Ok for stuff for starters...
I dont PvP, and I dont plan to (my main is an Eng).
I'm seeing a lot of posts that have a similar 'theme' to them..
Make the game more PvP oriented (or similar)
and
PvP will help the story (or similar)
and the booster appear to tie in with these 2 themes nicely
Now at first I laughed and though "What the hell are these guys thinking" but I _think_ I've figured it out, but no ones actually come out and said it, so the question is, is this what you want?
Do you want a PvP system where factions gain bonuses (in one form or another, such as land/terrain) - sounds a lot like the booster doesnt it
and it is by this 'function' that the story is effected (i.e. if the clanners captured every zone possible, the clanners win the war?)
I've seen this before playing Heavy Gear online (and to a lesser degree in DAoC).
I'll relate to Heavy Gear as I dont play DAoC much.
When I started playing Heavy Gear on the internet the war may as well have already been over. I sided with 'the north' partially because you play the north in the single player and so know the equipment better, but mainly because I liked their equipment better (probably because I knew it better).
The way the system worked was players played stand alone games in teams and if the game included players from both factions it was PvP (but with bots as well) otherwise it was just agains bots (bot games still count though). The faction that wons 'total' would go up and having a higher 'total' gave you access to better equipment etc. While you played games with people 'local' to you (in terms of ping times) the battle results were global.
You could tailor your attacks on specific targets (supply dumps, comms centres etc) and victory would net you bonuses appropriate to the target (take over supplies = get better stuff) and penalise the enemy accordingly (lose supplies = lose stuff).
These benefits/penalties weren't immediately tangible though (for example you wouldnt get new stuff in the next game you played if you had just captured a supply depot) as it took a large difference in points to make any difference to the game.
The problem was that when I joined the North had a negative figure.....in the hundred thousands IIRC. I dont think this was due to the north players being rubbish, but due to the vast majority playing on the south side (because they had been the north in the single player) and once the losing streak started, the slide just got worse, because the south players had better intel, better supplies, better reserves, better everything, there was just no way to turn the tide.
On the plus side the game 'bottomed out' at a certain point (dont know if this was by design), so the north wasnt going to get any worse, but for south players this defeated the point since there wasnt going to be an absolute victory (the online game didnt 'end' when set condition were met such as a point total or difference, it just kept going) but similarly the north players knew they could never even come back to a draw from their current position so they didnt see the point either.
Yes I'm rambling but I suppose the point of all this is that, if this is truely what you people want the ability to determine the outcome of the war by the continued defeat of the opposing faction then _someone_ is going to be disapointed. The side with the most (PvP) players will win, and if a bonuses/penalty system is in place the winners will just win more quickly (very much like RvR in DAoC) while the losers give up or jump ship to the winning side.
The ability for 'player victory' will overide the games projected 4 year story, nevermind the rest of its life, so FC either pack the game up early or have to justify Omnis continuance after clan victory (continuing my example) or make said victory irrelevant. Any new players will either join the clans, or choose Omni and then regret being 'losers' and either quit or change sides.
Is this what you want?
