Hostile/Passive Creatures on each Continent [Archive]

Sirisian

2011-04-26, 03:51 AM

Okay since Planetside is not as far as we thought and there is a new engine then my initial comment about having creatures in the game isn't that unrealistic of a goal. I fear the game is too far in development for cool stuff like that. Maybe later.

There was a lot of good points listed in the page of discussion if you have time to read after this. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=559032)

It was mentioned (and because there are pictures) that Planetside originally was going to have creatures wandering around the continents.

I'm thinking it would be sweet to have specialized continent critters just wandering around. They might be simple like birds that flee from players or get hit by planes with no effect. (Or squirrels). Or they might include hostile creatures that make the world more dangerous while fighting.

Seeing as there are deserts, rainforests, tundras, and forests there's a huge variety of creatures that could be wandering around. I'll start by listing some continents and a creature that might go with it.

Ishundar is a desert type continent so a dune or tremor worm (ancient crystal worm?) would be cool. Rock outcrops provide safety. (Obviously sensor shield would nullify this danger while moving in the open, maybe even for vehicles).

Esamir is a tundra continent and could have arctic white cats. They could look like a tigers with the ability to cloak when on the hunt. (Imagine turning on dark light and seeing that when you expected a cloaker was behind you).

Hossin is the rainforest continent and could have raptor type creatures moving around in the trees that would ignore groups of players, but go after single players (sneaking from behind if possible).

Ceryshen is also a tundra place might also have cloaked creatures that leave footprints eerily in the snow.

Oh and Cyssor would have the epic creatures. Like a large 4 legged monster with biological weapons to kill tanks and airplanes. It would wonder in the area between bases and sleep in the warp gates pulling in NTU to power itself.

Some basic concepts in the story would need to be filled in. Creatures are imbued with the power of the warp gates and never die. They simply phase into the world at a later time (without having to spawn at a warp gate). They could even have abilities that are explained by the NTU around the warp gates allowing the creatures to evolve and use it.

Things like base turrets, spitfires, and mines would make quick work of any hostile NPCs wondering into an SOI. They would never be part of a real battle except on the very outside of the SOI.

Overall they'd make the game persistent in that there is a thriving immersive world with life. They'd also change up people's strategies separating verterans from beginners in a simple way. Simply trying to go around the backside of a tower might result in a player getting distracted with a creature for an easier kill by the enemy.

The creatures wouldn't be there to take away from the core game. They'd just be a small addition. I get that this is supposed to be a huge PVP game and adding PVE takes away from that, but ideally it would be subtle and enhance the gameplay adding a little chaos to situations.

I've added a poll so that people can vote and discuss. (The wish list thread makes it hard to get an understanding of how many people life or dislike an idea).

Are there any creatures (with or without special NTU powers) for specific continents or wildlife that you think would be interesting to see? Searhus has hot lava in a volcano so I'm sure something interesting could be done there. (dragons in the volcano :lol: Being chased by energy fireball seeking monster in the sky would be interesting by kind of cliche).

Creatures could also be used to limit the effectiveness of certain vehicles or tactics. (Though other than limiting air with a winged creature or a dune worm to snap up load vehicles I can't think of too many ideas). Maybe you can.

// edit: Feb 27, 2012
It's come to my attention there are some misconceptions about hostile creatures. For the same reason bases are defended with automated wall turrets or spitfires in PS1 was to defend and slow the threat of enemies to a new region of the map. The same idea is what creatures would allow but throughout the whole map. People often bring up performance, but creatures don't exist in an area for long when populations increase with real people. That is to say if you are by yourself moving through a forest you'll see them and might get attacked and killed by a hostile creature. But if you're in the middle of a fight they'll all be dead and won't spawn during the fight around players.

So the perceived performance issue is basically non-existent. It cannot be compared to say "we can't have holstered guns because of performance issues". The problem there is they are on soldiers while they fight. So when population in an area goes up they become a problem. For creatures they fill the void where populations are low as an immersive neutral defense.

Canaris

2011-04-26, 04:30 AM

No thanks, I don't want PvE in Planetside, I don't mind the concept of having passive animals like birds and things.

plus we already know
YouTube - ... turns out it's man

Logit

2011-04-26, 08:44 AM

If there was any significant PvE element in PSN I would take a shit, and use the game as toilet paper.

Kyonye

2011-04-26, 08:55 AM

Yes in terms of passive creatures. It would make the environment a little more realistic and fun, but I would prefer not to get attacked by some animal while trying to take a base.

morf

2011-04-26, 10:23 AM

Wtf is this Jurassic Park?

kamikava

2011-04-26, 10:32 AM

Passive yes

PvE no

Nephilimuk

2011-04-26, 11:15 AM

anyone remember Tabula Rasa?

Didn't think so... nothing to see here please move along

(keep the frame rate and processing power to the actions and please don't included fluff - PSN is has to be all about the big playable battles)

Peacemaker

2011-04-26, 11:23 AM

No thanks.

otomotopia

2011-04-26, 11:24 AM

Passive creatures, no weird-ass weapons on them though. It'd be interesting to have a tank fight in a grassland area by some heavy rhino-like creatures though. The players startle them and the whole fight gets kicked up a notch, with you watching for and firing on enemy players while dodging charging rhinos. As long as this is not an annoyance but more of a "Well this just got interesting" feature.

Either way, Birds please.

Miir

2011-04-26, 11:32 AM

Trees = Hostile Creatures

That's enough for me.

Redshift

2011-04-26, 12:21 PM

Anytime theres a hack timer with no hotspots killable birds should spawn... give us something to do rather than just /em cabbagepatch :lol:

Raymac

2011-04-26, 12:31 PM

Clearly I'm in the minority here, but I'd like to see passive and hostile creatures in the game. Perhaps the hostile creatures could even be like mini-events, some godzilla-like thing trudging through the landscape laying waste to anything in its path.

I'm also one of those very few people that wouldn't mind seeing AI soldiers in some capacity in the game. (Don't flame me for this, I already know you disagree)

I completely understand people's resistance to this, though. "Planetside is a pure PvP game and should stay that way." I can totally see that arguement, so I won't be disappointed if there is no AI at all.

DviddLeff

2011-04-26, 12:35 PM

If the development time can be spared then I wouldn't mind seeing creatures around the continents.

Bird flocks that flee from players and can give away positions, herds of creatures that basically act as targets, etc.

I am unsure whether I would want to see hostile creatures; if there are then they should be rare, certainly not getting involved in every fight, perhaps reserved for special events.

basti

2011-04-26, 04:36 PM

Okay since Planetside is not as far as we thought and there is a new engine then my initial comment about having creatures in the game isn't that unrealistic of a goal.

You have no idea it seems.

Who gives a damn about the engine? The Graphics engine matters very little for AI. The important stuff is the AI itself, and the pathing. Planetside had creatures walking around at some point during early testing, but they removed that stuff entirly because of the pathing issues.

Yes, it would be cool tun run over some dogs with your harraser, but the amount of work to make that happen is quite big. And i rather see nothing like NPCs in the game and have the devs focused on other stuff than having the potential chance of some SOE suit going "oh hey, we got AI, why dont we add bots then, as AI and pathing is already there?"

Besides all that, it is a performance impact after all. And as cool it would be to have your 15 reavers taking off together with a swarm of birds, performance is more important. Otherwise you wont have enough players for 15 reavers, but rather 3...

Sirisian

2011-04-26, 05:20 PM

I would prefer not to get attacked by some animal while trying to take a base.
Yeah I don't really see them as getting in the way of base fights really. They'd die pretty easily with multiple people and their respawn timers would be pretty long. Their role would be secondary to the actual game.
anyone remember Tabula Rasa?

Didn't think so... nothing to see here please move along

Never played the game. Wasn't that an MMORPG making your comment identical to "Anyone remember World of Warcraft?". I don't get the correlation. Your comment doesn't explain why creatures would hurt an MMOFPS game.

If the development time can be spared then I wouldn't mind seeing creatures around the continents.

Yeah that's my general feeling too. There are automatic navigation mesh algorithms I've studied that make quick work of pathing issue problems, but that still does mean that standing on a rock/tree would make it impossible for a creature to hurt you maybe, but that's to be expected causing them to flee or something.

Who gives a damn about the engine? The Graphics engine matters very little for AI. The important stuff is the AI itself, and the pathing. Planetside had creatures walking around at some point during early testing, but they removed that stuff entirly because of the pathing issues.
I got the impression their new engine is more than a graphics engine. Can you provide a source for that last comment about pathing issues? I never read anything about pathing issues with the AI. Probably something that can be fixed.

And i rather see nothing like NPCs in the game and have the devs focused on other stuff than having the potential chance of some SOE suit going "oh hey, we got AI, why dont we add bots then, as AI and pathing is already there?"

Slippery slope logical fallacies shouldn't be used in a debate.

The reason I mentioned creatures was because the game is pretty simple by itself. It's just players running around a static map shooting at each other. Would be nice to add something extra to that. At 8 years and a lot of technology upgrades I'd expect a little more. I get that many of the people in this forum are using computers from 8 years ago and that supporting anything over the original system requirements is asking for a lot. :lol:

Nephilimuk

2011-04-26, 06:35 PM

OK let me start again in a balanced and less tongue in cheek way.

I think it is a nice idea and I love your enthusiasm. One thing I love about these forums is the passion in generates in posts like yours and constant stream of new ideas. I guess it just shows how much we all love Planetside.

however

Adding something which is none essential to the core mechanics of the game detracts from its core focus which is large scale battle. Introducing AI fluff will have a load on the servers and reduce the amount of physical resources available for the core function and pulling power of the game which is large battles. These battles have to be playable so why add another variable.

Also time spent of coding producing these elements will also detract from polishing the key elements of game play. Sure if there is infinite resources and the goal was to create eco systems all well and good. But the core element of the game and its unique selling point is the large battles. If time and resource were no object then go nuts. Having worked on project teams I know were I would be focusing resources and it would have nothing to do with nice to haves which don't actually improve the core functionality of a game, they just provide a novelty. Everything would be done to get the basics delivered then polish the end user experience to the point of being perfect.

So I guess it boils down to time money and available resources. I would love a working game as quickly as possible and to do that in the best way possible with the maximum numbers of players in a lag free fight as possible. I am an advocate of keep it simple.

In reference to Tabular Rasa it was a Richard Garriott's big thing with NC Soft. There a lot of common parallels regarding fluffy things to shoot or spikey things to kick and dull repetitive game play. I want an MMOFPS PVP all the way.

Furret

2011-04-26, 08:28 PM

I'm thinking this would function well as an expansion for the game, although maybe not one you have to pay for, just like a patch for the game. Most people seem to have a problem with how long it will take, and it's a good point. However, if they release the core game, and then add the fluff as the game progresses, it A) gives the community the sense that the devs care about the game (even if they dont) and B) makes the game better.

Senyu

2011-04-26, 08:38 PM

I know some people are gona nerd rage of the thought of being killed by an NPC. Big whoop. Respawn and go fight. Probably gona die anyways.

Personally I like the idea of passive and aggresive creatures. Granted they should be so gamechanging as to effect large battles or deter them unless its some rare epic monster which everyone im sure will nerdrage it till devs remove, but rather the small fights and lone players plus just seeing them around. Large battles should scare them off from that area.

Also if a vehicle hits one that isnt ridiculously large, have it just bounce off like a deer, take some damage, and keep driving with only a moment of say 10-20% reduce speed. Hate to have trying to chase or run and have a deer completly stop a tank in its tracks and having to speed up again.

CutterJohn

2011-04-27, 03:09 AM

I think creatures would be an awesome way to add occasional chaos to the battlefields, and would definitely be great for making the worlds feel alive.

But its almost certainly more effort than its worth, and the pathing issue means would very certainly be detrimental to performance, and I doubt the awesomeness of being randomly attacked by some beast would make up for it.

Client side flocks of birds would be nice.

Logit

2011-04-27, 10:00 AM

If there was any significant PvE element in PSN I would take a shit, and use the game as toilet paper.

This

The Desert Fox

2011-04-27, 11:44 AM

This

Seriously man? Seriously? Just have a seat over here...Just take a seat right there.. Seriously just take a seat and think about what you just did. The stupidity running off your post is leaking through my screen. I literally had a double take because I couldn't believe you did that.

Raymac

2011-04-27, 01:34 PM

Seriously man? Seriously? Just have a seat over here...Just take a seat right there.. Seriously just take a seat and think about what you just did. The stupidity running off your post is leaking through my screen. I literally had a double take because I couldn't believe you did that.

I should let Logit speak for himself, but he and others have a legitimate gripe about not wanting any PvE at all in Planetside. It's always been a purely PvP game, and some people are more serious aboue PvP than others.

As for myself, I'm actually someone that would like to see PvE AI to increase the numbers of soldiers fighting, but I think the passion people have for keeping it purely PvP vastly outweighs any benefit of having a PvE element. (Except perhaps for some sort of VR training improvement)

Logit

2011-04-27, 03:30 PM

Seriously man? Seriously? Just have a seat over here...Just take a seat right there.. Seriously just take a seat and think about what you just did. The stupidity running off your post is leaking through my screen. I literally had a double take because I couldn't believe you did that.

Says the person who said nothing relative to the conversation. At least my post firmly states where I am on this topic, twice!!

PvE should not exist in this game. Who wants to kill monsters when you can kill actual people? The recipe for Planetside is perfect, why include crap that won't help?

Anything more than something to look at while your driving through the wilderness is a complete waste of perfectly good coding time.

If you would like to kill things that can't think and react with a real brain, WoW, and EQ are recruiting. I wish this topic would just die.

P.S. Cry me a river dude, this is definitely not the stupidest thing I have ever said/done.

Furret

2011-04-27, 05:22 PM

P.S. Cry me a river dude, this is definitely not the stupidest thing I have ever said/done.

Perhaps not the most brilliant retort.

So Logit, are you against creatures entirely, including passive ones like birds that flee from you? Especially if the devs dont take time to code it now, and rather patch it over later?

I think birds that make noise and run away from you could be an iteresting part of the game, because it would give away your position.

Logit

2011-04-27, 05:35 PM

Perhaps not the most brilliant retort.

So Logit, are you against creatures entirely, including passive ones like birds that flee from you? Especially if the devs dont take time to code it now, and rather patch it over later?

I think birds that make noise and run away from you could be an iteresting part of the game, because it would give away your position.

If they want to make some stupid birds that fly around or, bunny rabbits I can make part of the treads of my vehicles go ahead.

But anything more than that is just plain idiotic. PvE has no place in PSN, none what-so-ever.

Can you honestly say to yourself PSN would be a better if they did add this junk though?

Come on, next topic please.

CutterJohn

2011-04-27, 05:38 PM

PvE should not exist in this game. Who wants to kill monsters when you can kill actual people? The recipe for Planetside is perfect, why include crap that won't help?

They aren't advocating it as pve content, that you kill after the quest master tells you he needs the skins off of 75 of the beasts to make you a +2 hammer of thwacking.

The idea is twofold.. For one, its just plain eye candy, and creates a more believable world to fight over. Two.. Its chaos. Like weather effects, lightning, or meteorites falling from the skies of oshur. Random events on the battlefield, forces of nature the players have no control over but still must contend with. Its a war over land, not a climate controlled arena match.

Logit

2011-04-27, 05:45 PM

They aren't advocating it as pve content, that you kill after the quest master tells you he needs the skins off of 75 of the beasts to make you a +2 hammer of thwacking.

The idea is twofold.. For one, its just plain eye candy, and creates a more believable world to fight over. Two.. Its chaos. Like weather effects, lightning, or meteorites falling from the skies of oshur. Random events on the battlefield, forces of nature the players have no control over but still must contend with. Its a war over land, not a climate controlled arena match.

Well if you insist on some realism in a video game....

After years of MASSIVE battles over the same land, these animals will have found a way to live through being slaughtered day in and day out?

If you want it to be "real" than this is what your assuming.

Sirisian

2011-04-27, 06:50 PM

Well if you insist on some realism in a video game....

After years of MASSIVE battles over the same land, these animals will have found a way to live through being slaughtered day in and day out?

If you want it to be "real" than this is what your assuming.

Some basic concepts in the story would need to be filled in. Creatures are imbued with the power of the warp gates and never die. They simply phase into the world at a later time (without having to spawn at a warp gate). They could even have abilities that are explained by the NTU around the warp gates allowing the creatures to evolve and use it.

Actually it's very similar to how players "found a way to live through being slaughtered day in and day out". :rofl:

Also no one talked about realism. Not sure why you brought it up. I mentioned creatures to make the world seem more alive. There was times when I was flying a liberator to a battle and thought it would be cool to see a creatures in the water or creatures grazing on the planes.

Can you honestly say to yourself PSN would be a better if they did add this [...] though?

I think they'd make the game more immersive. It depends on the types of creatures added. I could see things like the crystal worm on Ishunder changing how battles are fought. (I mentioned crystals because of the caverns below the continents).

Senyu

2011-04-27, 07:24 PM

Sounds to me that someone will nerdrage until the world explodes if he dies to an npc.

Yes, adding a few creatures, and even fewer that can harm you is going to completly ruin and destroy planetside. In fact the balance of Pvp to PvE is going to be so monumentally huge on epic proportions that WoW will need to come out with 6 more expansions just to even match it.

Big whoop, just because theres creatures to make the world feel alive and yes, some may have the potential to kill you (Ohhhhhh Nooooeeeee) isnt going to ruin the game. And as a mechanic make creatures move away from large fights so they only really are commonaly seen when you alone or driving past.

Logit

2011-04-28, 10:32 AM

Sounds to me that someone will nerdrage until the world explodes if he dies to an npc.

Insults on the internet :lol::rofl::lol:

I said it won't make the game better. People will complain for a day if the monsters weren't added.

They will complain for months if they are the reason for bad performance.

True story.

The Desert Fox

2011-04-28, 10:41 AM

meh...

Canaris

2011-04-28, 10:50 AM

really should redo this poll and have a distinction between - Yes PvE creatures and Yes "Passive" creatures, there's a pretty big difference imo

Bags

2011-04-28, 01:32 PM

No. if they do add I'm not buying psnext

Logit

2011-04-28, 03:36 PM

No. if they do add I'm not buying psnext

This.

The PvE conversation should just die. Will anyone not buy the game because they DON'T add it? Not likely.

But if they do, well, quote says enough.

Raymac

2011-04-28, 04:26 PM

Part of the reason the PvE conversation won't die is because we already have very limited PvE in the original Planetside. Turrets of all kinds (bases, spitfires, cerebrus, etc) are AI, and I can't ever remember seeing any threads about getting rid of those.

So, as the great pirate Jack Sparrow once said, we've already agreed to it on principle, it's just a question of how much.

So, do we want AI soldiers? (Vast majority of you say no, loud and clear)
Do we want AI godzillas? (Probably not unless maybe it was some special event)
Do we want AI boars that you collect teeth for exp? (I don't think so)
Do we want critters bopping around just adding flavor to the environment? (As long as it doesn't hurt performance)

Logit

2011-04-28, 04:41 PM

Raymac

2011-04-28, 06:25 PM

So in essence, we could all live without it. Thank you Raymac, for making such a nice list for us.

I wouldn't mind bots to help with training in a virtual situation ONLY. But even so, I could certainly do without them.

Sure, we could live without it, but it's not like I'm Princess Vespa dragging my massive hair dryer through the desert in Spaceballs because I "can't live without it."

For AI, I just think there is a happy medium somewhere between having thousands of bots running around the battlefield and only having a target move 1 meter to the left as you shoot it in VR training.

If you want it all or nothing, then we need to take out spitfires.

Baneblade

2011-04-28, 07:02 PM

The devs should play as native creatures.

Sirisian

2011-04-28, 11:48 PM

I asked for the poll to be changed. It can't be changed by the original poster in this forum software. The current results are Yes - 15, No - 17 and Not sure - 4.

When I made this thread I didn't think people would have such strong feelings about this. Reminds me of the BFRs. I hope some of you are open for a little change. I'd hate to see this game be exactly the same with just upgraded graphics. I get the feeling some people want the exact same game minus BFRs though and I can respect that.

TRex

2011-04-29, 04:07 AM

Really not sure about this .

Even if there were 'passive' creatures in the surrounding countryside , would they have a hit box? Would shooting them or walking near them cause them to move/stampede?

I could imagine the uproar if you shot at someone and some deer running between you interrupted your shot/aim . On one level it would add an extra element of depth to the game , but knowing how some people react to even the slightest odd thing in planetside ,forumside would be full of rants.

In retrospec I think I would vote for no .

I'd much prefer the idea someone posted ( peacemaker I think it was) a while back where vehicle debris would remain in situ around the area for a given time to give added cover and realism .

Logit

2011-04-29, 10:12 AM

I asked for the poll to be changed. It can't be changed by the original poster in this forum software. The current results are Yes - 14, No - 17 and Not sure - 3.

When I made this thread I didn't think people would have such strong feelings about this. Reminds me of the BFRs. I hope some of you are open for a little change. I'd hate to see this game be exactly the same with just upgraded graphics. I get the feeling some people want the exact same game minus BFRs though and I can respect that.

I think it's pretty safe to say the Core of Planetside is a very good game. We don't all want the same game, but we also don't want them to crap it up with dumb changes.

CutterJohn

2011-04-29, 05:32 PM

I think it's pretty safe to say the Core of Planetside is a very good game. We don't all want the same game, but we also don't want them to crap it up with dumb changes.

And we also don't want them to hold too hard to nostalgia and keep things in game that are bad, or fail to embrace new things, only because thats the way it was(or wasn't) done in planetside.

For my money, if it can be done without being detrimental to performance, and without insane amounts of dev time, it should be. Remember, wild animals. Can't use warpgates. They can be confined to a continent, and make that place different than the rest. They should all have unique dangers associated with them. Environmental effects, nasty weather, rocks from space, solar flares, etc. PS1 sterile candylands are boring. Oh, sure, have a couple, but make the rest interesting to fight on.

Senyu

2011-04-29, 05:38 PM

People are very worried that this will change the game they love in a bad way. And some from playing the game at all. Creatures if added that could be acceptable by most I imagine would have the following features

Passive: Creatures will not attack players. They are interactive cosmetic items part of the enivorment

Killable: Creatures are easily killed. And do not impede vehicles running over them

Fleeing: Creatures move away from large battles such as Base capture thus no interfering with the majority of the fights

Pure Fun: No exp is gained from killing them

Creatures added would be purely cosmetic and not interfere with majority of fights. They flee from gunfire. They just there while your passing by or defending and seeing it at a distance. In a large case if implemented, imagine rolling with your tank over a hill into a large field and seeing a herd of 20 creatures grazing start moving away as you pass by. Now for the rest of you imagine shooting them all down. It would add to the game and not destroy it as most are claiming. They are purely interactive cosmetic creatures.

Raymac

2011-04-29, 07:47 PM

The Planetside world right now is so incredibly static. I mean the world doesn't even have rivers. It would be nice to have just a little something to give it life.

Furret

2011-04-29, 09:13 PM

Sgt Grizzly

2011-05-02, 02:31 PM

I wanna herd a bunch of cattle to the front of an enemy base and watch them set off all the mines. Hambugers anyone? Actually, it might be easier to just make stew...

Furret

2011-05-02, 03:58 PM

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

obviously an exaggeration of what actually happened, but people type LOL when they just smile, so i figure actually laughing out loud corresponds to a fairly long chain of capitalized HA's.

Another interesting mechanic. Got a minefield? Send a cow.

Sirisian

2011-05-02, 07:50 PM

Poll was reset. I think now it will correctly gather everyone's opinions. Hopefully. I noticed some people like passive creatures, but are totally against hostile creatures and the new poll allows that option.

Also herding creatures would be an interestingly complex way to set off mines.

Speaking of that maybe there could be a creature with an NTU EMP that is emitted a short distance blowing up mines and disabling things like cloaking, implants, and spitfires, and vehicles. That would be a sweet epic creature like a flying creature.

Tiberius

2011-05-03, 02:01 AM

Wtf is this Jurassic Park?
:lol:

Logit

2011-05-03, 09:44 AM

So logit, you seem to be fairly strongly against the addition of creatures.

Assuming the creatures are along the lines of what senyu posted earlier, I don't see the problem, and I'd like to see your reasoning.

My only worry is that Sony will take creatures to a point that they are a significant part of the game. IE, gaining XP from them, or creating NPC's that give you quests.

This is not a good idea, and anything that takes away from constant PvP warfare is going to be detrimental.

I don't think either side should benefit from creatures at all(even if you do take the time to herd them toward mines.) People WILL whine about it.

Now, that being said. If they are passive creatures, with very little impact on what is going on around them, fine, I'd live with it. Because I'd expect them to be so insignificant that I barely noticed them.

I do like the idea of each continent/planet have it's own unique attributes, albeit terrain, weather, whatever..but I feel like they should focus more on great landscapes, continent "events," and other things that could provide entertainment for a static environment.

My biggest fear is the addition of these creatures, over time they try to elaborate on them, and we have another BFR fiasco.

Senyu

2011-05-03, 10:19 AM

As funny as herding creatures into mine fields I hope no one takes it seriously.

In fact a new attribute in my passive creatures feature would be thus

Influence Area: Creatures do not enter fields of influence created from Bases or towers. They just simply do not like it and will never bother the area.

The way I see them interacting with mines is if there has been no fighting giving them time to move back into an area and there just happens to be some left over mines in the fields or whatever. Again Passive Cosmetic Creatures with little interaction seems to be the only acceptable way for the majority of the fan-base. And if they do evolve into other things after people begin to accept them, please, these things would never become quest givers or something. That should never change. But dont let the phrase NPC scare you back into your hole either

Logit

2011-05-04, 01:18 PM

Influence Area: Creatures do not enter fields of influence created from Bases or towers. They just simply do not like it and will never bother the area.

This is a good idea.

I've come a short way from completely not wanting any form of PvE, but if it's something as simple as this, I'm sure I could allow it.

After all, I have a ton of say as to what does and does not go in the game....right? :groovy:

Senyu

2011-05-04, 01:20 PM

Please direct your attention to the next topic. It will be brief, intelligent, and consist of lengthy words. The topic of choice will be of including "METAL BOXES", why they hide in them, and how to remove the foe from them.

Sirisian

2011-05-04, 07:23 PM

I'm not sure I like the idea of passive creatures naturally avoiding SOIs. In my original post I suggested that base turrets and spitfires should just handle their spread. I guess being scared of gunfire would mean they'd wander away from the battle points on the map though.

What would be cool to see would be a small group of creatures wandering close to a base then the turret motion sensing them and unloading on one of them while the others flee.

Please direct your attention to the next topic. It will be brief, intelligent, and consist of lengthy words. The topic of choice will be of including "METAL BOXES", why they hide in them, and how to remove the foe from them.
If you don't like a topic bumping it doesn't help. :lol:

Senyu

2011-05-04, 09:26 PM

Not topic bumping, its a joke only some would get

Ormeon

2011-05-06, 01:43 PM

Not sure if it's posted around here already, but having Aggressive creatures in the game will make some/most fights extremely unfair.

Imagine you having a lovely shooting battle with two others and you're actually doing pretty good. You kill one and focus on the other one and suddenly, a giant bull-rex comes at you and bites your head off.

I can see that this is fun the first few times, but after a while, this gets more frustrating than it is fun.

Second example: You make yourself ready for a lovely sniper round, pop your sniper rifle behind a rock and start shooting. Suddenly while zoomed in you die and see a crocodile walking away that just bit your legs off.

Nah, that doesn't do it for me.

Passive creatures like birds would be fun, creatures that wouldn't get in the way. But I say a big 'NO!' to Aggressive creatures that can spoil your killing fun.

~Orm

Senyu

2011-05-06, 07:37 PM

I think it should just be a few types of passive creatures that retaliate when attacked. Other than that they leave you alone.

Furret

2011-05-06, 09:57 PM

I see your points Ormeon.

Obviously, those type of hostile creatures would be horrible for the game.

However, if creatures were confined to an obvious area, say around a certain lake in a certain forest swamp area between two bases; somewhere everyone knew about and there would be no surprises. They would be more of a tactical aspect than a PvE aspect. If you want to fight through the swamp, you gotta deal with the crocodiles. If you don't want to deal with the crocodiles, you gotta go around.

Sirisian

2011-05-07, 01:33 AM

Not sure if it's posted around here already, but having Aggressive creatures in the game will make some/most fights extremely unfair.

That's actually fair. What would make it unfair is if they only attacked the NC.

Some of the examples you described is why I think they'd be interesting and switch up the monotony of the battles. Also I don't think they should do as much damage as you're imagining. It wouldn't be one hit. Whipping around and firing a sniper round into a creature might stun it and allow the second shot to kill it. Also if you're by yourself I think the vulnerability would help. I know a lot of people on this forum hate solo players already. :lol:

Also I was thinking that if there are hostile creatures some should be neutral against players, but aggressive against vehicles.

Kind of wish people would explain more possible creatures. A crocodile is kind of Earthy and not a galaxy far away. Then again an electric NTU swamp eel would be fun and a bit cool to see jump from a swamp with razor teeth, but that's also Earthy so small changes help in the description.

Senyu

2011-05-07, 02:48 AM

Im thinking like Avatar creatures. Like those hammerhead herd ones. Something unique and alien.

Tiberius

2011-05-07, 04:54 AM

They could call it PandoraSide.

Crator

2011-05-07, 09:33 AM

Creatures idea is cool. It should be very well thought out. Should not affect game performance in any way. Should not interfere with large base battles unless very limited. For instance, perhaps there's a specific creature that uses sly tactics to pick off solo soldiers attacking a base. There could be deployables that soldiers could use to defend against these pests while your empire attacks a base. The occasional field battle with some nasty NPC creatures could add some more dynamics to the game. One idea I had that is really cool would be to have creatures in the oceans and lakes. Trying to travel over water is no longer a Sunday drive!

I also like the idea someone else had earlier where birds, or some other types of creatures, close in on a base being hacked. This will give those bored soldiers something to do while the hack goes through.

As for the reasoning to why there would be creatures still alive after so much war and caranage to the populations of creatures. Perhaps the story could be something like an alien race seeded the planet(s) and creatures just started reproducing at a fast rate. There could be conditions that slow the rate of reproduction down (could be cool game mechanic) that might be controlled by the players.

Baneblade

2011-05-07, 09:18 PM

Im thinking like Avatar creatures. Like those hammerhead herd ones. Something unique and alien.

Bonus if they treat BFRs like rodeo clowns.

TRex

2011-05-08, 04:01 AM

On reflection I think it would add a lot to immersion in the game world if the more a battle area is fought over , the more debris and gravestones appear . Once fighting ceases and moves on , after a little time little nematodes appear and start to recycle everything , and eventually the area is repopulated with creatures over time. The first shots from a gun or vehicles appearing , or a mosquito flies overhead the creatures herd away .

[edit] As an afterthought : what if there was an in-game logbook type thing (a bit similar to the Tome of Knowledge from Warhammer online) that tracked all your achievements , kills, assists and such automatically. You could see the names of people you killed or a k/d ratio of you against a given opponent.You could try to fill the book with every name of enemy . Areas of the world , and a small camera type thing to snaphot creatures you had seen. Different creatures on every continent , and the very rarest only appear when fighting has not occured for a long time , and so timid even the sight of a humanoid on the horizon send them fleeing for shelter.

Senyu

2011-05-08, 09:35 AM

Logbook is cool. But also seeing more of an effect on the world is cooler such as the debris that slowly disappear and plants growing again.

Ormeon

2011-05-12, 04:52 PM

Ormeon

2011-05-12, 04:57 PM

Some of the examples you described is why I think they'd be interesting and switch up the monotony of the battles. Also I don't think they should do as much damage as you're imagining. It wouldn't be one hit. Whipping around and firing a sniper round into a creature might stun it and allow the second shot to kill it. Also if you're by yourself I think the vulnerability would help. I know a lot of people on this forum hate solo players already. :lol:

If the creatures weren't overpowered beasts, It would be a little less of a nuisance. But still, how are you going to tell the player that a bull-o-saurus, twenty feet high, 30 feet length with a weight of thousands of kilograms is only able to deal 10 damage tops?

I understand what you're getting at, but the creature's size and strength have to be taken into consideration as well then.

Edit: I actually do understand what you're getting at, but massive creatures that are rare should be really rare as well. You as, say, sniper should not have a chance of 0.9 that a huge raptophant is going to lunge at you as soon as you take your spot behind that rock.

Edit2: Aaand, still. You shouldn't take away different playstyles, because that's something that makes a game like PlanetSide super-duper-awesome.

Senyu

2011-05-12, 10:00 PM

I dont think large monsters would be in game. Lets start with small to medium. Like most people point out this isn't a pve game

Traak

2011-05-18, 11:13 AM

Let's make robotic manned monsters. The Metalzoic era is upon us! And they could be overpowered, bipedal, game-wrecking. Oh, wait, Bindur Dundat.

Sirisian

2011-05-18, 11:52 AM

Let's make robotic manned monsters. The Metalzoic era is upon us! And they could be overpowered, bipedal, game-wrecking. Oh, wait, Bindur Dundat.:lol: People still use those arguments? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoratio_elenchi#Red_herring)

You do bring up a solid point though. I don't think that creatures should be used as mounts. I think that steers too far away from the central idea.

Lithious

2011-07-10, 04:25 PM

I think that Passive creatures should be in the game. Dont have to fill every square inch of them but just every once and awhile u bump into a horse like creauture or alittle herd of some wierd looking things. Would just be a nice feature so that plain vegetaion is not the only thing you see.

Gwartham

2011-07-10, 05:03 PM

I think there should be flocks of birds flying around and if a reaver flies thru them they sucked up into the engines and the reaver crashes.

Bags

2011-07-10, 05:08 PM

If we can't have vehicle animations or vehicle hacking due to rresource constraints then there is no way they're putting in this crap.

Sirisian

2011-07-11, 02:34 PM

If we can't have vehicle animations or vehicle hacking due to rresource constraints then there is no way they're putting in this crap.
The vehicle hacking wasn't because of resource constraints. Go check your facts.

Regarding vehicle animations I don't believe they actually said why there won't be vehicle animations. It's not a resource thing. Animating objects isn't really costly programming wise. I imagine it's a time constraint.

Lunarchild

2011-07-11, 06:14 PM

The vehicle hacking wasn't because of resource constraints. Go check your facts.

Regarding vehicle animations I don't believe they actually said why there won't be vehicle animations. It's not a resource thing. Animating objects isn't really costly programming wise. I imagine it's a time constraint.

Not 100% true. If they want to do it right, they'll have to create some special blending instead of snapping the player to target point so that the animation plays correctly. It can also break a lot of assumptions as to location in various pieces of code...

Also, animators have a lot of work on this kind of thing, which is also an important human resource ;)

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 05:41 PM

That's why I said it's a time constraint. Though I wish they'd invest time into this. I mean they added headshots which the majority of players didn't want. At least with this idea the majority of people are for it. Though I still have an open, I'm having a problem seeing why some people don't like it.

At least now we see we'll have giant open area with a lot of territory. We've also been shown that we'll be taking over some territory by dropping towers down. Seems like these ideas would open up the idea for more living creatures in the world.

Imagine that trailer we saw, but then at the end the ground shook around a magrider that was sitting still shooting and then a volumetric puff of sand and a decently sized dune-like worm (like tremor's graboid) hiiting the vehicle into the air as it slammed back into the ground in an arc jump. It would Target players on the sand standing in one place making a lot of noise. The new physics system would be used. It could come up when attacking soft targets allowing it to get shot.

So many ideas...

Bags

2011-07-12, 05:48 PM

Headshots before this please.

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 07:09 PM

We already have headshots. Am I the only person that got tired of killing the same people over and over? Maybe this game will have more people. Seemed like I recognized everyone's name back in the day. Wish there was more to the worlds.

Rarntogo

2011-07-12, 07:33 PM

Sure! How 'bout instead of Orbital Strikes a CR5 can invoke the Running of the Bulls through the courtyard to run down the enemy! ;)

Seriously... I just dont think it would be a good idea simply because of the additional graphics usage. Random creatures that just stroll around? I dunno...

razor851

2011-07-12, 07:34 PM

Passive creatures roaming around rarely fought over areas of land sounds okay. Hostile creatures in courtyards running in front of my bullets sounds fucking retarded.

SKYeXile

2011-07-12, 07:36 PM

Leave, now, with the PVE.

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 07:46 PM

Leave, now, with the PVE.
Why? I haven't seen anything that's ground breaking. Most everyone's arguments haven't made any sense. Stuff like "running of bulls" makes me think people have no imagination. Also there are no CR5s in the game anymore.

Passive creatures roaming around rarely fought over areas of land sounds okay. Hostile creatures in courtyards running in front of my bullets sounds fucking retarded.
Already explained on the first page. Creatures don't roam into SOI regions nears towers or bases. Read the thread. Most arguments have already been brought up and for the most part refuted. Though I still know people are going to say "But if you add creatures they'll bring BFRs back in", but like I said that's speculation.

Bags

2011-07-12, 07:46 PM

It just really feels like a waste of developer resources.

razor851

2011-07-12, 07:50 PM

Already explained on the first page. Creatures don't roam into SOI regions nears towers or bases. Read the thread. Most arguments have already been brought up and for the most part refuted. Though I still know people are going to say "But if you add creatures they'll bring BFRs back in", but like I said that's speculation.
Okay then. I was just giving you my opinion on the matter. Since you were rude, I say fuck this idea all together. I hate the idea of creatures so much now, I'm going to go in my backyard and slaughter every fucking bird I see.

Malorn

2011-07-12, 07:55 PM

This might be OK as an atmospheric thing, like how Starcraft has critters, but why go there? It leads us to PvE and I'd rather just go with the story of how all the animals fled the carnage of war. It's also more CPU and server horsepower spent not on our big fights - its a waste of resources.

That said, running over a cow with a vanguard might be a fun way to pass the time while traveling from point A to point B.

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 08:02 PM

Okay then. I was just giving you my opinion on the matter. Since you were rude, I say fuck this idea all together. I hate the idea of creatures so much now, I'm going to go in my backyard and slaughter every fucking bird I see.
That wasn't directed to you. If you read up I referring to another poster's comment. I'm truly sorry that I didn't break that into another paragraph.

It just really feels like a waste of developer resources.
Yeah that's my general feeling too. It would take a lot of work that could be put into other things. Though they said they had a 3 year plan for content addition so I thought this could be something to add in after the release.

That said, running over a cow with a vanguard might be a fun way to pass the time while traveling from point A to point B.
I don't want cows. I want sci-fi things not related to earth. Something that would help to create a realistic Planetside continent. Small exotic birds for instance.

razor851

2011-07-12, 08:05 PM

I accept your apology and I love you again. I did kill nine birds already, though.

Bags

2011-07-12, 08:12 PM

Only nine?

Malorn

2011-07-12, 09:07 PM

I don't want cows. I want sci-fi things not related to earth. Something that would help to create a realistic Planetside continent. Small exotic birds for instance.

Small exotic birds are far less entertaining to hit with a vanguard. I only like fauna so much as I can have an renewable, grief-free supply of things to run over.

Oh wait, that's what VS and TR are for....

Goku

2011-07-12, 09:14 PM

Small exotic birds are far less entertaining to hit with a vanguard. I only like fauna so much as I can have an renewable, grief-free supply of things to run over.

Oh wait, that's what VS and TR are for....

I prefer friendlies unfortunately, especially cloakers. I love those tells.

I totally forgot about this thread. I would like at least passive creatures to be in game. Now we just need a T Rex creature in the jungle areas to wreak havoc :D.

WeNeedAMedic

2011-07-12, 10:57 PM

Personally I hope SOE doesn't waste the budget money on something silly like PvE crap like this. Put it towards something moe important and appealing. Youre talking about worrying about hundreds and hundreds of your enemies running around the map with badass weaponry and you're telling me I have to worry about an ANCIENT WORM running behind me and gnawing at my exo suit? F THAT NOISE!! :mad:

Forsaken One

2011-07-12, 11:06 PM

As long as they are neutral and treated as wildflife I actually think it might be a interesting thing to add. It would add to the feeling of fighting in a world as a army while NOT adding to the "self".

They will of course not give any xp or anything. You couldn't farm them for anything and they wouldn't give you anything if you killed them.

but they WILL make you have to be more aware and less stupid. Going near the bear cave? you get mauled for being stupid. spraying like a tard and piss off some loin type thing? good luck.

I however do not support such things belonging or being friendly with a certain empire. so again I must stress. it sounds like a great idea as long as they are wildlife.

Sirisian

2011-07-12, 11:26 PM

They will of course not give any xp or anything. You couldn't farm them for anything and they wouldn't give you anything if you killed them.
Yeah they'd just be in the background most of the time. More a player vs environment thing.

I however do not support such things belonging or being friendly with a certain empire. so again I must stress. it sounds like a great idea as long as they are wildlife.
heh hadn't even thought of faction creatures. My original NC story was creatures created by the NC that got out of hand or something cool (War animals that revive just like players using NTU).

Anyway I was imagining simple passive creatures like birds wandering around that fly away from tanks and then hostile creatures per continent that players "find" as they play. They wouldn't be like busting in bases which I think some people are imagining I guess as some kind of fourth empire. :rofl:

p0intman

2011-07-12, 11:30 PM

i prefer no AI outside of base defenses/ce type crap, but if its going to be fucking forced on us, they should want to kill every goddamn living thing in their sight.

Lunarchild

2011-07-13, 05:23 AM

Spark

2011-07-13, 05:42 AM

The main appeal of PS for me was that I was fighting other human beings in a massive battlefield. AI creatures will just seem like a step backward, instead of adding new ways for humans to clash on the battlefield they just add EQ style mobs that eat FPS. For people who want AI enemies in a persistent MMOFPS then play Firefall when that comes out, PS2 should be strictly PvP.

Sirisian

2011-07-13, 12:29 PM

The main appeal of PS for me was that I was fighting other human beings in a massive battlefield. AI creatures will just seem like a step backward, instead of adding new ways for humans to clash on the battlefield they just add EQ style mobs that eat FPS.
Nah not EQ style mobs. hmm. Not sure if you've ever played the game Savage. There was AI units randomly placed around the world. Most of the time they'd stay out of your way unless you wandered around a back way in which case you'd come in contact with them. They were there usually to dissuade people from taking that path.

The idea isn't to changed the game to a PvE centric game. I was actually saying to keep the PvP the way it's going to be, but then also put in an element of surprise into the world outside of the normal combat. I'm imagining these territories to be rather large I guess.

For people who want AI enemies in a persistent MMOFPS then play Firefall when that comes out, PS2 should be strictly PvP.
Firefall doesn't label itself as an mmofps. It's actually just a simple co-op multiplayer game with instanced PvP. This is a common misconception the developers cleared up during PAX East.

To be fair there is no MMOFPS game like Planetside that seamlessly blends a living environment into the battle. When people try to use that argument of "go play BF3 then" it doesn't always work. :( You end up describing a game so radically different that you miss the point of the presented idea. Or you try to associate it with something that's already been done like saying "oh you want to make this into WoW?" when that's not the idea at all. Though I imagine when making an argument it's much easier to fight that idea than what I presented.

321

2011-08-01, 07:13 PM

I support this idea so long as the "large 4 legged monster with biological weapons to kill tanks and airplanes" on Cyssor is replaced with Godzilla.

Krowe

2011-08-01, 07:46 PM

I wouldn't mind occasionally having to kill a wild territorial animal. I think this "Planetside" game has guns (not too sure) so I don't think animals should prove too much of a problem.

Passive animals yes, would make the worlds feel less dead.

PvE should not be a main aspect however, it should simply be a "Hey, on downtime because you can't get into the fight? Go on a hunt with some friends while you wait!" or something. I'd rather do that than mindless training like some people.

Baneblade

2011-08-01, 08:11 PM

...be a "Hey, on downtime because you can't get into the fight? Go on a hunt with some friends while you wait!" or something. I'd rather do that than mindless training like some people.

I do that already, I have plenty of TR and VS (and some NC) heads on my wall.

Vanir

2011-08-01, 08:34 PM

As long as you don't gain anything from killing them. Other wise, no PvE.

MgFalcon

2011-08-01, 09:06 PM

This seriously got bumped?

EASyEightyEight

2011-08-01, 09:08 PM

I can see excessively large creatures working as a part of the environment: a massive sandworm in a desert, and we're not talking any patch of sand, this would have to be a truly large, flat expanse of nothing but. Maybe a kraken in a swamp? Nah, probably in space as a GM spawned entity just for laughs.

But really, since they're planning to eventually introduce planets, I'd rather they just set up one of the Planets to have a primary focus on a PvE element vs. aliens/machines. SOE could explain whatever wiped out the ancient Vanu (unless they had a good reason to just up and leave.) All factions would come together as a single "black ops" faction (without the stats) to fight a swarming menace on some desolate colonial world.

Course, I'd prefer if those aliens were controlled by players, but PS2 could see some extra income from the co-op oriented crowd interested in an MMOFPS for them. Plus I wouldn't ask of them to set up cert trees for an alien race that may cling walls, bleed acid, and feed on your brains with a toothie tongue. Would be really cool though!

Sovereign

2011-08-01, 09:08 PM

It wont happen anyway, they have already stated that this game will be fixated on pvp only..

Raelity

2011-08-01, 09:56 PM

That poll is too even for comfort, can't believe so many people would like to see PvE in a game so PvP-centric. The system some games use whereby birds take off from forests if the enemy moves too fast or shoots while in them, thats the absolute maximum inclusion of creatures I would like to see. Thats actually got some function besides annoying players, it would be very useful in bases surrounded by thick forest to see where an infantry attack was coming from. It could even open up more advanced tactics like using one squad member as a distraction to scare the birds on one side of the base while his comrades attack on the other side. Even as I type this I can see a load of problems with that system, but no matter as nothing in this thread is actually going to be in PS2.

Valdae

2011-08-01, 11:54 PM

I think the idea of invisible ferel wolflike creatures is kinda cool, so long as they stick to the wild and are extremely rare to spot. Create a kind of nice myth.

Krowe

2011-08-02, 12:42 AM

Tatwi

2011-08-02, 01:34 PM

A few randomly placed AI controlled creatures is not an entire PvE system. I don't get why everyone is being spastic about that. If they didn't give anything for killing them, I don't see a problem.

AI - must be processed on the client and the server.

Extra Textures and Polygons - must be processed on the client.

Art and Animations - must be made and tested by real SOE developers.

Bugs - must be fix by real SOE developers.

AFK "loot whoring" - Will be done to the detriment of the game and be defended by the logic, "I pay my $15 so you can't tell me how to play!" regardless of how negatively the activities impact the game. Star Wars Galaxies is a sad, sad example of this reality...

These are the problems I see with adding NPCs/mobs to Planetside 2. They are not insurmountable, but they are 100% resolved by simply not adding NPCs/mobs to the game.

That said, I think it would be interesting if there were areas where the civilians of the empires lived, made babies, and the like. Protecting, capturing/liberating, and minimizing the damage done to these areas could make for interesting game play. These areas could also be where SOE could add "flair" to the game, through instanced (EQII style) player/guild housing, shops, and other such things. Given that this stuff would only take place in certain areas, it would be optional content that people who aren't interested in could simply ignore. But again, see the technical problems that I listed above for reasons to simply not add this type of content at all.

Sirisian

2011-08-02, 02:14 PM

AI - must be processed on the client and the server.
Speaking from a programming perspective pathfinding and running simple FSM based AI is extremely cheap. Refrain from making technical viewpoints if you don't know their implementation. It's as bad as building a strawman.

Extra Textures and Polygons - must be processed on the client.

Art and Animations - must be made and tested by real SOE developers.

I'll give you that. Anything added to the game will usually require these things. The ForgeLight engine is unique in that it's being used for both Planetside 2 and the new Everquest game. It puts it in the nice role that it already has pathfinding in it and support for loading many different models (for creatures in Everquest). This fact was pointed out prior and largely ignored.

I wasn't going to bump this; however, I replied because I read the following over like 5 times and can't for the life of me figure out what you meant.

AFK "loot whoring" - Will be done to the detriment of the game and be defended by the logic, "I pay my $15 so you can't tell me how to play!" regardless of how negatively the activities impact the game. Star Wars Galaxies is a sad, sad example of this reality...

What does this mean?

I think the idea of invisible ferel wolflike creatures is kinda cool, so long as they stick to the wild and are extremely rare to spot. Create a kind of nice myth.
Indeed. I think it would add something to the game that players could discover by themselves as they played. I also like my idea of having the invisible creatures get angered at darklight and use the NTU orbs to attack. Limiting hostile creatures to melee in a game with high powered rifles seems a bit cheap. Cloaked units have the advantage to cover ground though.

As long as you don't gain anything from killing them. Other wise, no PvE.
I think nearly 100% of people already agree upon that. :P

That poll is too even for comfort, can't believe so many people would like to see PvE in a game so PvP-centric.
Indeed it's interesting to see how the vocal minority views this. Normally they're much more resistent to change. I mean my mech thread got trashed. :lol:

Tatwi

2011-08-02, 03:39 PM

What does this mean?

Read this (http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/posts/list.m?topic_id=996775) thread.

Also, please refrain from making asinine assumptions about people who you don't know from Adam. Doing so does not help to further your point.

Tigersmith

2011-08-02, 03:51 PM

passive would be fine with me.

Logit

2011-08-02, 03:53 PM

passive would be fine with me.

I can live with passive, but I'll be a sad panda if PvE makes it into this game.

A very sad panda.

Sirisian

2011-08-02, 05:13 PM

Read this (http://forums.station.sony.com/swg/posts/list.m?topic_id=996775) thread.
Oh, making bots/macros to farm creatures for experience. Yeah I don't envision experience coming into the system. I'd prefer if everyone pretended that we're talking about a non-MMORPG type of creature system. That is the creatures aren't always in your way. They might be in certain regions wandering around to dissuade solo players from venturing in a direction. Or they might exist just to liven up the world in the more open areas or in the forests.

Also, please refrain from making asinine assumptions about people who you don't know from Adam. Doing so does not help to further your point.
Did I offend you? I didn't mean to. I was just pointing flaws in your arguments. A lot of people have tried to defend their point of view with arguments about networking and graphical costs and it bothers me to see those kinds of arguments.

It's fine to try to argue about all the costs to the developers and man hours used, but really I wanted this thread to focus on the "what if". Like what if in the 3 year plan when the game is released we started to see these kinds of things.

Passive creatures seem to be okay with some players. What kind of passive creatures would you like to see?

Chaff

2011-08-02, 05:18 PM

.
Well.

I never would have thought of this implementation, but after reading alll the imagination behind adding it .... vs .... "don't change MY Planetside or I'LL NEVER PLAY IT AGAIN" crying & flame-repsonses against this idea ...... I guess I have to jump in on the side FOR IT.

It needs to stay minimal - a little spice - the shooting & killing (PvP) needs to stay above 90% to 95% of the game.

I would vote that large firefights would scare any "animals" away. I know I'll be PISSED if I'm ever in a hurry (on an ATV) and my vehicle gets disabled becasue I hit a "critter" I did not see until the last milli-second. Oh well. People hit deer in real life.

Running water, and some other small touches would ADD to game play - or, at least a little deeper "immersion" into this FPS PS2 alternate reality.

In PS2 - hitting a "critter" shoud be rare - place them on the map with an AI that makes for some near-misses - might make a cross-continent vehicle run a tiny bit LESS boring.

I am FOR adding more REALISM and layers to the game. I think the smaller the number of players in an area - the more critters tend to occupy those parts of the map. It would add a new layer of strategy/challenges to Special Ops, snipers, cloakers, and solo players..

Maybe some kind of small scorpion creature would be prone to bite a sniper (if he stayed in ONE place more than 3 minutes?) right as he was shooting - causing a loss in accuracy or complete misfire. Would there be a "Roach Motel" cert - so these players could counteract this kind of PvE content ?

Passive creatures would add a little realism, but serve no more purpose than a sky with a few wisps of clouds - hardly noticeable - so, what's the point or the debate about ?

I think it has to be left out from PS2 at launch - at least anything remotely hostile to the players. If the game goes gagga big - then there should be $$$$$$ to ADD more content.

I find the possibilites very intriguing - but they'd have to be very careful - I don't want to EVER pass a Squad of Elves on their way to a magic crocodile hunt/spell-quest as me and some of my Squad rolls thru the contryside in our Raider.

I am FOR this idea, but I would want to be on the advisory panel of how much they allow "creatures" to affect gameplay. Spruce up the game. IMPROVE the game with "creatures". Just don't jack up the FPS action. I see great POSSIBILITES amongst a LOT of BAD possible "creature' add-ins.
(still FOR it ! )
It could be GREAT....if done RIGHT (in moderation - away from the major player zergs).

SOE has to be looking at any new content they think will add game enrollment. Like-it-or-not, I'm preparing myself for content that may initially work to turn me off. I'm gonna give PS2 plenty of time to win me over before I write it off.
.

cashfoyogash

2011-08-03, 06:24 PM

RAWRRRRR! dinosaurs!!! BUT on the topic I dont think you should be able to be killed in planetside by anything other than a player killing you or your own error in judgment, like hey this is a high cliff let me see if I can make it...

Krowe

2011-08-03, 07:42 PM

AI - must be processed on the client and the server.

Extra Textures and Polygons - must be processed on the client.

Art and Animations - must be made and tested by real SOE developers.

Bugs - must be fix by real SOE developers.

AFK "loot whoring" - Will be done to the detriment of the game and be defended by the logic, "I pay my $15 so you can't tell me how to play!" regardless of how negatively the activities impact the game. Star Wars Galaxies is a sad, sad example of this reality...

These are the problems I see with adding NPCs/mobs to Planetside 2. They are not insurmountable, but they are 100% resolved by simply not adding NPCs/mobs to the game.

That said, I think it would be interesting if there were areas where the civilians of the empires lived, made babies, and the like. Protecting, capturing/liberating, and minimizing the damage done to these areas could make for interesting game play. These areas could also be where SOE could add "flair" to the game, through instanced (EQII style) player/guild housing, shops, and other such things. Given that this stuff would only take place in certain areas, it would be optional content that people who aren't interested in could simply ignore. But again, see the technical problems that I listed above for reasons to simply not add this type of content at all.

If you actually read my post, you would see that I questioned his logic in thinking "OH GOD THERES AN ANIMAL ITS A PVE SYSTEM FCK!", and nothing at all to do with technical problems.

Funny thing is, you said something about farming these mobs, when I infact said that they shouldn't grant anything. Yeah, you can sit down now kid.