News: Firing Line PlanetSide 2 Concerns - Page 5

Atheosim · 2012-03-26, 06:07 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Unless they pull another BFR, a couple of implants or attachments shouldn't be appealing enough to switch empires over when you consider that someone decked out in certs will apparently be on par with a day-one character.

Then why would they be appealing enough to care about winning?

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Then why would they be appealing enough to care about winning?

The same reason people care about any other form of progression. Look up "the skinner box", it's why every type of game these days has leveling, unlocks and achievements.

Or you could just watch this (I get the feeling I could be linking this a lot.)

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box

Atheosim · 2012-03-26, 06:40 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

The same reason people care about any other form of progression. Look up "the skinner box", it's why every type of game these days has leveling, unlocks and achievements.

Or you could just watch this (I get the feeling I could be linking this a lot.)

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/the-skinner-box

Well if this is an empire-wide reward then the feelings of being elite are mostly gone. The best skinner box example than I can think of is WoW for unsettlingly obvious reasons. The EGC there is getting better gear, which sets you apart from others, garnering feelings of superiority and exclusiveness.

What do you think about if they're power items?

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 07:00 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Well if this is an empire-wide reward then the feelings of being elite are mostly gone. The best skinner box example than I can think of is WoW for unsettlingly obvious reasons. The EGC there is getting better gear, which sets you apart from others, garnering feelings of superiority and exclusiveness.

No, the skinner box has nothing to do with superiority or exclusiveness. In WoW I guess that's there too, but it's a separate thing. CoD's levelling, unlock and perk system would probably be a better comparison for Planetside 2.

But my point is, the short-term skinner box suggestions so far will still lead to that "my god, did I really spend all that time for that?" feeling mentioned in the video...It lacks meaningfulness in the long-run. So you either need a long-term skinner box, with persistent rewards (my idea above, as an example), or you need to implement narrative/mystery etc. The "other half" of game development.

Mechzz · 2012-03-26, 07:03 AM

Animations
I've been playing some BF:BC2 on PS3 to see what driving/gunning feels like. (Not as bad as I thought or remembered from BF2, is the answer

, although turning and shooting is nigh-on impossible and the maps are too small!)

So I've recently experienced the "no animations" scenario. My own response is that the whine of my M1A2 powering up and getting ready to rock, or the diesely roar of my T-90 is very immersive. It also stops me driving off the second I jump in, so I think it meets many of the requirements that peeps have mentioned.

Do something like that in PS2, and maybe add the HUD doing a flashing lights power-up sequence, and we'll have an excellent replacement for the old animations imo.

Win Conditions
We live in an age where lots of authority figures (Game Development Companies, in this case) are afraid to upset people, so the chances of seeing a "meaningful" victory condition are slim to none. SOE would be just too afraid of the consequences if (e.g.) the NC were to be sanc-locked for 12 hours. Imagine not being able to play your favourite character for a whole session? Same for unlocking better stuff faster. This forum is jam-packed with people who (for good reason) perpetuate the MCG/Lasher/Jackhammer balance debate endlessly across all possible weapon combinations. To be seen to be thinking about giving a NEW weapon to a "victorious" team would be totally unthinkable in the context of the reaction it would get on these and other forums.

Best we can hope for is some variant on the Resource Bonus/Special Item possession/Special Mission ideas various of us have proposed on this debate.

Oh, and the idea of "Battle Honours" mentioned earlier on this thread is a good addition to that set.

Hyncharas · 2012-03-26, 08:08 AM

I do understand a lot of where amirite is coming from, belonging to those who think it's considerably short-sighted of SOE to ditch the vehicle animations. If I'm only part of 10% of players who feel that way, so be it; if I'm part of 50% of players, however, some effort should be made to make it part of an update, where they can decide whether or not their characters plays the animations or not ingame, causing two seconds of invulnerability for the user during entering/existing vehicles. That way some people can be seen doing it and some not, without causing engine hiccups.

I also agree with the position of persistence in the universe. Before the alien race that built Auraxis was a huge part of the fiction and still is, to a degree. But sooner or later, there may need to be the actual appearance of this race in the game, or perhaps whatever becomes of humanity back on Earth after the loss of the wormhole. Otherwise it's just three empires fighting for endless control of a planet, for little or no reason, besides to rank up! I realise that in an MMO an "endgame" cannot exist, but it still can feel like one if there's nothing more to do and the playing experience becomes stale after a year or two.

Now I want to talk about the business model he didn't cover, which I thought was somewhat surprising. What it sounds like is the game will be Free-to-Play once you get it, but will have to be purchased at retail like other titles. There are also suggestions that PS2 is the testbed for what can be done with the Forgelight Engine, before a similar process is used for a possible Everquest 3 project. In such instances I believe that a bi-partisan process - where expansion packs and VIP subscriptions for additional incentives - are key, in order to maintain a flow of revenue and enable funding to be available for the introduction of new features to the engine architecture, so teams continue development of such franchises post-launch. Without these concessions, we may end up with similar fallout during PS1's history, where half the team were effectively sacked and created their own studio...

This CANNOT be allowed to happen with PlanetSide 2.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by Mechzz

Win Conditions
We live in an age where lots of authority figures (Game Development Companies, in this case) are afraid to upset people, so the chances of seeing a "meaningful" victory condition are slim to none. SOE would be just too afraid of the consequences if (e.g.) the NC were to be sanc-locked for 12 hours. Imagine not being able to play your favourite character for a whole session? Same for unlocking better stuff faster. This forum is jam-packed with people who (for good reason) perpetuate the MCG/Lasher/Jackhammer balance debate endlessly across all possible weapon combinations. To be seen to be thinking about giving a NEW weapon to a "victorious" team would be totally unthinkable in the context of the reaction it would get on these and other forums.

The gaming companies are all too quick to allow their vets to be upset as they search for new customers...it's been happening in the Battlefield series as an example to vets in all franchises to beware. If the gaming companies don't want to upset people, it's their new target audience...

Boomzor · 2012-03-26, 09:42 AM

Regarding the "Win"... seriously, it's all in the scale.

I'll use the Battlefied mechanics and the sport of Ice Hockey as a reference.

A map in BF had 4-5 capture points, maby 7-8 in the olden days. When you controlled those and your enemy couldn't take them back within a certain time frame, you "won" the map.

A base in planetside2 wills have a varying number of capture points depending on what kind it is, the bigger facility, the more capture points I'd venture. Guess what happens when you control them and your enemy can't manage to take them back? You gain control of the facility or "win" that part of the continent and get a xp, resource and possibly a tech benefit.

In hockey, if you score more goals during a set time frame than the opponent, you win the match.

Now scale up.

Battlefied is starting to struggle now.
You'd need to string on average 10 maps together got get to the same level Planetside has. BF has no win condition on this level what so ever, except a stats tracker for e-peen wielding, or possible, you could say a clan base league would fit the bill, but that's a construct outside of the game and doesn't involve all players.

PS had Continental locks. Take and hold all bases and you "won" the continent and got a benefit.

In hockey, you have the National Leagues to see how various teams match streaks compare to each other, The Americans would say their team won Stanley cup.

Now scale up.

Planetside had 10 conquerable continents. To get them ALL was extraordinarily rare, but it happened and is talked about in hushed tones of awe and respect.
All hockey has at this point is the plaque on the Stanley cup as a history of who's been wining it lately, and again, it's an outside construct.

What confuses the analogy between PS1 and PS2 is that somewhere along the line, we got tons more of cappable facilities per continent while the over all number of continents decrease, but I'd guess the net number of facilities aren't that different.

Now the question is:

What is a victory for *YOU*?
How big of a scale do YOU need?

It's a bit like screaming for an interstellar spaceship that can bridge galaxy gaps when we haven't figured out how to get to the moon on regular basis yet.

You lack the pesrpective.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 09:46 AM

The best kind of end game or final goal... is one that is not defined by a system, but by the players. When you remember a battle and struggle yourselves for what ever reason it was significant to you all. Konwing that while the game was not "won" that what ever big, glorious battle that just occured had a conclusion even if it was momentary.

It could be a resource pipeline that has been fought over dozen's of time ,but in this moment had a significance that was worth defending/taking. It could be a canyon pass that is essential to supplying reinforcements/stopping the convoy from getting any where near the objective. It could be the biggest, craziest "fur ball" you've ever seen in the skies due to two major flight based outfits having thrown down the gauntlet and go all in against each other in a seemingly random instance.

These unique circumstances that simply happen... are the ultimate form of "end goal". A community inspired, lightly mechanics driven event. The more structure that they allow for /us/ to make it happen, and the less /they/ have to do so... the better it will be in most situations. This is not to say however, they cannot do things at times too, but from their perspective they have to do so neutrally which can be hard based on perception, let alone mechanics.

Kilmoran · 2012-03-26, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Atheosim

Well if this is an empire-wide reward then the feelings of being elite are mostly gone. The best skinner box example than I can think of is WoW for unsettlingly obvious reasons. The EGC there is getting better gear, which sets you apart from others, garnering feelings of superiority and exclusiveness.

What do you think about if they're power items?

For the couple of months before that gear is pointless and you have to go get new gear. To be honest... that idea.. and it's continuation, has shown it's colors. There is little that is satisfying about an endless gear grind that's only purpose is to prepare to get more gear after worknig hard to get the gear necessary for the next gear. It is the definition of treadmill.

Feelnig superior because you got something everyoen will eventually get? Strange... Getting it first... I can understand that.. but that only happens once.. not for millions or hundreds of thousands of players. Some people may be driven by the shiny, but /all/ shiny wears off.

What does not go away, and has been proven to not go away by this very communtiy and others, is experiences. Stories, tales, memories, nostalgia, excitement for the future of all of these. That lives on well beyond the glossiness of their exterior.

Shamrock · 2012-03-26, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by Kilmoran

The best kind of end game or final goal... is one that is not defined by a system, but by the players. When you remember a battle and struggle yourselves for what ever reason it was significant to you all.

Couldn't agree more, some of the best fights I had were sitting defending a final base against the other two factions that were trying to zero base us. Just holding out against the odds felt like victory.

And yes I will miss the animations and really hope they get round to implementing them at a later stage.

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 11:13 AM

Alright, there needs to be some clarification here. Is anyone advocating "win conditions" doing so for any reason other than to make battles more meaningful?

If not, we need to get away from the idea of a win condition. A win condition isn't an incentive to keep playing long-term. A win condition is temporary. Meaningfulness comes in a persistent form.

Stardouser · 2012-03-26, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by Vancha

Alright, there needs to be some clarification here. Is anyone advocating "win conditions" doing so for any reason other than to make battles more meaningful?

If not, we need to get away from the idea of a win condition. A win condition isn't an incentive to keep playing long-term. A win condition is temporary. Meaningfulness comes in a persistent form.

It has always been my vision that winning would take weeks or months. Maybe never if the teams are evenly matched. But the possibility of winning would certainly motivate me to play more, and longer. Both of which would increase sales for the cash shop.

That said, if someone wins once per week, that would get repetitive. Design it so that wins occur 3 times per year or less, and that's different, I'd play hard and often until either we win, or I get tired of trying to influence it, and then a month later I'd pick it up again and go at it full force. For me, I might play hard every night and all weekend for 6 months straight before I quit for a while.

Now, people burning out and quitting for a month or two every so often really cannot be avoided. SOE should know that from their other MMOs.

A win condition is temporary, knowing that you are fighting for something, even though it may never come, that's long term.

Mechzz · 2012-03-26, 11:40 AM

Originally Posted by Shamrock

Couldn't agree more, some of the best fights I had were sitting defending a final base against the other two factions that were trying to zero base us. Just holding out against the odds felt like victory.

This. Is very true for my experience of PS1 also.

What would work for me in terms of a "win condition" is to follow up such an epic fight with a clear empire-wide clarion call to ... insert awesome goal here.... (don't mind what it is, just that the empire gets behind it).

The empires would swing in to action, only to be immediately derailed by whatever wily scheme the other empires come up with, and 3 days later we're still hard at it.....bliss!

Vancha · 2012-03-26, 11:41 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

It has always been my vision that winning would take weeks or months. Maybe never if the teams are evenly matched. But the possibility of winning would certainly motivate me to play more, and longer. Both of which would increase sales for the cash shop.

That said, if someone wins once per week, that would get repetitive. Design it so that wins occur 3 times per year or less, and that's different, I'd play hard and often until either we win, or I get tired of trying to influence it, and then a month later I'd pick it up again and go at it full force. For me, I might play hard every night and all weekend for 6 months straight before I quit for a while.

Now, people burning out and quitting for a month or two every so often really cannot be avoided. SOE should know that from their other MMOs.

A win condition is temporary, knowing that you are fighting for something, even though it may never come, that's long term.

We had what you're talking about. World locks, where an empire captured every base in the game. I'm sure there's someone who stayed subscribed to achieve that, but I think it'd be reasonable to say that for 99% of players, that wasn't something that kept them playing.

Also, what is the "something" you're fighting for? Say you achieved a "win" after 4 months, what meaningfulness would that have to you on the day after? How would that keep you playing?

I know the prospect of a months-long battle is probably exciting to someone who, if I'm not mistaken, still hasn't played Planetside? But if it basically amounts to a four-month-long "round", it won't hold much meaning to anyone.