take 50% of our pop and camp the TR sanctuary bubble, and send the other half to camp the NC bubble, and send metric shittones of tank shells and flak at anything that dares leave the protected areas.

Victory conditions that reset the map to an easier or more 'fair' state seem lame to me.
If the losers want to get out of the hole they're in, let them work for it.
And let the winners reap the benefits of their success.

I think capturing all bases is a victory condition.
Players would definitely swap factions if you were waiting outside their sanc bubble to kill them.

[Fenrys]

Hopefully the commanders could put together an organized push. "Everybody get in a tank, then on the count of three, we'll all start driving that way."

Worst case scenario - they'd probably just go to bed. Then we'd get bored of camping and go to bed also, feeling like we've won. Then the folks in Europe would wake up, be like "WTF mate?", then they'd sneak out when nobody was watching and get some bases.

[cellinaire]

I like the idea of winning conditions. I like how WW2OL, for example, has campaigns that progress and eventually end and then start anew. It's, personally, a lot more interesting if your empire is actually able to make real gains that contribute toward an ultimate goal. Taking a really hard-fought base one day, and the next seeing it and every other base on the continent taken back, is kind of a drag.


That kind of thing(bolded part) can also happen in WW2OL and any MMOFPS. The difference here(between PS and WW2OL), would be these two :


1) PS doesn't have campaigns and the world reset thing only happens when world domination is achieved, which would normally takes a loooooot longer than WW2OL's campaigns.

2) PS has many indivisual goals, but only one empire-level goal(world domination). One more problem is, the one and only empire-level goal didn't actually have noticeable reward or booty attached to it.

3) In PS, there's no separation between 'small goals' and the 'ultimate goal'. Game mechanics wise, in my thinking, only ultimate goal(world domination) exists, partly due to the fact that each and every locations in the entire game world are constantly used, simultaneously.

[Whalenator]

Also WWIIOL is fucking massive.
(and old)

[stordito]

I think that the lack of winning conditions was not a lack of scope.
On the contrary.
As someone stated you can play arcade shooters alla day long and feel like "now what?" after each match.
On the other end if you have no scope,but a general purpose,you start enjoying all small things like capturing a minor objective,advance under fire,or even flee to regroup,without being obsessed by the final goal.

when you are in planetside you are right there, doing what you can do for your empire, no matter if your K/D ratio stinks or you sacrificed yourself for rushing in a door first.

I think this is very Zen...enjoying the moment,not the goal.

so winning conditions coul exists as long as it does not reset the world or prompt you with a scoreboard.
In the past planetside had his winning conditions we "made up"... like kicking someone out of a cont, something you can accomplish only after some hard work and maybe days of fights...i think that would be sufficient.

[ringring]

No winning conditions in ps? pshaw!

Last night we had a very good fight in annwn. Bought 20-22 from each side TR vs VS. The fighting was tretty tactical, mostly around the core, the farmer building and the roudabout.

And, after about 2.5 hours, we won!

@warborn ... so you fight for a base, you win it and then 'it's a drag' to see someone else win it back later. How much more of a drag is it for it to be reset? Answer, lots.

[Warborn]

That kind of thing(bolded part) can also happen in WW2OL and any MMOFPS. The difference here(between PS and WW2OL), would be these two :

I'm advocating some kind of win condition for Planetside 2, not Planetside 1. This is a new game. It isn't beholden to the flaws and shortcomings of its predecessor.

@warborn ... so you fight for a base, you win it and then 'it's a drag' to see someone else win it back later. How much more of a drag is it for it to be reset? Answer, lots.

In my hypothetical PS2 win scenario the world resets, the characters and outfit don't. It would also be rather satisfying for the winning empire, especially if there are little rewards tied to it. Furthermore, every individual base or tower captured would be more meaningful as you know it's another step on the road to victory. I think these are all positive experiences.

Now, the question that this thread hasn't done anything to answer is why not have a win condition? What does it take away from the game? So far, as is typical for threads where someone suggests the game depart from how things worked in Planetside 1, it's just people providing content-less posts which say nothing more than "no". If you really can't think of any reasons why there shouldn't be any win conditions, beyond "no" or "it's Planetside there should be no win conditions" or the equivalent, it really speaks volumes about how weak and unsupported the contrary position to win conditions is.

[sylphaen]

@Warborn:

Concerning that win condition, when do we reset ?

1. After one empire is eliminated ? (leaving the 2 empires left dissatisfied)
2. After two empires are eliminated ? (which means only 2 factions left for a long time while the 3rd faction stops playing or 4th empires)
3. After an empire controls X% of territory ? (which will make people wonder why the game stops while your empire is on a winning streak)

All those 3 issues have their own problems.

Let's look into other possibilites:
4. After X amount of lives, when an empire reaches 0, a points-based score will determine the winner ? (promotes camping, unoriginal, tasteless)
5. After X amount of days, a points-based score will determine the winner ?
(basically downgrades PS to a large scale round-based game)

The current winning condition I assume will be in PS2:
6. No reset. The dominating empire keeps blocking other empires inside their safe-zones. (until everyone gets bored, this will suck even more if there is a snowball effect for winners)


To be honest, I like none of the above solutions as they kill the game by killing the fight. If anything, playing better than other empires and winning should make winning that extra territory harder, not easier.

There should be diminishing returns from controlled resources once you control more than the other 2 empires. And there should also be mechanics in place to disincentivize double-teaming vs. one empire.

The PS1 population incentives is a good example of an auto-balancing mechanic that promotes even fights.


If you want winning conditions, they should not be end-game based but battle based with screens popping up when a territory hex changes ownership for every player who participated in the battle.

Planetside is a FPS, there is no more game when there is no more battles. No win condition should promote end-game behavior.


If you have a good idea of a win condition, please, share it as I would like to discuss it and haven't been able to find one myself.

I have one idea but it's nothing like the end-game most of the pro-end-game people would imagine. I'll link it a bit later, there was already a thread where I discussed about it with SkyExile a while ago.

[Figment]

"Why is there a need for a win condition?"
-To avoid the situation where you fight and it feels pointless an end up getting sloppy or uncaring about anything other than you getting lots of kills. ie. people dumbing down the 'win condition' to mean nothing but a bodycount tally.

"Is or are there already win conditions in PlanetSide 2?"
- Mission System: missions can be accomplished
- Acquiring bits of territory and resources
- Completely occupying a continent or even the world (is this at all likely?)

"If combat continuous 24/7, can we even have aform of win conditions that feels meaningful?"
Yes and no. No, because battles get reset continuously. But yes, you can declare things like daily winners (like back on PS1), derived from the amount of territory gained on a day, empire kills, etc. You could create some sort of empire efficiency rating for instance based on amount of troops fielded vs terrain gained or lost. In PS2, you could expand this with the amount of resources obtained, missions accomplished and more of that sort of thing.

I would personally love to see the website graphics return that shows the battles of that day per server on a graph. In that sense, I would try to make win conditions less personal (less killstatty relevant), but on a larger scale for the empire. This way, some empire pride should be stimulated, where you want your entire empire to do well.

What I fear though, is that battles will be TOO balanced. Meaning rather than it being impossible to win, it's impossible to lose as well, as too much of the same territory is fought over through threeways. The game should not feel like trenchwarfare where people tire over doing the same thing over and over again and not fighting over territory that's on the other side of the continent, just because it's the farthest away from your empire's local sanctuary.

[NewSith]

"Why is there a need for a win condition?"
-To avoid the situation where you fight and it feels pointless an end up getting sloppy or uncaring about anything other than you getting lots of kills. ie. people dumbing down the 'win condition' to mean nothing but a bodycount tally.


BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

[sylphaen]

BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE!

WHAT VANU DEMANDS, VANU COMMANDS.
:rofl:

[Graywolves]

A de facto win for an empire kills the planetside taste for me.

If one empire never makes a win condition in X amount of time then players might jump ship to other empires simply because they want to win.

As stated in an earlier post, we could probably track resources collected, territory gained, missions accomplished, etc. on the server map thing like in the original Planetside and have the concept of a winner each day.

I think there were a couple times when a CSR would 'reset' Auraxis after a few hours of a world-lock. (could be mistaken)



The idea that it isn't satisfying to take something just to have it taken back a day later seems very lame to me. For starters there are other places to go and in other games you literally have nothing but fighting over a limited amount of maps.

Persistent conquest makes it feel more meaningful for me. Retake ground, defend the home continents, attack their own. If everything just abruptly ended it's like "so what?"

I want that never-ending war for territory.

[sylphaen]

Let me try to summarize a win condition (with an example of a TR victory) that I think could apply to PS.


1. Empires must have even populations (between 32%-34% each)
2. A minimum total of players must be online (to prevent a ghost win when no one is online)
3. Once an empire reaches >40% of global territory control, diminishing returns on resources apply (so that resources remain a limiting factor to all empire, even the dominating empire)
4. TR must control 50% of global territory vs. BOTH empires:
TR 50% / VS 25% / NC 25% is a victory
TR 50% / VS 10% / NC 40% is NOT a victory
(to prevent the gangbang of one empire by playing 66% vs. 33% pops)
5. Once TR reaches victory, all TR players online get a victory merit and some non-combat bonuses while victory conditions are met.
7a. all balance conditions must be met together at least once before a victory can happen (to prevent a ghost victory when everyone is logging back in after the night)
7b. No new victory event can happen until territory control stats even out naturally again. (to prevent another victory event happening when stats shift from 50% to 49% and back to 50%)



With such a system, a victory is so hard to achieve that they should be rare enough to make any proud of being online when it happened:
1. Empire victories are tracked: it should be possible to see when it happened and who made it happen somewhere like the SOE website where they put their stats tracking and Hall of Fame.
2. Empire victories are numbered: e.g. if you helped your empire reach Victory 3, it will show on your character stats screen with date, etc...



Let me know what you think.

[SniperSteve]

I doubt there will be a win condition since the contents are not fully capturable.

[VioletZero]

I think that there should be a win/lose condition that activates on the eve of the game's closure where one side can actually be victorious on each server.

[cellinaire]

I'm advocating some kind of win condition for Planetside 2, not Planetside 1. This is a new game. It isn't beholden to the flaws and shortcomings of its predecessor.



In my hypothetical PS2 win scenario the world resets, the characters and outfit don't. It would also be rather satisfying for the winning empire, especially if there are little rewards tied to it. Furthermore, every individual base or tower captured would be more meaningful as you know it's another step on the road to victory. I think these are all positive experiences.

Now, the question that this thread hasn't done anything to answer is why not have a win condition? What does it take away from the game? So far, as is typical for threads where someone suggests the game depart from how things worked in Planetside 1, it's just people providing content-less posts which say nothing more than "no". If you really can't think of any reasons why there shouldn't be any win conditions, beyond "no" or "it's Planetside there should be no win conditions" or the equivalent, it really speaks volumes about how weak and unsupported the contrary position to win conditions is.

Hehe if I sounded like 'there should be no winning condition in PS2', I'm sorry about that. I just posted my opinions because some people don't seem to put characteristics of MMOFPS genre into consideration ;)