Why fight for territory? - Page 6

igster · 2012-08-12, 10:31 AM

There is objective based gameplay in there guys. It's quite well hidden with the crazy spawning mechanics at the moment but it is in there.

Try to capture and hold one of the smaller bases or a tower with a small squad. Capture and hold the control point that switches off the spawn in your favour first. Destroy/Use/Fix the spawn room generators.

Then see how long you can hold it.

The spawning mechanisms are really hurting this at the moment but some of the key gameplay elements are in there.

Whe stuff like shield generators and the max spam / instant action spam gets stomped on it will improve.

sagolsun · 2012-08-12, 10:47 AM

Originally Posted by Smed

it's super hard to explain in words how much fun it is to take over a base after a 3 hour pitched battle. Until you've done one people don't get it. They are so used to playing round based FPS games that they can't think outside of that box.

Sure, other games love the use skinner box techniques. I agree, in the end victory in other games of this genre carries no more significance than PS2. In some ways less. And I get what you're implicitly saying here, that there's no actual difference between the separated round-based system of competing games and PS2, and that it's all a matter of viewing the problem from a different perspective.

Originally Posted by Smed

In this case if we make the game good enough (and we most certainly are) people will tell their friends and there will be no barrier to give it a try.

And here's the point - PS2 is beyond round-based games like BF technically, why can't it have an industry-setting innovative metagame as well?

I'm no game designer, but here's the general idea: players get engaged in a game when they become attached to "stuff". That includes players - the community, weapons - the certs, and the world - and here PS2 is lacking. I can see no persistence in the world. There's no playing for keeps in PS2 because in the end you can't lose the fruits of your virtual effort - there's little attachment to the terrain control aspect, at least from my POV.

At the core, what I think is missing, is the ability to gain and lose things of value - on the level of an individual player it's potentially frustrating but on an outfit level it hits right home. Allow outfits to create valuable gameplay elements that can be destroyed. EVE online is a good example with it's non-respawnable ships and starbases. There's actual weight and significance there, even though the game itself has no end goal, like PS2. So much so the game has at the extreme end resulted an unseen before metagame of cloak&dagger activities transcending beyond the game world.

I have a few ideas and are fiddling to get some concept art done in 3ds but without getting an idea of the game, I can't tell if it's relevant.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-08-12, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Harasus

I disagree, I think you are wrong, and I think you should watch a stream from Higby.

Yeah, I wrote up a lot of responses describing my experiences from watching Higby play around, about how it did not feel like that at all, and how it took time and determination to take a base. But screw it, it was easier to just do it like that.

In BF's conquest mode or CoD's Domination mode, they have you capture a few loacations on the map. For every X amount of time you hold those you gain ponits till you get to the goal. Base captures in PS2 are exactly that.

The bases are not set up like forts to hold in PS1, but instead are very open and layed out like a map in BF or CoD. They seem a lot like the caves from PS1, lots of small buildings, and we all know how much people loved those... So, you run around and capture points like BF to fill your ticker and it takes about 10-15 minutes, just like a round in BF. There is no seige, you do not have to break through the walls into the CY, then force your way into the base. Most bases don't even have walls and there is no base to get in, its just all open.

So yes, capturing a base is more like playing a round of BF and almost nothing like playing PS1.

MaxDamage · 2012-08-12, 01:48 PM

The more I read up on Planetside 2 in the forums, the weaker it sounds. Not only are they not expanding on territory capture, to conquer home bases but you can't even lock continents. There is no 'win', and as Higby explains that people just want to login and shoot, his sheep and the apologists wowed by prettier graphics are falling over themselves to agree. This had so much potential, instead of raising the game they're making it meaningless. When did America become Britain under Marxist-themed left wing Labour rule with their 'nobody loses, nobody wins' motto for schools? Surely the Olympics would remind people of the joy in fighting, rooting for your home team and winning. "it's taking part that counts" is what you say to people who tried their best, but who wouldn't if there wasn't something, some goal at the end of this.

There absolutely IS satisfaction in the teamwork it takes to break a continent, holding off both empires and locking it for your team.

There absolutely IS fun in being on the other side of that, the last stand scenario - punishing the masses of enemy insanely outnumbered but from the strength of a well fortified (and doored/gated) stronghold, fighting to the last man, to the last damned broken spawntube.

Hopefully a few people will stick around in the original game, some of us seem destined to return.

Syphus · 2012-08-12, 02:06 PM

I was gonna respond to your comment until I realized you just wanted to rant and talk about apologists and make fun of British people, as opposed to have a real discussion.

Piper · 2012-08-12, 02:38 PM

Because it's better than fighting for bent territory.

MaxDamage · 2012-08-12, 03:14 PM

Originally Posted by Syphus

I was gonna respond to your comment until I realized you just wanted to rant and talk about apologists and make fun of British people, as opposed to have a real discussion.

British people? The Labour party are not 'the British people'.
It's difficult to have a discussion with people who are sycophantic to devs and make excuses for poor choices.

A few choice pseudoquotes:
'I just want to go in game and blow shit up!'
Maybe you do, maybe many of us played the original Planetside which was an escape from mindless fragging; and like more incentive and strategy/goals in game; whilst allowing plenty of room for those who enjoyed the simple things in life (blowing shit up).

'Think about real wars, they don't end do they!'
I can't believe you said this. I am not suggesting we conquer enemies home continents and then spend 20 years debating whether it was morally right, sending in aid packages and financial support for the homeless and installing a puppet regime to suit our needs. Just a goal that should be achievable realistically within a couple of days or a week.

'People used to round based games just want their 'win' addiction satiated'
Really.
I like how this argument is supposed to suggest that random killing, and taking over individual bases for no reason other than taking them over is somehow superior to staging a more complex campaign where you can do all of that, to greater and more satisfying ends (as is possible to a limited but still satisfying degree in planetside 1).

Please think before you type.

You're damned right I want to win.
You're damned right I want glory!

The colour and size of the shoulderpads on your suit should not be the only thing that communicates a semblance of 'progress'.
I know SOE has feminist leanings (female only scholarship programmes) but the vast majority of people who play this game WILL be heterosexual males, we don't want a fashion show; we want bloodshed, glory, strategy, competition, honour (or dishonour if that's your calling) and the ability not only to win, but to stamp your jackboot and flag into the enemy's broken and lifeless forms.

We thrive on this, and it drives us.
Wargames are a healthy alternative to the real thing.

Grow some.

sagolsun · 2012-08-12, 03:22 PM

Originally Posted by MaxDamage

The more I read up on Planetside 2 in the forums, the weaker it sounds. Not only are they not expanding on territory capture, to conquer home bases but you can't even lock continents. There is no 'win', and as Higby explains that people just want to login and shoot, his sheep and the apologists wowed by prettier graphics are falling over themselves to agree. This had so much potential, instead of raising the game they're making it meaningless. When did America become Britain under Marxist-themed left wing Labour rule with their 'nobody loses, nobody wins' motto for schools? Surely the Olympics would remind people of the joy in fighting, rooting for your home team and winning. "it's taking part that counts" is what you say to people who tried their best, but who wouldn't if there wasn't something, some goal at the end of this.

There absolutely IS satisfaction in the teamwork it takes to break a continent, holding off both empires and locking it for your team.

There absolutely IS fun in being on the other side of that, the last stand scenario - punishing the masses of enemy insanely outnumbered but from the strength of a well fortified (and doored/gated) stronghold, fighting to the last man, to the last damned broken spawntube.

Hopefully a few people will stick around in the original game, some of us seem destined to return.

Edit your message, trim the unneccessary whining and remove the inaccurate metaphors please. Under all that emotional venting and offtopic there's an accurate opinion I agree with.

Cheetah · 2012-08-12, 03:31 PM

Yeah, I agree MD, you have a point. Locking an entire continent should be possible for sure. Then give the victors a week of control, extended by a week more if they conquer yet one, so potentially, but extremly rarely, a faction could win it all.

Ruffdog · 2012-08-12, 04:17 PM

Footholds have their work cut out to convince me. I have an open mind but like someone else said, once you've pushed an empire that far back, under what circumstances are you going to stay and warpgate watch, or find the next hotspot?
It seems to me there will be no particular call to respond to a cont under threat because all conts will be under threat all the time. Cont change will be a player/outfit choice. Will have to wait how it plays and with the resources.

RoninOni · 2012-08-12, 04:38 PM

Originally Posted by Boone

I agree. They could even create a "history" on your server. When you look back you can see TR "won" or "owned", however you want to go about it this month and the past few months, then VS really kicked it up in the months of Aug/Sept.

I dunno. Definetely think we need some kind of long term goal. A lot of people are content though with unlocking guns and stuff, but that only lasts til you max out (usually) not very long.

If you're a F2P player, apparently it will take quite long indeed.

They say 3 years to unlock everything (that does include all 3 factions...)

Anyways, when they add seamless continents then whole continent takeovers will become possible.

Watch your surrounding Isles

PhoenixDog · 2012-08-12, 04:48 PM

Trust me, OP...You see a patch note in the beta that says they'll be testing a "Win Condition"....If you can even imagine what a forum riot would look like...It'd be worse with the kind of dedication this community has.

Hell, Higby's already tweeted that they'll be returning to 10-man squads, up from 6. Beta was what...2 days old? A win condition is much much worse than 6 man squads. They had planned from the beginning to have 6-man squads, and build a lot of mechanics around 6 people (Galaxies and Sunderers holding 12 for example).

sagolsun · 2012-08-12, 05:03 PM

Originally Posted by PhoenixDog

Trust me, OP...You see a patch note in the beta that says they'll be testing a "Win Condition"....If you can even imagine what a forum riot would look like...It'd be worse with the kind of dedication this community has.

Hell, Higby's already tweeted that they'll be returning to 10-man squads, up from 6. Beta was what...2 days old? A win condition is much much worse than 6 man squads. They had planned from the beginning to have 6-man squads, and build a lot of mechanics around 6 people (Galaxies and Sunderers holding 12 for example).

Read this please:

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2008...netside-the-1/

It appears that other PS1 veterans are disagreeing with you there. They're claiming the locked sanctuary bug, essentially a win condition, turned out to be the most epic, unforgettable and momentous event of the game. It even led to a temporary NC/VS alliance.

Bamelin · 2012-08-12, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by RoninOni

No....

There's 3 continents (at launch)

If you're faction takes a continent... well, all but the landing zone hexes... then your faction holds that continent.

You've still got 2 more continents to fight over. AND at ANY TIME OF DAY another faction can storm the landing zone and start trying to occupy territories... UP TO NEARLY 700 OF THEM... oh no... it's NEVER over.

I mean... is this next generation so spoon fed fake digital "rewards" that they need some superficial video game victory screen to feel good about their gaming session?

THE POINT OF THE GAME IS THE GAME ITSELF

To that end holding territory increases your Factions resource generation... allowing your faction to field MORE tanks, buy MORE weapons & Accessories, and run with Implant upgrades more often.

How is that not incentive to gain and hold territory?

bloody hell.

Taking a major base in the game I think is also going to be a big deal requiring massive coordination between outfits ... with a real sense if having "won" at least that battle.

XxAxMayxX · 2012-08-12, 05:53 PM

for every territory there are new resources and since the game is going 24 7 its really impressive to see an entire continent taken by u.