A reason to play the objective

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by adamts01, Dec 12, 2019.

  1. adamts01

    The problems with bumping up continent lock awards are snowballing and cutting in to rewards of subscriptions.

    I propose a new NS MBT with two top guns. Yes, it's better than FS MBTs, but it wouldn't be better than a FS MBT and a Lightning.

    Players would want to use this toy but it wouldn't have an overall impact on power because of requiring an additional player.

    Another option could be a Lib with a 4th player controlling a nose gun on the belly.
  2. DarkStarAnubis

    My impression is (hope to be wrong) that there are less and less coordinated groups -big or small- just a plethora of players running around and fighting individually, except for Zergs forming via snowball effect.

    Most (if not all) the directives are based on individual activities.

    What about a directive for "winning so many alerts of type xxx", "locking so many continents" etc ... with some kind of really valuable and unique prize to begin with?

    Same goes for directives solely based on using vehicles (driving, killing etc).
  3. adamts01

    That would work. I just hear nothing but "alerts are pointless", "objectives are pointless". We need stuff to make all these individuals start caring about winning.
  4. TR5L4Y3R

    what matters about "making players care about winning alerts" needs to be the short term success and reward ...
    so what you want is to motivate even the most casual of players to get working torwards winning the alert, getting them to fight for winning or holding territory ... the problem with directives is they require A LOT of timeinvestmeant before they can be reached .. just take a look at most of the weapon directives ... i personaly have yet to complete any weapon directive up to level 4, that´s primarily because you can´t finish the directives up to that level before you finished the other low level subdirectives .. and i´m an on and off player .. i mean think about it the game f.e. for the lmgdirective asks you to unlock 2 lmgs just to complete level 1, then you have to unlock a 3rd and kill with all 3 lmgs for the next, than the same thing with 4 lmgs and so on ..

    adding a directive reward for after winning so and so many alerts or continent locks (and very likely a couple more subdirectives related to that) wont keep me motivated to constantly want to win every alert i get into .. that´s for the most hardcore of veteran players and those with lots of freetime .... .... rather the actions within the alert need to be rewarded, the alert itself needs to be rewarding and preferably not getting old ..
    but it´s not like you don´t get anything from winning or actively participating in a alert ... is it enough though?

    rewardwise what players get on average are certs, iso and decals .. maybe occassionaly an implant and at very rare times a weapon or cosmetic ....
    however there still is the problem of many players logging into the middle or even end of a alert with them getting next to nothing for it ... that already is rather demotivating were i say that there shouldn´t be a directive but rather a reward similar to ribbons from which players can get the respective rewards .. like getting a ammount of overall score for actively participating during alerts ...

    having such a ribbon would take away the concern to have to be logged in for alert early enough and a player can just work on accumalating that ribbonscore either during one alert if he participates from the start and is sufficiently skilled or over the course of participating over multiples of alerts but either way he´s guaranteed a alertrelated and hopefully good reward for completing that ribbon ...

    this would be at least one way to have players be more motivated to actively participate in alerts ..
    of course you could focus the alertscore around actual basebatles and territorycapture/defense than people simply harvesting just cortium that doesn´t help a basepush or defense ...
  5. ZDarkShadowsZ

    I'm probably being rather dense here, but all of what you've stated doesn't really describe something that gives a player a reason to play the objective... unless you mean something besides capturing/defending bases and winning continent lock alerts.

    From what I understand in what you're saying, alert rewards provide XP/resource boosts which cuts into memberships due to the XP bonus they provide, which is true. And all of what you mentioned will add further value to memberships because they'd be getting all of which you've mentioned. However, are you specifically saying this adds value to playing the objective for memberships, or for everyone?

    I ask because to me, adding additional value to memberships will indeed give additional reason to purchase a subscription, but it does not give reason to play the objective. Giving NSO their own MBT with two top guns will only add value in kill potential, but nothing in terms of playing the objective itself.

    The only other objective players can have in that respect, is directive completion, and once it's done, it's done. A player would have to create a brand new NSO character in order to progress with their directive score 'objective'.. but again, it does not improve nor give reason to capture/defend bases, nor push players to play continent lock alerts. This things are just additional features added on top of the objective, but they do not give reason to play it.

    In order to add value and give reason to play the objective, there needs to be a bigger reason than that of to kill.
  6. Smallzz

    ISO is enough of an incentive for players to play the objective. Oh you are "farming"? Cool story brah, I got 300 ISO for the alert win. What's the conversion rate on certs to ISO? Isn't it like 750 certs for 225 ISO on average? So on top of my cert gains, I also get 1k certs worth of ISO for winning? sign me up.

    90% of the people who are cannot be ***** to play the obj because they are "farming" are so terrible at this game that they would probably double their SPH if they just ghost capped bases instead of taking potshots at arms that poke out of spawn rooms.
  7. DarkStarAnubis

    m8, I do not know for sure.

    I have seen lots of continent locks won by a faction while the other two were locked in an endless Biolab fight meat-grinder ignoring what was happening elsewhere, bases were flipped around left and right and nobody was caring.

    Now, this is a design flaw. People will always go for the path of least resistance and if they perceive there is more fun/reward in killing each other in a Biolab as opposed to fight to lock a continent ... Well a game designer has to take matter in his hands and alter this behavior somehow.
    • Up x 1
  8. Smallzz

    Good, you play like a mindless noob you get the rewards of a mindless noob. You want to go farm a biolab for 2 hours while your faction loses the alert? Congrats, you have to buy 750 cert implant bundles to get any ISO, negating any of the "farming" you did to just be on par with someone who plays the obj, and that's only considering ISO. The guy playing the obj got certs too.

    Trying to lead people by the nose and get people to stop mindlessly being farmed *cough*, I mean farming, is how we got stuck with such wonderful additions to the game that are lattice links and the new pop system. Every time DBG has approached the "how do we stop zerging" problem they have only either inconvenienced people who didn't want to zerg in the first place or made the problem worse.

    Let's keep in mind that these are the same folks who took, I believe, four patch cycles to fix jump pads. We're talking about a core integral function of base design that didn't work for months because they improperly implemented NSO, and then instead of just reverting their "fix" and putting us back to where NSO were the only ones who couldn't use jump pads, they left them disabled for everyone. NSO in DBG's limited scope sells membership, the rest of you can get stuffed. They would rather break the game for 600 people in an attempt to make NSO more appealing than introduce QOL features that we all could benefit from. Look at all the new "content" that's being gated behind the NSO paywall. If it's not an attempt to bleed the stone DBG couldn't care less about it.
  9. LordKrelas

    What happens to those Players, playing the Objective, that are on the losing sides?
    Are they noobs then?
    What about the Farmers on the winning side?

    As it's a faction-wide win or lose.

    The Hex system, meant every single cluster of people that wanted to fight, avoided resistance.
    Lattice forces those clusters to actually have to deal with a defensive resistance that isn't instantly dead.

    Imagine being an NC MAX: Your Weaponry is best in-doors, and you cost 450 nanites.
    An NC New-player, on their Heavy-Assault is an Long-range LMG, not built for Capture-Point control.
    These players need Certs - Biolabs are the most reliable place to get certs, from Kills;
    As everyone is in range, without Vehicles nuking them.
    That is why they're in there: it's an infantry fight, that doesn't end from an single ESF or MBT.

    Mean while, if you play to the Objective, for the Alert.
    You don't get anything, cert-wise, or ISO, wise unless your entire faction won: For NC, that is rare as ****.

    Where would they get these Superior Tanks or Even-more Absurd Liberators?
    From Winning? Or from Subs?
    If Subs: Well great, the faction with more of these, will be stronger.

    And it won't benefit objective play - If they're NS-Ops locked, The smaller pop side, will likely brutalize the 2nd-highest pop.
    While those NS basically annihilate enemy vehicles: Which without sunderers or MBTs, the side they target is physically screwed.
    And if that target is NC, then one faction is even less motivated, to not play the Objective for an Impossible chance at winning.

    Maybe increase, rewards for actually capturing points during an alert?
    For fighting in those Alert-Zones that pop up?
    NS needs a tank yes, but not one that goes "I am strictly better, in Killing any Tank I come across"
    As that ensures, the Medium-Pop gets to never win in their lives, as "Low-pop" can execute their entire faction.
    While High-pop then is encouraged to murder Medium-pop, as Low-Pop would exterminate them en-mass as well.
  10. adamts01

    New players need certs and ISO. Some vets need ISO. Current rewards are good enough for most of those guys.

    Salty vets chase directives, so an Alert directive would be catered to those who have no need for game currency.

    Salty vets with enough time for a 2nd continent might enjoy these new vehicles, maybe. Those who will not would either need access to a unique class which is a sidegrade. Maybe a LA with battle rifles or a rocket launcher, med tool, or repair tool instead of a rocklet rifle. Just to spitball.

    These new vehicles would absolutely be better in a 1v1 against their counterpart, but only because of the extra person, who would be more powerful in either a lightning or ESF than as an extra gunner, so while it might be more ISO efficient to run these vehicles, it wouldn't be the most efficient use of manpower. And that's the goal, giving the winning faction something unique that wouldn't give an equal pop faction a real advantage.
  11. JudgeNu

    I am all for incentive for playing objective.
    The problem then becomes Faction stacking which is ALREADY an issue imo.
    Faction is the Meta and the Meta is NOT usually the Objective.
    It seems most have ZERO loyalty to ANY Faction.

    Maybe a different kind of Leaderboard.
    One that promotes Individuals within their Faction doing well.
    The in game Leaderboard we have now seems like it has been broken forever and could be swapped out with something better.

    It is the Individual that seeks Glory and Fame for himself NOT for his Faction.
    On one extreme the KD Farmers on the other the Cert Farmer.
    In between are those who dont realize the Meta is broken, yet.

    Find a way to tie these together you may have a resolution.
    But you may not think my arguments are valid.

    I am not sure if NSO helps or hinders this.
    NSO imo just decays the Faction Loyalty factor even more.

    My 2 Cents.
  12. TR5L4Y3R

    factionloyalty does not matter .. what matters is that the players within the faction (simply the team or side they are on) itself are willing to cooperate ... that however needs tools for comunication from the broadest level across the faction to the smallest detail of a squad .. .. then the participation of players within a squad, within a platoon, within the faction need to get rewarded for truely working toghether ... now rewarding a squad for staying and working together is relatively easy, rewarding a platoon for working together is ... .... .... tough but possible ..... however rewarding squads, platoons and the rest of players of a faction/side? ... how do you do that? how do you define that?
    you could have "commanders" setting up missions, that make sense to accomplish, reward any part of a faction that works torwards (or are at least try) accomplishing that mission, not just a mere attack or reinforcement call ..

    people who simply want to k/d for the sake of k/d you wont convince to do otherwise ...
    neither players who want to cert with the least stress possible ... punishing them is not a solution either ...

    instead rather reward the most active players who are motivated to work toghether and accomplish missions and get the objectives .. but for that the game needs to be fairly ballanced in all aspects of combat that matter torwards these missions and objectives ...
  13. adamts01

    This sounds great but implementation is often detrimental. For example, how do you determine whose playing the objective? Platoons who stack together? That punishes splitting a platoon here and there and promotes zerging. Capping bases? Sometimes the winning strategy is holding the line at a single defensive base for an hour. And if capping bases iuda what matters then zergs would take as much uncontested territory as possible, and likely from the weakest faction. Taking territory from the strongest faction might be a way to do it. Or maybe the way to WI. The alert is stopping one opponent from taking a base from your other enemy. How do you reward that maneuver?

    My point is that trying to reward this and that action is always futile. It's best to skip to the end result of the cumulation of good actions, which is locking the continent. We have enough individual rewards, and enough people who don't care about any current currency, so what's needed is this new carrot on the stick.
  14. JudgeNu

    Maybe zones of influence that are tied to bordering lattice bases.
    50 ft radius around point(s) 200%xp
    200ft radius 100% xp (No Deploy Zone?)
    All on a timer that resets? Just to prevent farm stalemates.
    Maybe after a certain amount of stalemate time, no real progression to points, Base goes neutral, all spawn points, control points, objective points disengaged for a set time.
    Maybe NSO has something to say about it. Idk.

    Just thinking out loud.
  15. Campagne

    In my opinion the idea is heavily flawed, rewarding alert winners through a directive.

    Needless to say, a certain faction is going to get screwed over pretty hard by that. NSO, of course... :p

    But moreso it doesn't solve any of the aforementioned issues. It rewards players for choosing the wining side even if they don't deserve it at all, and collectively punished everyone else. Especially those that do deserve the victory but are deprived of it by others.

    It still encourages zerging and cheesing and all that just like it does now.

    In my opinion, the ideal solution would be to create the alert directive but fill it with objectives independent of victory. Capture X bases during [Alert type], defend Y bases during [Alert type], get [support] service ribbons during [applicable alert], et cetera. Blanket rewards don't encourage playing the objective, they favour just joining the winning team and contributing to massive population imbalances.
    • Up x 1
  16. TR5L4Y3R

    this is what i mean reward players who actively capture and fight, doing stuff relevant to the alert (building and supporting meaningfull pmbs as well) ... not just reward purely winning the alert .. but the actions that lead or may lead to alert victory ..

    when i talk about platoon or squad rewards then i speak about each member of a platoon or squad being active in relevant combat which obviously should be on the borders of and in enemy territory ...

    and yes platoon members should be close to one another, that doesn´t mean the platoon as a whole but it´s groups, and not have single members be spread across the continent just looking for their own fights ...

    if you want to defend a base then it should be one that borders to enemy territory at the least ..
    there NEEDS to be a battle flow in some form ... capturing bases being more risky as well as putting actual aggression on the enemy imho should be more rewarded than just staying passive letting the enemy come to you ..

    this is exacly not what you want to do .. .. if a alert turns out to be already unfavorable players will switch factions .. plain and simple .. this has been the way for years and will continue to do so unless changed ..
    • Up x 1
  17. Alkasirn

    My concerns are:
    - I'm assuming OP meant a continent locked MBT? Either that MBT would be: so weak nobody cares, so balanced nobody would care and just use a "good enough" substitute instead (there's already people figuring you don't need Eisa tech plant to win Esamir so...), or so OP it would snowball
    - Some players are sick of directives. Especially if the directives ask them to help win an alert in a way they don't enjoy helping win an alert. They could easily just ignore it.
    - Some players don't need exp/certs. They've just played enough they don't need them. So it's no incentive.

    So here's an option that probably needs revising:
    - No alert or minor alert ("everyone get a MAX") periods are just chill intermissions where players can do whatever and wind down
    - Major alerts/continent locks allow players to gain a new currency, let's just call it "renown" or whatever for now.

    Renown would only be gained during events that trigger the "Facility captured" and "Facility defended" messages, with these extra rules:
    - If memory serves, the "facility defended" message doesn't appear if there's just one point flipping in a large base; the majority of points have to flip and the attacker has to actually begin capturing for the facility to be considered defended later. If that's not how it works, it should. That's important.
    - Players don't need to be in the captured/defended region when the event triggers. As long as they gained exp during the battle, they'll be eligible for renown.
    - To balance the point above (and prevent players from just dipping their toe into every fight), players receive 0% of the base renown as soon as they enter a battle, and that increases by 0.5% every second they remain in the region until it reaches 100%. (This number starts increasing the moment the player sees the tug-of-war bar and control points on their HUD; they don't need to receive exp to start this counter but they will need to receive exp to get renown when the battle officially ends)
    - Renown received is based off the placement of the previous owner faction, with most points given to the faction in first place. So if VS had 50% territory, NC had 35%, and TR had 15%, then NC/TR would get, say for example, ~45 renown for capturing from VS, but VS/NC would only get ~15 renown for capturing from TR. Successful defenses would give ~30 renown. Hopefully in this example, that would encourage everyone to gang up on VS, who wouldn't benefit significantly from attacking further anyway, and TR could do whatever and be "profitable".
    - PS2 is supposed to be an MMOFPS, so additional renown is received in large fights. Attackers get +5 renown when the game estimates there was a peak of 12-24 defenders at some point during the battle, +10 for 24-48 defenders, etc. Defenders get same benefit based on attackers.
    - And more bonus renown if the facility has more than one control point.
    - Losing the fight (attackers seeing "defended" message or defenders seeing "capture" message) still gives players a portion of the "bonus" renown, but they obviously won't receive the chunk from winning the battle
    - At the end of the alert, all players receive a percent increase in all the renown they received throughout the alert. So, for example, if a player got 1,200 renown and their team came in last place, they might get 120 renown for finishing the alert. Whereas someone who got 800 renown but their team won might get 240 renown for finishing the alert.
    - Of course, All Access members gain 25-50% more renown than other players

    "But hold on, that means people who farm in bio labs with a 2:1 pop advantage won't ever receive renown because the attackers will never have a chance to actually do anything during the alert as long as everyone stays there." Yeah. Good.
    "And wait a second this won't stop people from just zerging a tiny base with 30+ players" Yeah, but some players leaving the bio lab might be attracted to getting ~10 renown for sitting in the spawn of the small base instead, and players who play the objective might find 30v15 odds more favorable than 30v2 odds.
    Basically, the goal is that players who already contribute during alerts shouldn't have to change how they play much at all to start seeing benefits. That's what I'm trying to get at. A way for a computer to look at a fight and evaluate its ~tactical importance~ or whatever pretty accurately even though it'll never understand the context or motivations behind every fight.

    Anyway what's good about a currency that doesn't do anything? So:
    - Throw renown on the leaderboards/API. Get a whole "rate players based on how much they contribute to 'winning' the game" thing going on.
    - Renown could be used as a replacement/addition to the other rewards alerts already give so assuming players would get, on average, about 1,000 renown before the end-of-alert and membership bonuses:
    Remove certs and ISO rewards when alert ends but keep everything else
    Exchange 1,000 renown for, say, 200 certs AND 250 ISO (you'd get both as a bundle)
    Exchange ??? renown for ??? low tier rewards
    Exchange 50,000 renown for an exceptional implant of your choice
    Exchange 75,000 renown for an alert-exclusive weapon of your choice or whatever
    Exchange 100,000 renown for one of those fancy metallic camos that can't be purchased 90% of the time, platinum NS weapons, or whatever

    Eh? Eh?
  18. adamts01

    The "economy" can't be upset by any change. This was emphasized on the last dev stream. These modifiers might be a way to adjust current cert gain, but anything extra we give has to be removed somewhere else. So the only way to more heavily reward good fights would be to lessen individual rewards. I'm not sure we need yet another currency. As for vets, all they get is a new leader board. They don't seem to care about the one we currently have. Maybe because it's so easy to exploit.

    As for that tank balance, maybe imagine a Lightning with two top guns, say two Halberds and an AP canon. That should beat any MBT on the field. But considering the manpower required to run it, I don't think it would be OP. Say your faction didn't have that tank and had to fight them. Those same 3 guys in a 2/2 MBT and a Lightning would beat it every time. It's just like current Libs. Say you had an air squad of 6. It's better to have 3 2/3 Libs than 2 3/3 libs. And even better yet to have 6 ESF.
  19. Scroffel5

    NC on Emerald has a problem playing for the objective. They always play for alerts, and then lose when the big alert comes around. I organized my first platoon, was directing people here and there, asked for help from Command, and they said no and to wait for the alert to finish. That is how NC plays, and it is annoying. We do need incentive.

Share This Page