Planetside - 45 day reactivation + more

[Malakili]

Fodder program, I think it was 2 years ago, was a blast. Some of the stuff that happened in Planetside was superfun, and it never happened again in any MMO yet. Maybe WW2 online, but I really can't bring myself to try it.

World War 2 Online is great fun, but its barely a shooter.  Its got way more sim elements to be honest. 

[Mrbloodworth]

I do not see anything wrong with the way Planetside had its worlds laid out, they were connected by warp agates and persistent, it was one of the major reason for the love of the title. It is the only way to go for a MMOFPS.

The issues Planetside had, and why it had stagnation are the real issues, not anything you guys are talking about. I may have had a chance to look at its code, asset setup and architecture, and believe me, the game was NEVER BUILT to be expanded on, it was for all intents, a one off game with persistent servers. This is the crux of its issues, not its game level designs (well..maybe a few). Editing maps was a near impossibility..so they used server objects (Such as BFR sheds), the dam thing didn't even have a map editor, it was completely compiled, hence any change required you to download the entire world pack, assets were loaded at load time like a non-massive game instead of streamed and unloaded dynamically... This is why the maps never changed, it why the bases were never adjusted, and it the entire reason the expansion was created the way it was done, and it added new space, this is why new objects reused existing textures.

Anyway...

Do not throw the baby out with the bath water, Planetside was ahead of its time for its day, and remake needs to be the same, but based squarely on its predecessor. Just have a little more forethought in your tech and ability to expand.

[Venkman]

EQ1 was built the same way: modularity was an afterthought.

The lack of post-launch support didn't help, but it wasn't the cause of the failure. It was the two elements I mentioned that both prevented droves of new people from showing up to give it a shot at all: bad PR from the launch day XP nerf (which was ginormous, and the first memory I've had of such a thing), and the stupid same-as-EQ1 monthly fee.

Didn't matter after that if the game was built to be modular or not, because they never achieved critical mass in the first place. If they were wildly successful, they'd have done what they ended up doing on their wildly successful title: figure it out as they go.

Ironically, the core tech behind EQ2 was specifically to ensure two main things: expandability and relatively easy tools for wholesale changes across the game. Both they've leveraged well, but neither made a bit of difference in the face of WoW.

[ashrik]

What was the fodder system?

[Trippy]

They had a free to play option but your level was capped at a low level.

[Surlyboi]

I want real fucking urban door-to-door combat and more free shit for the noobs.

[Sky]

The only things I don't like about PS are the kitchen sink development after years of almost no development, the retarded expansion, and the fact that it's about a zillion years old and looks like poop.

A brand new PS is something I want to play, put me in the camp that thinks the open world worked.

[Goumindong]

The only things I don't like about PS are the kitchen sink development after years of almost no development, the retarded expansion, and the fact that it's about a zillion years old and looks like poop.

A brand new PS is something I want to play, put me in the camp that thinks the open world worked.

basically this

[Mrbloodworth]

The only things I don't like about PS are the kitchen sink development after years of almost no development, the retarded expansion, and the fact that it's about a zillion years old and looks like poop.

A brand new PS is something I want to play, put me in the camp that thinks the open world worked.

See my post.

[Ratman_tf]

A brand new PS is something I want to play, put me in the camp that thinks the open world worked.

 

[AcidCat]

Do not throw the baby out with the bath water, Planetside was ahead of its time for its day, and remake needs to be the same, but based squarely on its predecessor. Just have a little more forethought in your tech and ability to expand.

Yep. The large, persistent world was what really enchanted me with the game. What ultimately made me stop playing with the repetition of assaulting and defending the same bases over and over. If the world and bases could change as the game went on, that would be huge.

Eh, who am I kidding, they could make the exact same game with new engine and I'd still buy it and play for a year or two.

[kaid]

I went back to planetside with that long reactivation period. There is a lot of good in planetside. The combat engineering and hacking stuff are really well done. Huge three way battles with masses of tanks/foot troopers/mechs and planes is very very impressive. I think if they were able to more easily update their game so things change a bit more and fix a few of the long standing issues such as mods that easily let you see stealthers even if you don't have darklight on.

Hell I enjoyed planetside enough if they make a second one they will get my money for a couple months.

[ashrik]

I just played this for the first time last night, VS on the one server. I'm almost angry that no one informed me how good it was. I guess since I missed out on your personal Trammel and 6 years of stagnancy, it's all new to me

[tazelbain]

I am sure we have had this discussion before.

Bad:
Ugly ass character art.
Static bases.
Three sides that play almost exactly same with one notable weapon difference.

Good:
Engineers.
Galaxy drop mechanic.
Brilliant net code.

My solution is too make each side completely different like Starcraft. Sure balance would be a bitch but it keep the game lively much longer. Also the easy mode targeting mode (with penalities) for scrubs like me would expand the market.  Just limiting your market to crack-addled dex monkeys (engineers aside) is mistake when CADM have FPS without subs to get their fix.  

[Goumindong]

Well, my solution would be to say "fuck making sides" and let politics do the rest. Bu i doubt that that would be a model that worked well in an FPS.

It would be nice to see more persistent effects and a larger world to cope with that, but i am not sure how it would work or if it could support an economy.

[Trippy]

I am sure we have had this discussion before.

Bad:
Fucked up net code.

Good:
Brilliant net code.

FIFY.

PlanetSide uses client side hit detection. This leads to all sorts of fucked up situations. In their defense that was really their only option back then given the amount of "stuff" that had to be sent back and forth to support such large battles.

[Skullface]

It would be nice to see more persistent effects and a larger world to cope with that, but i am not sure how it would work or if it could support an economy.

I'm not particularly a fan of it, but CSS's loadout system would work well. Revenue based on kills, wins, survival, etc. The only issue is that the CSS method is all about the rich getting richer, and in a world that depends on replayability, I doubt that the poor would stick around for too long.

FPS's, more so than any other game, cater to the "lone wolf" mentality. An economy is the only way I see of curbing this. (Clans generate revenue, which allows for the purchase of vehicles, "airdrops", etc. This keeps the lonewolf from spawning in, getting into a WTFPWN tank and rolling through a battlefield, encourages player interaction, player structures/capturables, blah blah blah.)

I would love to see an FPS finally adopt an ELO rating system (enemydown uses this with most shooters that have published stats.) It works well, and is a much better rating then the common MMO concept of "time = skill". In addition, you could (if you were really anal about it,) add a "skill rating" to weapons to further the accuracy of the calculations. (I.E. rocket launchers have a lower "skill rating" then shotguns, which in turn have a lower skill rating then a melee kill.) Ideally, if you're generating revenue based on player kills, a higher rated character generates more revenue than someone who spins in a circle trying to figure out how to strafe.  

[Ghambit]

Let's be real here.  The reason PS sucked/sucks is simply because of the release of SWG.  Plain and simple.  The entire game went to crickets when SWG released and very nearly was just cancelled outright.  I lost my entire squad to the game and quit myself.  Seriously, battles turned into Unreal: Tournament.  It was horrible.

Imo they should've scrapped the game and re-invested in a new model once they realized they werent going to get the subs back after SWG and WoW raped them.  WW2O is a better persistent FPS design than PS, it's just most people are bored out of their minds when it comes to WW2 stuff.  PS had a hard-charging sci-fi appeal that was pretty awesome, but the gameplay itself lacked depth.

All they really had to do was merge with Cornered Rats and make a modern WW2O and they'd have been set.

[tazelbain]

Is there a FPS with the server-side hit detection?

[Mrbloodworth]

Is there a FPS with the server-side hit detection?

All of them.

But none with 250+. Even MAG.

[LK]

MAG is client side? That might change things.

[Mrbloodworth]

MAG is client side? That might change things.

Quite sure. This is not a bad thing.

[LK]

No sir. It just affects my aiming philosophy and helps explain the "Round the corner and I'm dead" moments I've experienced.

[UnsGub]

if you're generating revenue based on player kills, a higher rated character generates more revenue than someone who spins in a circle trying to figure out how to strafe.  

But PS would be missing half of its game if it was about player kills.  Without the support roles, vehicles, and game play not related to killing it would just be another FPS.

[Skullface]

if you're generating revenue based on player kills, a higher rated character generates more revenue than someone who spins in a circle trying to figure out how to strafe.  

But PS would be missing half of its game if it was about player kills.  Without the support roles, vehicles, and game play not related to killing it would just be another FPS.

I get that, and completely agree that it's a necessary facet of tactical gameplay (looking at my BF2142 stats will show a 0.9 K/D, but over 57 hours with the defibrillator equipped.) The concept of monetizing kills could easily be converted to monetizing points (for lack of a better term) generated by support roles.

[Sky]

Let's be real here.  The reason PS sucked/sucks is simply because of the release of SWG.  Plain and simple.  The entire game went to crickets when SWG released and very nearly was just cancelled outright.

wat


Wait...SWG had bo staffs, right?  

FPS's, more so than any other game, cater to the "lone wolf" mentality. An economy is the only way I see of curbing this. (Clans generate revenue, which allows for the purchase of vehicles, "airdrops", etc. This keeps the lonewolf from spawning in, getting into a WTFPWN tank and rolling through a battlefield, encourages player interaction, player structures/capturables, blah blah blah.)

Did you play PS? Because you're...ahh...wrong.

[Goumindong]

FPS do not cater to "lone wolf's" in fact i would argue that they go mostly the other way. Just like anything else, the sure fire way to win is to have more guys than the other side.

If i were to build PS 2 it would probably look something like Natural Selection. Except that it would be large, persistent, there would be no sides, and there would be a "resetting tech level" sort of system[kinda difficult to explain]

The real problems come in two types;

Designing a management system that can cater and coordinate in real time hundreds of players who decide to play on the same team.[maybe this isn't necessary, but i think the game would be better off with it]

Balancing between long term held assets and short term assets and determining when and how you can assault them[this is necessary to have a big "no sides" persistent system]

I think the first one can be solved, the second one, i am not so sure. If you have a system where you can only assault large important structures at set times[ala eve], then you need short term structures that give players persistent benefit. I.E. you need inventory/money which causes its own problems. Both in the sense that you need some sort of empire like mechanic to foster smaller groups and allow basic economic activity. If money is based solely on winning the winners will always have the best stuff and you've created a more or less cascading system where one group "wins" the game eventually.

You could counteract that by making the base(free) level of tech very close in terms of capability to the stuff you could buy and making research/money production scale to the number of players in your outfit, but i don't think that is a very good answer either. In the end you either have to slow down combat and introduce non-combat production system or you need to say "fuck it" and go entirely with a model that looks like the current Planetside with no real resources and set teams.

[Mrbloodworth]

Planetside the 1%

Just wanted to toss this out there. I know its old.

Also, in case some of you didn't know. The planetisde community has been suggesting and designing additions and changes to plantside for almost half a decade.

[Sky]

Wait! An mmo community has been suggesting and 'designing' additions and changes to the mmo?!

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

[Mrbloodworth]

Wait! An mmo community has been suggesting and 'designing' additions and changes to the mmo?!

HOLY FUCKING SHIT!

Not sure you looked at the level of competence of the ideas on that site. My point being, its not like SOE doesn't have things to draw from, or, was ever lacking for player feedback.

[01101010]

Not sure you looked at the level of competence of the ideas on that site. My point being, its not like SOE doesn't have things to draw from, or, was ever lacking for player feedback.

 

Enough said.

[Mrbloodworth]

Not sure you looked at the level of competence of the ideas on that site. My point being, its not like SOE doesn't have things to draw from, or, was ever lacking for player feedback.

 

Enough said.

[Venkman]

Not sure you looked at the level of competence of the ideas on that site. My point being, its not like SOE doesn't have things to draw from, or, was ever lacking for player feedback.

The talking has never been the problem.

[Ratman_tf]

Planetside the 1%
Just wanted to toss this out there. I know its old.

First time I've read it. Best article about Planetside evar. 

[Slayerik]

Agreed, I enjoyed that :) Though there are other games I had the "i was there, man!" feeling about. Shadowbane, UO, and Neocron.