Whats the purpose in this game? - Page 4

Raymac · 2012-05-03, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Gandhi

That had nothing to do with the cont lock mechanic, that came down to simple 15 minute hack timers. If the other 2 empires in Planetside 2 just up and left one continent for the others then wouldn't you be facing the same 1 hour downtime to capture all that territory?

It actually had everything to do with the cont lock mechanic. If you are eventually going to get locked out of an area, why stick around? Removing the mechanic of locking players out of a certain area increases the incentive to remain in an area where you are outnumbered. If you know you arn't going to get locked out, you are more inclined to stay.

All of us have Planetside War Stories where we fought against overwhelming odds. They are great moments and shouldn't be discouraged by locking people out.

Maybe we can talk about continent locks once we have 10-15 continents to fight over in order to consolodate the players, but with only 3, it's a terrible idea. I don't know how people can't see that.

The Kush · 2012-05-03, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

Yea, you replied while i did (i type slow) Capping servers will probably be needed at launch so people will have the option to move around more. I still think they need more than 3 conts, that is just way too low.

Everyone including the PS team wants to make more conts. Clearly you haven't done your research or you would know that 3 is all they could do as of now. As they have already stated, the amount of thought and detail they have put into these enormous maps takes a LOT of time. And I personally prefer them to keep taking their time then rush and put out some shit conts.

PS Higby said in a an interview they hope to remake some old fan favorites like Cy

FINALCUT · 2012-05-03, 01:12 PM

I think the purpose of the game is to kill anyone not wearing Blue and Gold. All that matters to me.

Physed · 2012-05-03, 01:40 PM

I would suggest adding some PvE content to help players feel like they're part of the storyline. Perhaps some instanced combat that allows large outfits to gather up on certain nights and attempt to kill very large, difficult enemies. And make sure the enemy AI is scripted so that players can study the right way to play the hokey-pokey instead of having any type of skill and hand-eye coordination.

And if the 25-40 players manage to kill that big tough enemy, have him drop a shotgun that does one more point of damage than any others. Every few months you just have to add a new enemy that drops a shotgun that does ONE MORE point of damage. I know it's untested, but I bet this model could keep players interested for at least a few years. Probably something to do with Stockholm Syndrome..

Ah! I just had a great thought: Make those AI enemies into giant robots. I know there's not enough time to get this in there for launch, but your first expansion should definitely have giant robots.

Or dragons.

Your call.

aceshigh · 2012-05-03, 01:43 PM

Originally Posted by Physed

I would suggest adding some PvE content to help players feel like they're part of the storyline. Perhaps some instanced combat that allows large outfits to gather up on certain nights and attempt to kill very large, difficult enemies. And make sure the enemy AI is scripted so that players can study the right way to play the hokey-pokey instead of having any type of skill and hand-eye coordination.

And if the 25-40 players manage to kill that big tough enemy, have him drop a shotgun that does one more point of damage than any others. Every few months you just have to add a new enemy that drops a shotgun that does ONE MORE point of damage. I know it's untested, but I bet this model could keep players interested for at least a few years. Probably something to do with Stockholm Syndrome..

Ah! I just had a great thought: Make those AI enemies into giant robots. I know there's not enough time to get this in there for launch, but your first expansion should definitely have giant robots.

Or dragons.

Your call.

Bravo!

Levente · 2012-05-03, 01:52 PM

Originally Posted by CuddlyChud

I don't think capturing conts was necessarily the purpose of PS1 either. There was a large chunk of the player base that just wanted "the good fight." If you only had 30 minutes or an hour to play, capping bases in PS1 was the point. You would never be around long enough to cap the continent.

Also, I think that people are really underestimating resources. The devs keep insisting that they are going to be an important part of the strategy and purpose of the game, and people keep ignoring them.

yes but even though maybe u wanted only a "good fight" like you say, you still had that sense in your head that....all right with this 30 min of good fight im surely will make a progress of capturing that continent with my team later on.

Gandhi · 2012-05-03, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

It actually had everything to do with the cont lock mechanic. If you are eventually going to get locked out of an area, why stick around? Removing the mechanic of locking players out of a certain area increases the incentive to remain in an area where you are outnumbered. If you know you arn't going to get locked out, you are more inclined to stay.

I don't agree with that. Most of the time if you were heavily outnumbered on a continent it was because the third empire was attacking you somewhere else, and that somewhere else was deemed more important. Most would move to that somewhere else, and a few would stay behind for the against all odds fights. I don't see how that would have changed if cont locks were removed, if anything it would encourage more people to leave since they know they could always come back later and have a starting point with full respawn and vehicle facilities.

Maybe we can talk about continent locks once we have 10-15 continents to fight over in order to consolodate the players, but with only 3, it's a terrible idea. I don't know how people can't see that.

This I agree with, 3 continents is not enough for locks. But I hope the permanent footholds are reconsidered somewhere down the line, it might even be nice to get an inter-continental lattice system back that would give a bonus to the capture time of certain territories on a locked continent.

Mod · 2012-05-03, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

But it IS different. Yes in PS1 they always had a link from the sanc, but when you won the cont they lost all spawns there and got booted back to sanc and usually went somewhere else. Now with only 3 conts, if server pops are high enough, they will get stuck on that cont. You can either camp there WG or let them out cause they are stuck fighting on that cont.

I would imagine that an NC warpgate on one continent would be linked to the NC warpgate on one or both of the other continents, so that shouldn't be an issue either as people can just jump between the continents as they wish.

And well, if a faction is trapped in their warpgate on all continents then I think there is probably a larger problem with the game...

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-05-03, 02:27 PM

Originally Posted by The Kush

Everyone including the PS team wants to make more conts. Clearly you haven't done your research or you would know that 3 is all they could do as of now. As they have already stated, the amount of thought and detail they have put into these enormous maps takes a LOT of time. And I personally prefer them to keep taking their time then rush and put out some shit conts.

PS Higby said in a an interview they hope to remake some old fan favorites like Cy

I'm well aware they will continue to make conts after launch. However with only 3 conts at launch, at prime time I fear every cont will be a 3-way stalemate. Those fights suck, which can make a very bad first impression for many.

I don't want this game delayed anymore than it has been, but I think it might almost be worth it to wait till they can get at least 5-6 conts for launch. You need unused lands to allow people to move around and get new fights when the current options suck. The previously mention server cap could help with this.

DOUBLEXBAUGH · 2012-05-03, 02:31 PM

Originally Posted by Mod

I would imagine that an NC warpgate on one continent would be linked to the NC warpgate on one or both of the other continents, so that shouldn't be an issue either as people can just jump between the continents as they wish.

And well, if a faction is trapped in their warpgate on all continents then I think there is probably a larger problem with the game...

If the other 2 conts are poplocked, they are stuck on the third. So you either camp them at their WG or let them out.

headcrab13 · 2012-05-03, 02:57 PM

I think we as a community sometimes forget that we haven't even seen all that PS2 has to offer. It's somewhat silly to argue over the "goal" or "win condition" of the game when we have little idea of how the resource gathering, missions, pace, and strategy will work.

Threads like this are sort of a waste of time now, but will become more valuable during beta.

Xyntech · 2012-05-03, 03:05 PM

I get what headcrab is saying though, and I agree with him for the most part. Some of these threads are more valuable for kicking around ideas right now, some are far more dependent on actually seeing how the new systems work in PS2.

I don't think these threads are totally worthless to have right now, especially to pass the time and shoot the shit, but they will be a lot more important during beta when we are talking about our actual experience.

We just need to keep some perspective and not claim the sky to be falling about game mechanics that we haven't actually tried yet.

Graywolves · 2012-05-03, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

I can foresee TR claiming a continent for a week and refusing to fight anywhere else except that continent, and just preventing any other empire from leaving the footholds.

Read my mind.

BorisBlade · 2012-05-03, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by headcrab13

Though there will be many new things to do besides just capping continents, you'll still be able to take over a continent in PS2. I suspect the satisfaction will come from pushing your enemy all the way back to their foothold until they're virtually forced to leave.

They won't truly be "locked out" of the continent, but the bulk of their forces will give up and move elsewhere, which is just as much of a win in my book.

They've already said that this scenario will rarely if ever happen. Stuff is designed so that you cant really take the cont. Actually thats the problem. There no longer is a win scenario. They will most likely have some lame and stupid meaningless resource number and whoever has the most wins. Sounds stupid in my book. Esp when you consider the different types of resources means you may give up total count to get the more important ones and lose number wise but play smarter strategically.

Just playing for a number feels hollow and meaningless, i could really care less. Capping physical territory and bases and taking an entire cont worked well for so many other reasons as well that a lazily designed system thats just a number doesnt even remotely do. One complaint in ps1 was no "win" scenario, although capping a cont effectively was that. PS2 as currently designed, doesnt even have that. They seem to have went backwards on this aspect of PS1 as well. The lazy resource count as a win feels much like the other simplistic and boring changes that make it feel like some cheap deathmatch game of BF or CoD rather than PS.

I seriously hope there is somethin more meaningful than a lame number to count as a win.

Kipper · 2012-05-03, 04:16 PM

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I seriously hope there is somethin more meaningful than a lame number to count as a win.

What, like the number of hexes you captured/hold?

Seriously, what utter tosh. We don't know that much about the strategy side yet, suffice to say that using phases like "as currently designed" unless you know something everyone else doesn't - is misleading.