Farmville comes to Planetside

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by MikeyGeeMan, Dec 29, 2014.

  1. cykael

    People that play CS play it because it's a competitive game. The competition, your rank and bragging rights are what drive the game. Even if the game is good in itself it has a purpose. It's been like this since early days, the entire point of competitive multiplayer games is to strive to become better than others while having fun.

    People have found their "purpose" in PS2, it's the statjerking. Like it or not stats tell quite well what kind of player you are even if some stats can be padded (more than others). Different people value different stats but I believe most people who play the game for longer time pay attention to their stats even if only for self-improvement. This is why the high end playerbase even bothers playing the game anymore afaik.

    The issue with PS2 is the playerbase focuses too much on personal skill. Since you used CS as an example I'm going to stay with it. In CS personal skill is obviously incredibly important yet people don't jerk around personal stats that much because winning the game is much more important. The game needs somekind of competitive incentive for elite outfits to play for the objective and above everything to face against each other on live instead of just farming constantly worse players together. This could be done by giving out rewards for most accomplished outfits, somekind of ranking being tracked when outfits face against each other in a hex, etc. There's multiple ways to promote teamplay but increasing xp gain is definitely not one of them.
  2. Xasapis

    Perhaps, but people want progression, even on shooters. Even if they will reset it and start over and over again.

    Btw, one of the most appealing features of the dasanfall stat site is not the weapon breakdown, but the BR level that extends beyond 100.
  3. Halo572

    Excellent question. Unfortunately in the context of which you speak - being TDM in tiny maps in a big map - I have no way of relating these concepts.

    They exist in quality gaming titles where the player is gaining more for their time input than just buffing their 3p33n and telling others that their feeble intellect cannot comprehend the complexity and depth of gameplay that they can see with their deity level mental abilities.

    The complexity and depth of which is never actually explained because either a) the listener's brain cannot cope with such advanced levels of understanding, b) there is nothing more to see than TDM in tiny maps in a big map and the explainer is so deluded they aren't even in the same reality as the listener.

    I'll go away and try to think of a chess based analogy, being as PS2 is the successor of chess this should work very well when formulated.

    The problem is though, trying to fit the complexity and strategy of PS2 into an analogy based on such a simple and child like game. That is going to be some effort.
  4. Konstantinn

    I personally disagree with you there. I played CS (PS1 and PS2 also) for years because it was/is fun, not to compare stats. I don't even know if original CS or CS Source had overall statistics like PS2 does on website. No idea who were the elite players in CS, no idea if I ever played with or against them. I joined random servers and had fun playing without joining any clan, round after round. Planetside, particularly PS2, is slightly different because of outfits and playing with same group of people. Better in my opinion, more personal investment for me. From time to time I admit looking at my own stats, but it's pretty rare, and by no means the primary goal for playing.

    Instead of disarming bomb or freeing hostages, in PS2, each round is more about the time when I was logged in "Did I help take enemy bases? Did I move the map? Did I make it more difficult for other team to take over my bases?". It's much more difficult to measure progress in PS2, because at a time when I was capturing base with my outfit we may have lost another somewhere else. There is no score screen at the end saying "You clearly won or lost today". Yet I've been playing since game's release, and it's still fun. Even alerts have a winner, but not loser. Loss is shared between 2 teams, each can conveniently blame it on other.

    There's no need for that "competitive incentive", it's conveniently blurred in a game of this scale. I can't blame myself personally for losing a battle where 191 other person was involved. I can't even blame my outfit because it's just 1 platoon maybe 2 in grand scheme of things doesn't really matter that much. I find this blur to be convenient, I don't see a need for clear winner or loser for the play session, nor do I ever look up stats of people in my outfit to see how I measured up to them for that day.
  5. Milspec

    Well, "sniping infiltrator" is already an invalid class, because what the hell are you infiltrating if you're outside the base sniping?That's just someone on the dev team geeking out over HOW COOL AN INVISIBLE SNIPER WOULD BE!! and ignoring all balance issues and negative feedback about it. What's next, sharks with friggin laser beams? lol.

    Re skyguarding and other activities which occur outside of the base, I would say the objective system would fix that, provided players could select the objective they are working towards. So there could be ways to work out the problems.

    But I was just throwing an idea off the top of my head, so I'm not really up for planting a flag on Forumside for it.
  6. Metalsheep

    At some point in PS1s history, they modified the XP gained by kills. Most kills on an average player were about 300-500XP and Kills on players who were alive for long periods or in vehicles could hit 2000XP. The cap for XP gained for getting bases was about 2,500xp. 2 Good kills or 1 solid MBT/Crewed vehicle kill often netted you WAY more than a cap was worth. Capture XP was mostly just for CEP gain.

    In fact, many players would TK anyone trying to Destroy the Tubes or Generator so that enemies continued to spawn in and fight because they were worth more XP.

    Tangible base benefits/Continent Ownership Benefits and Intercontinental Lattice will go a long way to making objectives important.
  7. Crator

    Thanks for clarification. I wasn't sure exactly how much XP kills gave you and I didn't know they were also variable. The TTK in PS1 was higher then PS2 so you weren't getting as many kills as you do in PS2. And the XP required to get to higher battle ranks was a lot more.
  8. Slamz

    This is why I rarely take part in high pop offensives.

    I aim for low pop offensives and defenses of any population. I dearly love thwarting enemy attacks by blowing up all of their sunderers with my tank. Sometimes people complain that I ruined their farm but fortunately I don't care.

    I've also never approached this game as a cert farm. Character progress is largely horizontal. Another 10,000 certs will probably make me like 2% better overall, if that. You just have to do what you find fun. If what you find fun is "high population offensives" then I guess you should spend your time looking for an outfit that does this. There are some.

    What I find fun is cheesing the Vanu in a Harasser and I will sometimes do that regardless of cert progress, just because I hope, in my heart of hearts, that it makes some Vanu rage. Oh, Vanu, I wish I could quit you.
    • Up x 1
  9. Jackmove

    I play the point, but getting to it is hard with entrenched infantry and tanks defending. Personally I hate tanks, so I tend to murder them all with a VS Lancer if I'm killed by one, since with implants, c4'ing them is near impossible. So, me killing 18 people to finally make a hole should not be downplayed cert-wise. Even snipers have a purpose clearing a path and stopping flanks. Tanks bombarding from 250m away is some BS, though, but realistic.
  10. Maxor

    Some people still don't get it. In PS2 territory has NEVER mattered. Until the new resource system is in place the only goal that is there other than 'shoot the other guy' is win the alerts, or for some don't lose the alerts.
  11. TwwIX

    The devs don't care. If they did they wouldn't have made the changes to the spawn system nor would they have implemented the funnel that is the lattice system. The game's been going downhill ever since then. It's either join the mindless Zerg or get steam rolled by one. Either that or go ghost cap the empty continent. That's what usually the outpopped factions does and that about sums up the playstyles this game caters to.
  12. Degenatron

    And what you (and many like you) can't seem to grasp is that you CAN'T have territory mean that much because it creates a slippery slope where the losers keep losing. They are unable to dig themselves out of their resource deficit. It all sounds great when you are imagining yourself on the winning team, curb stomping the enemy over and over at their warp gate. But people never think about what it would be like on the other side, where you are choked for resources with an enemy sitting at your warp gate with a hundred vehicles waiting for you to poke your nose out so they can lop it off, and it being like that for weeks on end.

    So, how do you build a meaningful resource system that doesn't allow one team to get held down indefinitely?
  13. Degenatron

    Killing infantry and tanks are a means to an end. If you aren't capping, all of that killing shouldn't matter and it shouldn't be rewarded.

    Why even have XP then? if it doesn't do anything, there is no need for it. You might as well say, "Making all killing 0 XP, and the only XP comes from capping". That works out exactly the same way.
  14. Who Garou

    Seriously, when I saw Farmville in the title, I thought this was another P2W thread.
    Farmville is P2W to my understanding. Heck, it's practically pay-to-play if you want to advance.

    But, yeah, I'm a great hater of farming.
    I too want to achieve a goal and move on to new ground.

    You just need to find an Outfit that agrees with your sensibility toward playing the bigger game of strategy and world domination.

    I've run into players that were against me destroying or hacking enemy vehicle terminals because they wanted to farm the vehicles coming out. (heck, I guess I was trying to farm the XP and what-not by destroying or hacking the vehicle terminal - on some level or another).

    We are all here to play the game.
    Personally, I make different characters to try to play the game differently. Sure, I drop into the same groves to get somethings done, but I try to remain true to the character in an over all sense. This allows me to experience the game in different ways.
    So what does that mean?
    It means if I don't like what is going on for whatever reason I can move on to something else. You can do the same thing with a single character.

    This game is really a social game and relies upon working with the other players. In general, the objectives are loose enough that you don't even have to be in a squad because players that have been playing for a while know what the objective is.
    So if you don't like what your outfit is doing just jump to whatever area you want to fight in or simply jump from squad to squad or outfit to outfit until you find one that you feel is meeting the kind of game play requirements that you enjoy.

    But, back to the reason that I looked at this thread to begin with, PlanetSide 2 is P2W. And in the case of this thread, it apparently is Pay-to-Farm as well.
  15. ZBrannigan

    PS1 had a cost to dying though, increased spawn timer. that along with limited redeploying had a tangible 'bad' effect for the victim/s
    with the faster pace of PS2, redeploy anywhere, same spawn rate and 'anyone can be everything' fairness.......... killing may well actually get your enemy to his farm faster and better prepared.
  16. Milspec

    I'm surprisingly good with that. I'd ask why a game where anyone has the tools to play any part of the game straight off even needs XPs or levels? Just use certs and unlocks and let's get on with the game of taking objectives and destroying the enemy to get the same.

    Edit: This model replaces XP with certs as the balance mechanism - you get less certs for killing players with less certs than you, destroying lower-certed vehicles, or taking objectives with less opponents on the field than friendlies. You get more certs for killing players with more certs than you, destroying higher-certed vehicles, and taking objectives with more opponents on the field.

    I like that a lot. That's simple enough to balance in any situation, completely transparent to players (unlike the XP to cert calculation) and directly counters both zerging and farming by encouraging players to aim for hard objectives and focus on performance.
  17. TheKhopesh

    The certs I get from taking out enemy vehicles and extreme menace targets make the base capture certs look like peanuts.
    One or two menace kills or vehicle destructions nets me more XP than even a major base capture.
    This should change.

    Make the base cap for attackers the big payout, and lower infantry farming income to an afterthought.
    The higher the base's enemy population has peaked to before the cap, the higher the payout.
    (This means if the base hit +96 enemies, then they all die off or redeploy before the cap, the payout is equivalent to the highest point of the enemy population within a reasonable -say 10-15 minutes- time limit.)

    Finally, give defenders large XP multipliers (But on vehicle kills only, NOT infantry!).
    This means the defenders stick around for the XP we currently get for farming, and the attackers stick around til the cap.
    This encourages the attacking players to move to take new ground, as well as to stick around and ensure the capture.
    While encouranging the defenders to stick around and do their best to wipe out enemy high priority vehicle targets (AKA: sundies, Gals, Valks, and to a lesser extent MBT's/libs/etc).

    Lastly, the directives need a fundamental change so that only weapons require kills earned.
    Kills are one of the biggest issues that lead to mindless farming, but we'll save that discussion for a later time.
    • Up x 1
  18. KodiakX

    Comes to PS2? You clearly haven't been around very long. Farming in Planetside 2 has been the sole objective of this game since day one of the game launch and has never changed. The only purpose is to setup a farm, such a Bio-Lab or similar defensible location (and there's plenty...Excavation/Quartz Ridge comes to mind immediately).

    A lot of people immediately jump to saying, "Well if you don't like it go make your own squad and play the way you want!" The problem with that line of thinking is that in a game of this scale you generally need "the people" on board with you (as in the rest of the people you aren't immediately playing with).

    The current system doesn't work because it too heavily rewards kill based game play compared to objective based game play. An example is the Alert system where you can actually make more XP in a good farm than winning an alert in the same time frame it takes to complete that alert. The system reinforces this style of game play through it's rewards design.

    The most immediate solution is to reward objective based game play instead of kill based game play. For example, instead of making blowing up a generator only reward XP for the one person who does it give it a base wide XP grant (so long as the player has participated in combat in the last 5 minutes). Same goes for capturing, defending, repairing objectives as well. With this new source of XP, reduce the amount of XP from kills. You can also make base captures reward variable based XP based on contribution towards objectives, kills, etc.

    However the problem often times not considered is this would largely kill off open world fighting because now the game play is encouraging people to fight at objectives and bases. One of the major goals of the early game design was to encourage people to fight out in the open and a major battle could happen anywhere not just at a base.

    Solving that problem would take a bit of time and would likely require some outdoor field objectives, possibly vehicle based. For example a Nanite refueling depot that vehicles can capture that would automatically repair vehicles at it or a Nanite mining shaft that would provide extra Nanite resource pool that would cheapen Nanite costs in nearby friendly outposts/bases.

    Most likely the devs are aware of the problems with the game. Most likely what the case is simply that someone up above is telling them, "Get Planetside 2 on Playstation 4 already!" and they keep wasting time with that goal and objective. They've taken a wonderful looking engine and made vehicles and other parts look awful in it in the name of performance cause Consoles just aren't PCs. When the boss is telling you to work on X even though you know the game needs Y you still gonna answer to signs your paycheck.
  19. Xasapis

    Alerts are nice and all, but not all people can or want to be in the alert continent. Why should they be punished for that?

    In fact, why should somebody leave a perfectly good fight to go ghost cap or zerg roll a continent, just because there is an alert on it?
  20. EscobarJP

    SOE should look into Battlefield Project Reality in order to snag a few ideas from the developers of that mod, and implement them into PS2. Project reality really captured the concept of large-scale combat that involved not
    Only vehicles, but managed to encourage some serious team play.