Background Image

Dangers Of End Game...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Warlord683, Dec 11, 2013.

  1. Kaldor Draigo Kaldor-Draigo Well-Known Member

    10 is quite a big number but I think thats enough variance to last you over a year. I doubt EC will be able to achieve that but then again community is probably a much bigger factor to the equation of retention
  2. i think it will be more like this
    in the first campagne we are fighting over a limited area of the planet
    if the 2nd campagne starts they might just add some unknown areas and maybe close some old ones

    and maybe also the enivronment will change depending on which faction hold the area when the campagne ends
    maybe they also count in which faction holds the areas next to this area

    so the whole surface of the planet may change each campagne!
  3. Seth Seth Arkhona Vanguard

    Have faith! If the campaign map keeps changing to new and different areas it will be very good! People wont ge bored of playong the same map for 6 months in a row lik gw2. Also we ned to have a strong core community to keep th game going. But In my personnal opinion is a bit to soon to be thinking about endgame.
  4. God God Well-Known Member

    Wall o' text incoming;

    The problem with Planetside 2 was that it launched without a metagame. Players could not own anything in the world themselves. Players couldn't "win" the war in any fashion like in Planetside 1 where you could lock a continent. There was no economy so there was never any factors where the war could influence the economy. It just was not a deep game. Once you took a base, it wasn't uncommon for the enemy to take it back a few minutes later after your faction had moved away from the area. There were no larger or smaller objectives or goals in the world beyond "capture base".

    If you want an example of a good metagame, look at EVE Online. It has terrible gameplay but it has the best metagame in the MMO genre. Guilds can own massive swathes of territory where they can mine and hunt for riches and resources in order to build new outposts and starships and the economy is INCREDIBLY deep. Wars and fights and what players are building and buying affects the world in big ways. There are spies and political intrigues and elaborate subterfuge. If you log out in January and come back a few months later, chances are the the world has completely changed as player owned empires have fallen/risen or lost/gained territory etc. The world was constantly in flux and players could affect it in a serious way. This let people grow extremely attached to their factions and their way of doing things and you ended up with a "metagame", a game outside the game where the game became bigger than just the gameplay.

    That's why EVE has constantly been growing these last 10 years, because people keep going back to it because while the gameplay is poor, EVE makes up for it by having an incredibly rich metagame that gets people invested in the game.

    Did Planetside2 need all these elaborate systems to be a good game? No, but it definitely needed its own version of a metagame to capture its audience and it failed to deliver on that.

    This lead to people not caring about what was going on in the world and just seeking out whatever fight was going on at the moment. Nothing you did ever mattered in the grand scheme of things, and there was no reason to care about whether or not your faction won the battle. Within a few hours everything would be different anyway and the bases you struggled to cap would be lost again

    And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, but that kind of thing leaves people bored and burned out after a few months and then the players start dropping or logging in less often, which is bad if it's an MMO.
  5. I AM SO GOD DAMN TIRES ON PEOPLE (not really talking about you or anything, but this is just something I am so annoyed of) THAT POWERLEVEL A NEW MMO AND THEN COMPLAIN THERE IS NO REAL GOOD ENDGAME! I understand that there is some games that are made for that but some people are just thinking every MMO is like that. That is what cause so much crap for SWTOR. People powerleved trough the game and when they got to the end the just complained and complained without understanding that SWTOR was designed as a story MMO where you are surposed to experience the story up to the end game. They also didn't understand that this was a new game that hadn't had the time to make more than maybe 2 raids or 4 dungeons in the end. So they just ruined the game for themselves. SO PLEASE! if there is anyone watching this forum that expects EC to be a MMO you will blitz throug and play the endgame Raids, YOU ARE WRONG! (there won't really be an endgame anyway, it will kinda be like planetside (if I understand it correctly)
    ThisHermitGuy, Azurand and Sete like this.
  6. Joram Joram Well-Known Member

    Counter strike don't have endgame and people played it for 10 years... imo the big problem with PS2, EC and any other pvp game focusing on huge numbers, people feel they don't matter, in CS:GO you can get a triple kill and give your team the round, trade yourself for the AWP player and let your team push, all of this is YOU making a difference, in PS2 you can kill 300 enemies by yourself and lose the base after 1 hour of defense and that's kind of frustrating. I don't think it's possible to solve that problem, what to do then? the devs need to make us feel we can accomplish something as a faction for our entire faction, something like my squad capture a webportal, our entire faction have reduced spawn timer, other eldars capture a manufactorum, the entire faction can spawn special ammo, while in PS2 having a continent bonus barely matters any big base should give you something tangible in EC.

    TLDR: there is no need of endgame (i understand endgame in wow but no in a pvp game to be honest..) if you make the game something more than a open world team deathmatch.
    Azurand likes this.
  7. Akragth Akragth Well-Known Member

    What would worry me is if they release it half baked with too few maps, relying on the initial income to allow them to expand it as the game lives. It's a nice theory, but we gamers are an impatient bunch and it'd likely hurt the community and the game in the long run.

    The above used example, SWTOR, is a prime one. They had the time and money to record all those fully spoken dialogue missions, but didn't give enough end content. They prioritised wrong, and SWTOR ended up feeling like a single player game with a chat box, which was fine, until you finished the story. And that's when the community fell apart and is why that game limps on rather than striding forward in the MMO market.

    I think the use of Eve as an example of how to create a metagame is spot on. If they could capture a similar feel in this game, it'd be fantastic. For my own point of view, I'd like the ability to fortify your position around whatever tactically important object there is. Possibly if left untouched by opposing player factions for x amount of time, send the NPC nids in to attack it. Sorta like Rifts invasion mechanics.

    But regardless, I think the game needs to be dynamic to keep people interested. Only fighting on the same parts of the map, over the same objectives, well it gets repetitive and by and large, that's a bad thing.
    GodEmperorTitus likes this.
  8. Calistarius Calistarius Active Member

    That's the POINT


    no stupid fluff story where you are th center of the universe, you are a fucking noone that will die with other thousands to claim enemy territory
  9. Nem Nem Subordinate

    The game should be about taking strongholds and then having an incentive to actually keep them. Planetside 2 would be a lot more engaging if the same old contended buildings that don't really give you any satisfaction of even owning didn't just swap ownership three times a day at nearly the same time every single day.
  10. All the solo players are going to hate on me for this but I'm going to say it anyway. Community is vastly affected and controlled by the proper use of guilds/clans/chapters. When features in the game revolve around specific organizations being able to assert control.. it adds to the community drama and "meta game" as discussed. Things like guilds/clans being able to "claim" territory or control points with built in dynamics to spend resources to fortify and upgrade.. This is where a "name" is made in a MMO. Also, a very immersing website that highlights guilds/players and certain rankings that are pertinent and supportive to what drives the game. There's always the token "top kills" tracker.. but maybe have an "MVP" for each campaign... Top defenders and top assault players and support... Bragging rights are key to building a PVP community. Back to territory control.. Allow guilds to "dig in deep" when they claim a checkpoint. Tech classes should be able to bolster the defenses and maybe even requisition servitors or "night watch" guards to defend their asset during the sleep hours. You will always need a buffer force to pause the attackers while word gets out to get online and defend. All of you with the stance of "I hate drama and I want this to be a no BS war". Well, drama drives the life of a game. If we're going to build a successful long term game it will require alot of drama and inter guild rivalries where we make it come to life. The "shut up and fight" mentality makes the game just another "war grind" which would be PS2.

    After far too many words my point it that the game must center around guild/clans/chapters and a healthy rivalry to compete for bragging rights, reputation, status, and resources.

Share This Page