Gameplay: (POLL) Win Condition

[Baneblade]

You should definitely be able to win. After you kill off all the enemies.

[psychobilly]

I'm against the win condition for a couple of reasons. The first is that when you control every hex in a continent, you already have every resource center on the map and that is reward in itself. I don't think you need an xp bump on top of it. The second reason I'm against it is that you would be effectively locking other players out of content. If I want to play on a particular terrain, I should be able to.

[Artimus]

Originally Posted by psychobilly

I'm against the win condition for a couple of reasons. The first is that when you control every hex in a continent, you already have every resource center on the map and that is reward in itself. I don't think you need an xp bump on top of it. The second reason I'm against it is that you would be effectively locking other players out of content. If I want to play on a particular terrain, I should be able to.

Yea but in ps1 that was not always the case you would get locked out of a cont. Even if you wanted to play on it. given there were alot more then 3 to choose from though.

[Talek Krell]

While I'd certainly like there to be some variety and overarching goals, anything that results in a "map reset" is a no go for me. If somebody manages to take over the world then their reward is to reap the benefit of all that captured territory for as long as they can hold it. If I log in next morning and find my empire has been pushed back over the map then I want to know that at least it was because we started losing and not because the game reset.

[Stardouser]

The poll results have been a bit tainted by the suggestion of an xp reward for the victory. The only reward necessary is prestige; and if a good idea for victory can be divined, it's definitely a value added thing.

[Shlomoshun]

I'm very much for a 'win' condition. One of the things that caused my burnout and leaving of PS1 was the pointlessness of it. I'm a casual gamer, so when I log in, I knew that whatever I did (take a tower and then cap a base) would be undone and then done-over several times by the time I logged in again.
Making ultimate goals would make logging and playing a far more dynamic event, cause I'd be part of potentially 'winning' or preventing your side from 'losing'... It's somewhat immersion breaking to have an endless PVP battle when you know it can't actually be won or lost.

[Pollo Jack]

I agree in this case the resource bonus is its own reward but wouldn't be opposed to a tally being kept. Bragging rights should be enough for people with such strong loyalties.

[Blackwolf]

No.

The game was designed for all 3 empires to maintain a status quo. The footholds are unconquerable and will always be that way.

And if you look at it tactically, and have ever played Risk, you'd see why. That last foothold is almost impossible to beat without over WHELMING opposition, and since the conquering hero of the day has 2 footholds to beat, well that over whelming opposition thing just won't happen. And it's easy to see why it would be that much more impossible if you added immortal soldiers to the mix.

[cryosin]

Unfortunately i put a disclaimer, but some people may or may not read. I trust the PS community is intelligent enough to read it.

My win condition was just an idea, but don't use it to answer the poll.

It's basically if you support a win condition or not.

This poll is actually consistent with the PS2 dev team's poll's.

What's interesting though:
Most people posting approve a win condition, yet the poll itself favors no win condition.

I am okay with there not being one, even though i like it. But if majority of players do not want a win condition, it probably won't happen.

[Talek Krell]

Originally Posted by cryosin

What's interesting though:
Most people posting approve a win condition, yet the poll itself favors no win condition.

It's difficult to boil down the issue into a simple poll. I think most people are all for "over-arching" goals, but don't want a "win" condition because "win" is generally synonymous with "reset".

[Carbanu]

How you describe it no.... in fact hell no. Win objectives (short term incentives) are more down the alley of feasibility.

[Toppopia]

The poll should have more options like:

1) Should there be a win condition that resets everything. (Obviously no one would vote for this.)

2) Should there be a temporary win condition like side objectives, that Space Race idea, etc etc that give temporary boosts and bragging rights.

3)Should there be events that appear every so often that either teleport you to an arena or different region to do something, or something that appears in the main game, like zombie invasion or alien invasion.

4) There should be no condition what so ever, all we want to do is shoot eachother until we run out of ammo, then stab eachother till our knives break, then punch eachother.

[onwee]

Taking over a base and owning it a pretty good win condition in my opinion. I feel rewarded enough. Having anything reset is not what this game is about.

[Immigrant]

Win would mean reset... VGN.