Planetside 2

[Malakili]

They have games for that style, they are called every non-MMO FPS ever made. 

No, not what I'm talking about.  Given your response, seems like you aren't interested in what I'm talking about, so I'll save myself the effort.

Now what I want is to have absolute control over how much time I actually spend in the game.  I also don't want to be significantly penalized if I can't spend more than an hour a day in the game.  I want to get in and play, and I want to have very little downtime.

...

get me to the combat right now, I don't care about what I'm fighting for, I'm rewarded for completing objectives, and win or lose, I'm off to the next battle within 10 minutes

That really is pretty much non-MMO shooters.  The difference I guess is scale, but nothing you say seems to indicate that actually matters to you.  The Mercs/Loyalists thing makes sense and could work, but realistically speaking, what is it about the MMO FPS that is appealing to you, since basically everything you want can be attained in dozens of games that already exist?

[LK]

Planetside adding in an EVE-esque resource and crafting structure would be an extremely difficult task and is highly likely not to work.

Near-infinte resources were one of the critical elements that made Planetside what it was and kept battles going as long as they were. All the game had *were* the battles. Sieges happened and kept prolonged battles going because it was hella impossible to drain a base's energy and choke points could be defended with it extremely favoring the defender. Just thinking of the mobile spawn points requiring crafting materials, and possibly forcing one side (are you implying that outfits would be out for themselves instead of their nation? The nations orders were pretty clear: capture and fight. You want Wild West meets Planetside, as the current theme wouldn't work at all) to never be able to advance upon a position because of logistics instead of making them only think of the strategic placement of a mobile spawn point and taking it from there.

Then again... isn't that what Global Agenda is doing? And not so hot at?

In war... should a soldier *care* about where their resources come from, as long as they keep coming? It's the commanders that need to be looking at resources at global strategy. Not everyone can be a commander.

[LK]

That really is pretty much non-MMO shooters.  The difference I guess is scale, but nothing you say seems to indicate that actually matters to you.  The Mercs/Loyalists thing makes sense and could work, but realistically speaking, what is it about the MMO FPS that is appealing to you, since basically everything you want can be attained in dozens of games that already exist?

Planetside even had that. Jump to Skirmish. You'd end up in the middle of a battle, doing your own thing, and not really helping anyone else but yourself.

Look, you want that Typhon, you're best served just playing single player games that don't have teammates. If you join a team, your responsibility to the team is to care about the game and the team enough to be good, or at least follow orders. You can play as long or as little as you want and your teammates won't care because they aren't human.

Don't expect other people who take the game seriously to be so kind to your desired playing habits.

[Malakili]

In war... should a soldier *care* about where their resources come from, as long as they keep coming? It's the commanders that need to be looking at resources at global strategy. Not everyone can be a commander.

This is another one of the things WW2O does really well.  There is a player run high command that controls the strategic aspect of the game.  Moving brigades in and our of towns, managing supply lines, giving and revoking attack orders on objectives.  Its an absolutely vital part of the game, but the average person can just hop in, find the hottest town and fight if they want.  Meanwhile, more organized squads can work on more complex tasks if they want to (organizing attacks on forward bases away from main battles in order to set up more long term favorable map conditions, for example).

it is definitely possible to run a brigade out of soldiers in WW2O though, and its a viable strategy sometimes to try and attack a town with an armored brigade deployed there with the express purpose of trying to deplete their armor reserves, setting up for a later victory rather than an immediate one.  The respawn mechanics mean that a brigade is always getting replenished and never totally out of commision for more than a few hours, but attrition is an important consideration.

Its definitely possible to keep those strategic mechanics in place while not making the average player have to fiddle with it or care too much about it, and the overall impact is, I think, pretty positive.

[Speedy Cerviche]

I think the system I mentioned in my post earlier today most resembles WAR's guild level up system, where by achieving new levels you unlocked nifty things that were cool but not essential, and guilds could claim ownership in keeps and upgrade them.

You obviously don't want resource control at the level of EvE, nor a national strategic command at the same level as WW2OL, but there is some merit in these systems. You can have certain bases be production or resource centres that not just go into the general faction resource pool but enable special resources/unlocks for outfits that control them.

if you want to encourage gigantic outfits that hoover up newbies, you can make outfits give pyramid bonuses like Asheron's Call guilds. The outfit's high command gets a cut of kills/captures, and the better the high command is at organizing and leading, the more successful and better equipped members will be.

There's obviously a limit of what victory can be, it's bread and butter is still the FPS crowd who are looking for something more epic than TF2 or CoD. Outfits could build up a faction headquarters into an impregnable fortress (that could be raided), they could gain blueprints and then acquire rare resources to produce unique vehicles, not necessarily overpowered ones, but COOL ones. Crazy spider tanks, mega tanks, teleportation networks, ninjas, flying saucers, tactical nukes, etc. This would give players a sense of team purpose, but not some kind of vulgar levels = power equation that would change it from a pure MMOFPS into a poopsock levelling game.

[Kageru]

That really is pretty much non-MMO shooters.  The difference I guess is scale, but nothing you say seems to indicate that actually matters to you.  The Mercs/Loyalists thing makes sense and could work, but realistically speaking, what is it about the MMO FPS that is appealing to you, since basically everything you want can be attained in dozens of games that already exist?

You're missing the point. The free FPS games do not have persistent factions that have strategic objectives.

And I agree that the hybrid model sounds like the ideal solution (and I think World of Tanks has something like this? Possibly even Eve's Dust). Let the dedicated, subscription paying poopsockers build and protect their virtual empires. In a battle they can choose to expend resources on opening up "mercenary" slots which get randomly filled. Those slots get filled by people who are interested in the battle elements of the game but not in the tying themselves down to CTA's and alliance politics.
 
Though for Planetside I tend to agree with whoever it was who identified the importance of the subscription fee. In a market where there are viable free competitors you probably can't expect 15$ a month subs to retain a large subscriber base unless your game really is just insanely better. Something APB and GA also got wrong and which WoT seems to have a more sensible approach too.

[Malakili]

That really is pretty much non-MMO shooters.  The difference I guess is scale, but nothing you say seems to indicate that actually matters to you.  The Mercs/Loyalists thing makes sense and could work, but realistically speaking, what is it about the MMO FPS that is appealing to you, since basically everything you want can be attained in dozens of games that already exist?

You're missing the point. The free FPS games do not have persistent factions that have strategic objectives.

I guess I don't see the point of caring about strategic objectives if all your want to do is get in and fight and get out.  Typhon specficially said he didn't care what he was fighting for.

[Kageru]

The strategic layer gives the battles a narrative which is lacking from the disconnected rounds of the free shooters. So when people recount the series of battles in which an empire collapsed you could still have been part of those battles. Not as connected as those in the alliance, but also without the tedium and commitment required to be a dedicated alliance member (shit like mandatory ops and alliance politics probably being the big two).

Besides, you need the strategic layer if there's any chance of charging subs. And you need some space for the casuals to inhabit if you want to be non-niche.

[Mrbloodworth]

I don't think anyone is under the illusion that Planetside 2 will have a subscription. It just won't happen. Also, you guys should really stop talking about GA as if its dead. Its alive and well, and doing great, has even spawned a new title based on its findings and tech. Still a solid fun game. The measured approach they took really paid off, hopefully SOE was watching.

[Ghambit]

I will flat out not play PS2 if there's no strat. layer.  Not interested in a bland insta-pwn pointless map treadmill that's little more than bloated 2142.  "Full of sound and fury, signifiying nothing."
As MBW says, may as well play GA if that's your game...  which I might just do sometime soon if/when I can find the time.  Heh, and I was the one that got us into the GA Alpha.... and I never play the damned thing.   

[Kageru]

I stated that GA failed as a subscription based game, which it unarguably did... though not quite as explosively as APB. Both games would have done much better if they'd based their model around free to play from the start.

[LK]

You're implying that there were competent people behind APB that spent the appropriate amount of time analyzing the market and simply made a bad judgement call.

Far more was fucked up with Realtime then just the guys who were responsible for coming up with a sustainable business model.

[Kageru]

I apologize for any implied suggestion I thought RTW were competent :)

Nor are they great evidence on that basis. But it still is true that all the example of persistent FPS games have had real issues demonstrating enough value to justify a subscription. Whereas the format is perfect for micro-transactions.

For that matter I forgot crimecraft... but it's an easy one to forget.

[Malakili]

How would a good microtransactions system work?  The last thing I want in an FPS is someone to be able to buy their way to victory.

[Kageru]

Who knows? It's not like there is one answer. That's going to be a balancing act between how much money you need to be bringing in. If you can survive on vanity items and selling new content I'm sure they'd like to. If not they can provide short cuts to normal progression, more variety in game-play options and at the extreme end force free to play people to realize they're the grunts rather than the stars on the battlefield.

But it gives a lot more flexibility than demanding 15$ a month unless your strategic layer is so deep and fun that the sub-free FPS games don't count as competition.

[Lantyssa]

Bling, vanity, and club houses.

[Ghambit]

Had APB had a strat. layer (as was discussed long ago in RTW's design notes), would it have failed?

[LK]

APB and GTA types are about as far as you can get from Planetside style. Its problems were numerous and one fix is only a band-aid on the multiple gaping wounds and dismemberment that was the product's health at launch.

[Lantyssa]

Had APB had a strat. layer (as was discussed long ago in RTW's design notes), would it have failed?

Did this strat. layer include going microtrans instead of bizzaro-subscription?

[UnSub]

Had APB had a strat. layer (as was discussed long ago in RTW's design notes), would it have failed?

Yes. APB didn't fail because it was a bad game, it failed because no-one watched the development budget.

EDIT: Removing the business failure of RTW from the mix: APB really did something greater than just individual battles between two sides. There was nothing to really 'win', nothing to fight over.

[Mrbloodworth]

Had APB had a strat. layer (as was discussed long ago in RTW's design notes), would it have failed?

Yes.

Becouse most of that games problems was money management, as far as fixing/finishing the game.

[Typhon]

That really is pretty much non-MMO shooters.  The difference I guess is scale, but nothing you say seems to indicate that actually matters to you.  The Mercs/Loyalists thing makes sense and could work, but realistically speaking, what is it about the MMO FPS that is appealing to you, since basically everything you want can be attained in dozens of games that already exist?

(holidays got in the way of me responding)

What appeals to me about it being MMO, is that the the game would evolve based upon the strategic conflicts the loyalists had with other loyalist factions, rather than some tired plot line that I would be forced to watch cut scenes.  But, I want the game itself to have merc built-in - as a merc I want to be able to join an arena-type conflict anytime I log in.

I'd like that the loyalists would look to contract a merc outfit to augment their numbers.  This wouldn't be arena combat, this would be full on MMO combat (potentially asymmetric, need to hit on multiple fronts, attrition, reinforcements, etc).

I want my cake (instanced arenas) and eat it too (get a contract from a loyalist faction to engage in conflict intended to secure land).  The idea is that the merc experience should appeal to the casual player, and the loyalist experience would appeal to the more dedicated player.

[Sky]

War isn't fair. *Good games are.* Planetside and games like it aren't destined to last.

There is a cheesy RIFT pvp guild, one of their more outspoken tards recently compared themselves to the viet cong. Seriously.

That's why wargames in general break down, there are people who see them as games and then there are those who see them as war. So you get griefing, cheating, etc.

[Malakili]

War isn't fair. *Good games are.* Planetside and games like it aren't destined to last.

There is a cheesy RIFT pvp guild, one of their more outspoken tards recently compared themselves to the viet cong. Seriously.

That's why wargames in general break down, there are people who see them as games and then there are those who see them as war. So you get griefing, cheating, etc.

I think the problem comes when games don't know what they are, or try to be many things at once.  No one REALLY thinks Rift is a wargame, ok some people do, but its obviously not.  Throwing in open world PvP server types is fine, but maybe just make it so you can't grief kill NPCs or something on a PvE server. 

Something like WW2O is clearly a war, and everyone knows it, and it has mechanics to make it function as such.   Even something like Darkfall has city siege mechanics and EVE Online has a war dec system, so while they aren't ONLY war games, they have mechanics that let people play that way within some coherent system.  Its when you go all free for all PvP when the game really isn't designed for it that problems arise because there can really be no resolution, so its just of a mess.

[Lantyssa]

That's not really Sky's point though.

Some people treat PvP as if it were a real war, regardless of mechanics.  Those people will use whatever means are available to harass other players, and that is where the problems happen.  If a game has PvP at all, they'll find a way to abuse it.

[Malakili]

That's not really Sky's point though.

Some people treat PvP as if it were a real war, regardless of mechanics.  Those people will use whatever means are available to harass other players, and that is where the problems happen.  If a game has PvP at all, they'll find a way to abuse it.

Right, but if the game treats PvP as if it were a real war, those situations actually arise a lot less I think. For example, its impossible to grief in WW2O, it IS possible to grief in EVE or Darkfall - but since you aren't dealing with run back mechanics like WoW for example you'll never get corpse camped.

 I mean sure, there are people who will grief no matter what, he'll they'll grief their own side, but that doesn't strike me as as the same thing.  Perhaps its a definition thing.  What is our definition of abuse?  Something like corpse camping is, something like repeatedly killing quest NPCs is.  But I don't think just ganking someone is (especially considering PvP is voluntary in a game like Rift specifically).   In a game like planetside, is acting like the vietcong like that Rift guild abuse?  I don't think so.

[Mrbloodworth]

When did PvP become about making sure no one is injured or everyone is guaranteed to advance?

[shiznitz]

I agree with blood that the k/d ratio definitely pushed the game in the wrong direction, but by the time they implemented that, it was mostly hardcores anyway so the developers were just giving the remaining players what they wanted.  I thought PS balanced soloing and group play pretty well. The biggest issue I had was that Gunuku was always Gunuku.  The maps need to change often and terrain should be destructible.  Let players dig and build on the battlefield. The map resets/refreshes every 2 weeks. That kind of stuff.

[UnSub]

When did PvP become about making sure no one is injured or everyone is guaranteed to advance?

When developers decided that getting a regular pay cheque was more important than theorycrafting.

[Typhon]

When did PvP become about making sure no one is injured or everyone is guaranteed to advance?

When developers decided that getting a regular pay cheque was more important than theorycrafting.

I typed out, "when development houses desire for continued existence crushed the fantasy that was 'The Vision'", but decided that MrBW was just trolling.

[Slayerik]

When did PvP become about making sure no one is injured or everyone is guaranteed to advance?

Just like in kid's competition these days, everyone gets a trophy!

[Ratman_tf]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

[Nebu]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

If you're not first, you're last!

[Malakili]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

Because the game is worth playing for its own sake...hypothetically.  Seriously, why did anyone ever play any game before these progression treadmills caught on?  Because we actually enjoyed it!

[Ingmar]

If you don't get thrown a bone for losing, why participate? Especially when there's competition who do give out 2nd place prizes?

Because the game is worth playing for its own sake...hypothetically.  Seriously, why did anyone ever play any game before these progression treadmills caught on?  Because we actually enjoyed it!

That's all well and good until the people who win get rewarded with things that make them win more.