NPC's in planetside? [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

Livefire

2012-02-19, 04:05 AM

I wanted to share this idea with the community and see what you guys thought. I would like to see NPC's in PS2, I think we have all seen the original maps of PS1 with the NPC animal's and I think we should get them this time around. Although I would not want to have to ever fight npc's I think it would be fun to have them around in the game to give it it's own life like npc's do in other mmo's. I have thought of using npc's these ways in planetside 2 that would ad alot of realism to the game and should be simple to implement as most mmo's and even just arcade shooters have them today.
1. Having animals living and roaming the maps , flocks of birds able to be shot and killed or scared and then they run away when fighting breaks out. Or they could give away your position as a sniper by being spooked when you get to close.
2. Having human npc's as the base employees/operators running the bases systems working at work station computers, like air traffic control at the drop ship centers the alike, things like that. You could interact with them like at the medical center to get repaired/ get your vehicle fixed and stuff like that. New weapons and weapon modding like a vender type system rather then just a computer you walk up to. This would also fit with the planetside story being the majority of the people that came through the wormhole where civilians
3. There could be mission objectives given or bonus reward for things like evacuating the npc staff of a base before the enemy take control of it. Or if they take control and it was not evacuated they could be taken prisoner and you could then break them out and get bonus ex for stuff like that. Essentially there could be dozens of mini missions/objectives that could be played out using npc's that are caught between the players fighting it out for total domination.
4. If you killed civilians in the middle of a base capture you would get grief or other xp type penalties for killing innocents, and xp bonuses for base caps for not killing many and being responsible and precise with your shooting, so you would have to fight the enemy around the civilians just like real war today especially in urban environments.
These are just some if of the way i thought of that you could use NPC's.

In no way would I want to fight them just have them as another element to the game to play with, and kill and be rewarded for not killing and rescuing and interacting with stuff like. I would also only want this if it did not impact the development/resources, maybe an ad on later on after release in that case.

what you think? Give details..

ArcIyte

2012-02-19, 04:06 AM

Sinilaid

2012-02-19, 04:09 AM

No.

Livefire

2012-02-19, 04:12 AM

No

No details why really?

SuperMorto

2012-02-19, 04:12 AM

The war has been going for that long they have all been blasted to bits.

Livefire

2012-02-19, 04:19 AM

The war has been going for that long they have all been blasted to bits.

That does not really make sense the population would die off, there is a lot of civilians in planet side they even talk about them in the story, like the scientist that designed the bfrs and what not, they just have never been in the game I want every thing in PS2 no back story's we don't see its 2012 man. I want a living breathing world that has a global war happening on it. In world war 2 was there just american's soldiers and Nazi soldiers, no the majority of the battle field has civ's on it and they are a part of it why not simulate them as well. This is also very common in most single player mode shooters now it would be cool to see it in the multiplayer world.

Knocky

2012-02-19, 04:21 AM

The entire point of this game is players....and ONLY players running around.

Go back to WoW for your precious NPCs.

Bags

2012-02-19, 04:22 AM

.oN

Livefire

2012-02-19, 04:32 AM

The entire point of this game is players....and ONLY players running around.

Go back to WoW for your precious NPCs.

I don't remember ever reading anything about planetside only being made with a dead game space only populated by player, in fact the first maps for planetside had AI animals roaming around and the only reason they didn't put them in was for resource consumption back then. What matters in planetside is its only players vs players no players vs NPCs. And for the record I hate wow and all fantasy mmo but NPC's in mmo's fit nicely even if you are not fighting them ever. Still would like to be able to kill them just not have them shoot back.

Atheosim

2012-02-19, 04:43 AM

Just sounds like a terribad idea frankly. The idea is that PLAYERS should be filling every single role that can exist, and if it exists and it can't be filled by players, then awesome ass deus ex machina. Air tower controllers? FUX DAT. Supercomputer onboard. People operating computers in the base? FUX DAT, NS designed it to be fully automated to minimize crew requirements.

Mastachief

2012-02-19, 04:45 AM

No to NPC... ever.

Planetside is and should always be a player driven persistent combat fps. No free kills / points / kudos for killing easy targets.

Magpie

2012-02-19, 04:51 AM

Livefire

2012-02-19, 05:04 AM

Just no, it would take too much Programing to make the world lag. I get what your saying but coping with 666 vs 666 vs 666 and all the actions that go with Nearly 2000 people is a ground braking challenge. They tryed and tested it in ps1 but if was too much CPU space on the severs

Planetside 2 has got a big dinner to eat it don't need a side order to be sick over, it would make the dinner nasty

This is not WOW

This is PLANTSIDE 2

Well that's why I stated performance, I'm all for performance so if it effected that at all I would not want it but if it didn't and didn't effect the development of the game I would like to see a living environment at the very least not a dead static map when there is no players fighting. I think it would be fun running a deer down with my tank. Or even better running over a human npc just doing his job standing in a base CY some where:)

Livefire

2012-02-19, 05:09 AM

Shanesan

2012-02-19, 05:29 AM

Nothing like bombing a wandering herd of cattle with my liberator.

If it fits into their schedule, they should add it.

Magpie

2012-02-19, 05:39 AM

Well that's why I stated performance, I'm all for performance so if it effected that at all I would not want it but if it didn't and didn't effect the development of the game I would like to see a living environment at the very least not a dead static map when there is no players fighting. I think it would be fun running a deer down with my tank. Or even better running over a human npc just doing his job standing in a base CY some where:)

The ideal of it is good, it would be pretty funny cloaking and pissing off a few wild beasts,but it's a FPS first and MMORPG second in a way so if they did have it, it's not gonna be for a while maybe ps3 :)

That one noob

2012-02-19, 05:46 AM

I rather have a bunch of datapads which I may find in random parts of the continents if I want some backstory. No to NPCs due to them being unnecessary and detracting from the core game mechanic, which is widespread, territorial war via combined arms.

Mirror

2012-02-19, 05:56 AM

yes let's add npcs and orcs and a dragon.

DOUBLEXBAUGH

2012-02-19, 05:57 AM

yes let's add npcs and orcs and a dragon.

We had dragons, they breathed fire!

Magpie

2012-02-19, 06:04 AM

Let's have pet monkeys!!! ...... Or we could have chickens with bombs!?!?

sylphaen

2012-02-19, 06:06 AM

What about a player controlled NPC ?

Name of the game ? Timed survival !
:rofl: :rofl:

ringring

2012-02-19, 06:38 AM

Ohhhh, you certainly hit a nerve here! :groovy:

I say no, reasons:
1. It's not planetside
2. If there are npc animals moving about someone in my vehicle will shoot them when I want then to shoot the enemy (or keep quiet for a stealthy approach) :D
3. Performance. Will 1 more NPC mean 1 less RL person on the server, or at least a little bit worse performance that we would otherwise get?
4. It will give Smedley ideas.

basti

2012-02-19, 08:18 AM

I want a little pet midged that i can send into a door of an enemy base to check if its safe.

Redshift

2012-02-19, 09:45 AM

That does not really make sense the population would die off, there is a lot of civilians in planet side they even talk about them in the story, like the scientist that designed the bfrs and what not, they just have never been in the game

They are in, they're the soldiers. The real soldiers are the current TR, mostly. The Civilians and mercs are NC, mostly. The scientists are the VS, mostly.

Hmr85

2012-02-19, 09:48 AM

No NPC's please. They will take away from the player count. I personally would rather have more players to shoot than some animals/creature/AI civilians standing / roaming around.

DayOne

2012-02-19, 10:25 AM

They mentioned in the PCG article that you may see space battles going on in the skybox. If so I like to imagine that all the NPC's are still in the ships and only soldiers are on the surface to secure the resources.

Though guys running about in PS1 PJs carrying boxes to places would be pretty cool.

stordito

2012-02-19, 10:30 AM

Sirisian

2012-02-19, 02:24 PM

1. Having animals living and roaming the maps , flocks of birds able to be shot and killed or scared and then they run away when fighting breaks out. Or they could give away your position as a sniper by being spooked when you get to close.
According to my poll 53% of people were alright with passive creatures. Only 36% of people wanted hostile creatures.

I'm not even going to talk about humanoid NPCs. It was nearly unanimous that no one likes those in Planetside. I would hate to see "bots" essentially in the game. Having inanimate terminal screens is far better for shops and transactions.

That said you formed this post in such a way it's going to be trolled. Notice how I formatted my creatures thread with clearly defined and "realistic" creatures for a Planetside universe that would fit into the game. A lot of people will immediately assume you want to add chickens and fish to the game which even I have problems with. Adding creatures that make sense and make the continents feel more alive should be the goal with sci-fi creatures. I digress, but in the future you have to foresee the "it's not in Planetside 1" crowd. They are going to point out anything not in Planetside 1 and attack it in anyway possible.

SniperSteve

2012-02-19, 02:29 PM

ArcIyte

2012-02-19, 02:37 PM

According to my poll 53% of people were alright with passive creatures. Only 36% of people wanted hostile creatures.

I'm not even going to talk about humanoid NPCs. It was nearly unanimous that no one likes those in Planetside. I would hate to see "bots" essentially in the game. Having inanimate terminal screens is far better for shops and transactions.

That said you formed this post in such a way it's going to be trolled. Notice how I formatted my creatures thread with clearly defined and "realistic" creatures for a Planetside universe that would fit into the game. A lot of people will immediately assume you want to add chickens and fish to the game which even I have problems with. Adding creatures that make sense and make the continents feel more alive should be the goal with sci-fi creatures. I digress, but in the future you have to foresee the "it's not in Planetside 1" crowd. They are going to point out anything not in Planetside 1 and attack it in anyway possible.

Democracy will always be a shitty system of decision. I don't care if 99% of voters want a bunch of useless shit cluttering up the game world. It's retarded and will never be in the game. It's not worth the framerate or the time.

Warborn

2012-02-19, 02:52 PM

NPCs are fine. I think having animals that are just there to fly around in jungles or run across plains in herds and scatter when a tank rumbles by is cool. The consideration of course is that you wouldn't want these things to become a detriment to FPS.

And I like your ideas about evac missions. Even protecting NPC-driven convoys would be something I'd be fine with. Having NPC elements in the game could open up a lot of really interesting gameplay avenues to diversify gameplay. I'd love it if in that Indar map I guess, where it's canyons and mesas and big mining stations, if there was something like that The Great Train Robbery mission in Starcraft 2. Y'know, hover-trains that speed across the map? Incorporating that into gameplay somehow would be great. Like, having these trains roll across the continent, and each Empire is vying to capture them by landing infantry on them, or having vehicles/aircraft flying around them to shoot enemy infantry. That'd be awesome.

So yeah, in principle NPCs being added to the game I think would work well. You just wouldn't want to minimize the role players take, or divert people away from fighting each other too much. But for sure having NPCs of some sort to add fun and interesting game modes would be fine in principle I think.

Marth Koopa

2012-02-19, 03:24 PM

NPCs take CPU

NPCs don't add anything

waste

Conq

2012-02-19, 03:29 PM

Yes.

But just as alien wildlife and not near any combat areas where they could contribute to lag. I'd love to see a herd of animals scatter before my Sunderer while on route to an enemy base or practice my aim on them while swooping over in a Liberator.

Anything that adds more immersion to the game.

DayOne

2012-02-19, 04:05 PM

Animals I most certainly want. Birds and things in trees would be a great addition.

Hostile creature would be cool if you are far from roads and built up areas.

It introduces decisions like:

"Should I go through this forest? Its a shorter route to my destination but I could be killed and eaten by a giant Auraxian creature."

Something as terrifying as Fallout's Yao Guai would be great!

Bags

2012-02-19, 04:06 PM

I think it would be an amazing experience to lose a fire fight because a random NPC decided to attakc me.

WaryWizard

2012-02-19, 04:27 PM

I wouldn't mind having animals so long as it fell under the following.

1. Not too high of a priority on their list of things to do. Just a little side project.

2. They don't hang around bases and such. The places that will probably have the most players shouldn't have animals.

3. They are unable to harm players. Maybe if the push you off a cliff, but that's all I can think of.

I'm not too sure how I would feel about firing a rocket at an aircraft, but the rocket hitting a random bird that is in the way. That would just be a once in a blue moon kinda thing though.

Fenrys

2012-02-19, 04:32 PM

I don't think it's worth the resources. It would suck dev time away from other projects, and increase the load on both server and clients. The increased immersion would be too small IMO.

Tatwi

2012-02-19, 04:51 PM

This thread again?

No.

Waste of server resources. Waste of developer time. Just another potential system to be exploited.

Flavor is great and I am all for that, but in the end it's just a waste of developer time.

IronMole

2012-02-19, 04:57 PM

NPC's have no role in a game such as Planetside. I think people seem to fail on what actually made PS the game it is.

I know Planetside 2 has changed quite a bit, but some of the ideas I have read on this forum are just dumb.

DayOne

2012-02-19, 05:03 PM

IronMole

2012-02-19, 05:04 PM

No place in a giant, immersive, persistent world? :rofl:

In a pure FPS PvP element. No.

Firefly

2012-02-19, 05:09 PM

NO.

NivexQ

2012-02-19, 05:18 PM

This community is way too god damn dismissive. I'm just going to guess that everyone that said "No." didn't even get past the title. Shame on you.

Anyway, I think it would be great to have npc creatures roaming the planets, and npc humans roaming the cities, as long as performance is not an issue. I wouldn't want the game toned down to implement this either.

Warborn

2012-02-19, 05:22 PM

This community is way too god damn dismissive. I'm just going to guess that every that said "No." didn't even get past the title. Shame on you.

Probably just read the title and replied, yeah. Most people seem to really dislike anything that departs significantly from the original. NPCs or something like it would be able to really diversify gameplay without overburdening servers or players' computers. To be dismissive of them is foolish.

Zulthus

2012-02-19, 05:34 PM

NPCs do not belong in Planetside.

DayOne

2012-02-19, 05:35 PM

NPCs do not belong in Planetside.

No place in a giant, immersive, persistent world? :rofl:

Zulthus

2012-02-19, 05:37 PM

No place in a giant, immersive, persistent world? :rofl:

Nope. :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Tatwi

2012-02-19, 05:42 PM

NPCs do not belong in a team based PvP persistent world game.

Fixed.

Livefire

2012-02-19, 05:59 PM

No place in a giant, immersive, persistent world? :rofl:

:rofl: Planetside vets are way to dismissive about this and as a vet I am saddened by this, I do find there fear of passive npc's, human and animal funny tho. I also hope they realize that this is not PS1 and it is going to need to be held a to much high standards for the new people it must attract that have never played or even heard of Planetside before. And improving the immersive game play and realism, as well as new styles of play other then just the repetitious base hacking is going in the right direction.

Graywolves

2012-02-19, 06:12 PM

Only if they put Ragnaros in Searhus

Bags

2012-02-19, 06:12 PM

Planetside is PvP.

E has no place in this game. Except like trees.

Zulthus

2012-02-19, 06:21 PM

Planetside is PvP.

E has no place in this game. Except like trees.

This. PVP is the POINT of the game, having even passive NPCs just distracts from the focus of the game. Adding in NPCs doesn't raise the standards of the game, in fact it would make it worse. I don't want to have to fight off rhinos and zebras when I'm trying to fight off other players.

XPquant

2012-02-19, 06:22 PM

YES!

Ragefighter

2012-02-19, 06:29 PM

maybe if a little bit of stuff was added like passive mining machines that get resources from areas you capture (assuming we are not going to be mining shit idk), nothing like you have to go and hail an npc and press dialog in order to get your gun..
not sure how the resources are being handled in game but i would assume we are capturing like a mine for X resource or what not. would be weird if the mine was just a lifeless (or machineless) hole in the ground. or they could utilize like a mining laser that atomizes stuff i guess.

But most 'jobs' that do not require a person to play it are probably best suited to be done by a supercomputer or AI/VI (IE automatically).

fauna such as stuff like animals or maybe if there is a swampy area add some bugs that don't effect pvp just add flavor. Like you shouldn't be able to hide your aircraft in a flock of birds and have incoming missiles attack the birds.

Really depends on the Beta server tests, if the servers handle 2000+ players and just chew through it like butter than sure all some more eyecandy, but if the added fauna makes the game less accessible than it is a bad option. last thing I want in a game like this is a herd of animals to rush a battle and cause people to lag out or their FPS to crash...

Sirisian

2012-02-19, 06:31 PM

I don't want to have to fight off rhinos and zebras when I'm trying to fight off other players.
A lot of people will immediately assume you want to add chickens and fish to the game which even I have problems with. Adding creatures that make sense and make the continents feel more alive should be the goal with sci-fi creatures.
I don't think anyone wants rhinos and zebras specifically. :rolleyes: Might as well go and list all of them. I personally don't want ants.

Zulthus

2012-02-19, 06:34 PM

I don't think anyone wants rhinos and zebras specifically. :rolleyes: Might as well go and list all of them. I personally don't want ants.

I could deal with ants, but as a compromise, gorillas cannot be in the game.

Talek Krell

2012-02-19, 06:47 PM

The idea that the devs could add NPCs to the game without affecting performance seems unlikely at best. No reason to sacrifice frame rate or player count for a herd of Auraxian Not-Cattle.

artifice

2012-02-19, 06:53 PM

Redshift

2012-02-19, 07:08 PM

If I was writing a review for an MMO that didn't properly immerse the player which NPCs are very much apart of, I would probably deduct points. Especially when that MMO will be going up against competitors that do have that aspect.

PS2 has no competitors atm, nothing offers the scale of PS2, shit nothing offers the scale of PS1 still.

Aurmanite

2012-02-19, 07:14 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people championing this idea either haven't played Planetside, or sucked really bad at it.

artifice

2012-02-19, 07:28 PM

PS2 has no competitors atm, nothing offers the scale of PS2, shit nothing offers the scale of PS1 still.

I disagree that nothing has the scale. EVE is a massive sandbox MMO that involve hundreds of ships battling each other and the entire game being played in a single universe. In the upcoming games, Guild Wars 2 will have 2,000 players in their WvW.

A game is limited by its netcode, graphics engine, and the servers it runs on.

Whalenator

2012-02-19, 07:57 PM

Conq

2012-02-19, 08:05 PM

PS2 has no competitors atm.

What a silly thing to say.

You think people will magically coalesce out of thin air to play PlanetSide 2 and buy shit off their cash shop? In it's prime PS1 only had around 75k subscribers and even if they all returned for the sequel, it wouldn't mean squat. Games take a lot of money to make and maintain these days and PS2 will need more than most since it's starting off f2p.

Every mmo and fps on the market is their competitor and they will have to fight them for players. If you veterans can't realize that and can't learn to cope with alterations (like the new class system) that are necessary to bring in new players then you are going to be sorely disappointed with this game.

SniperSteve

2012-02-19, 08:08 PM

One of the huge draws that PS1 and now PS2 have is that everything is 100% PvP. There are other games with PvE (think Global Agenda - and how bad that turned out) that you can play if you need your FPS PvE fix.

PvE is so stale and boring. It is just a pointless grind for levels or pointless quests. You are not interacting with real people that you can become mortal enemies or strong allies with. PvE feels empty and alone. PvP feels like an epic war where things matter.

My argument that I propose is that as soon as you add any PvE/Bot element to the game, it cheapens it, even if the bots are like shop keeps or some retarded thing like that. The reason why I say this is because then you start identifying things as 'fake', and you loose the immersion. When every moving character in the game is controlled by a real person somewhere, everything you see is essentially alive.

When you look onto a battlefield you will see hundreds of people, each one of them a human being that has a story and a reason for fighting you and wants you dead. THAT is why 100% PvP is so powerful. This PvE stuff makes me sick, because you are seeing a game that is coming as close to a real full-out war as you can possibly get with today's hardware, and you are asking for us to accept playing against/with computers instead of in an epic battle where each person on the battlefield is REAL.

I strongly suggest you stop advocating PvE for two reasons:

Firstly: Wait and see. If PvP is as awesome as we claim it is, you will love it and never go back to PvE. I have.

Secondly: There are plenty of other games you can play that have PvE. We want something different than the current main-stream PvE with PvP areas/instances that are mainstream right now. Kindly don't mess this up for us.

Sirisian

2012-02-19, 08:30 PM

One of the huge draws that PS1 and now PS2 have is that everything is 100% PvP.
I joined up for the large battles mostly. Sure PVP is nice, but 100% PVP isn't necessary for that. I'm reminded of that Vanguard: SOH game and their free for all PVP servers. The PVP was a small part of the game and the PVE was a large part seamlessly brought together. Planetside 2 would basically focus on PVP and have a living world where PVE (non-experience) existed in the continents.

Also no one is asking for PVE content like an MMORPG. I think you're reading into it too much. (Someone would have to speak up. I've never seen anyone ask for that).

My argument that I propose is that as soon as you add any PvE/Bot element to the game, it cheapens it, even if the bots are like shop keeps or some retarded thing like that. The reason why I say this is because then you start identifying things as 'fake', and you loose the immersion. When every moving character in the game is controlled by a real person somewhere, everything you see is essentially alive.
100% agreed when it comes to bots that do what players could be doing. Adding other humanoids that are identical to players does cheapen the game. Adding creatures that fill their own nitch in the continents however is something I feel would add a lot to an MMOFPS. Adding things doesn't necessarily have to detract from the core PVP gameplay, if that makes sense.

Tatwi

2012-02-19, 08:39 PM

If I was writing a review for an MMO that didn't properly immerse the player which NPCs are very much apart of, I would probably deduct points. Especially when that MMO will be going up against competitors that do have that aspect.

Huh.

Personally, I would give Planetside 2 bonus points for being the only MMO with the balls to force players to learn from each other and therefore have no need for NPCs.

Want to learn how something works? Ask that Engineer over there. I bet if he doesn't know the answer, he'll point you in the right direction. That's how a community based game is supposed to function and PS2 will nail it like no other game has. Really, we can call it a PvP game, but it's more of a PwP game.

PwP: "Play with People" - your side vs. everyone else!

If you expect to do well in PS2, you'll have to become part of the community, which makes your character light years more interesting than some static NPC ever could be. And the best part is that EVERY character you see on your screen is controlled by a real person, so you really CAN interact with the whole universe. The only down side is if you're simply too introverted to want to interact with other people and if that's case, well, you're missing the whole point of these kinds of games anyhow.

Senyu

2012-02-19, 08:57 PM

Animals.....maybe.

But only after entensive testing on how they effect gameplay. So no time soon.

Tatwi

2012-02-19, 09:01 PM

Adding things doesn't necessarily have to detract from the core PVP gameplay, if that makes sense.

I love the virtual world aspects you're going for here and I'd say, "Sure! Go for it! That would be beautiful!", if all of those things were able to instantaneously magically appear in 100% functional form and at no cost, both instantly and long term, for SOE. Picking sea shells by the sea shore and feeling the sand between your toes are wonderful things, but spending the time and money on putting them into a PvP shooter game "just because" seems like a waste of time and money to me.

As an example, the folks who made Ultima Online spent months creating a functioning ecosystem for the game. It was apparently a very hard thing to program, but in the end the animals, plants, and areas were all intertwined such that effecting one effected the whole, similar to real life. Sounds great, right? Amazing achievement guys! Except for the fact that they removed it later on because.... it turned out that players just killed everything far too quickly for any ecosystem to evolve beyond the initial beginning spawns. So, all that work, all that time and money, was 100% wasted and they just removed it from the game. No matter how you slice it, that's time and money they could have spent on something else.

Virtual world stuff would be great in PS2, if it were free for SOE and without bugs.

That said, SOE can't over look the importance of community building systems... stuff that gives people incentive to actually DO things together and what not. A great start is not making everyone on the battlefield a master of every possible thing there is to do, making it so they don't need anyone else - that was a stupid aspect of PS1.

DaddyTickles

2012-02-19, 09:02 PM

I want a little pet midged that i can send into a door of an enemy base to check if its safe.

I think you play different hours to Higby :(

fod

2012-02-19, 09:56 PM

no
because it WILL degrade performance - anything that remains persistant for all people in the game will need to be tracked by the server which will increase server load, also anything that has to be drawn on screen will affect local (your pc) performance (you allready have to draw hundreds of players on the screen at once)

i play for pvp and if there are any server resources left after they did end up making the game then id rather those resources be put to better use - like more players

Livefire

2012-02-19, 10:33 PM

This. PVP is the POINT of the game, having even passive NPCs just distracts from the focus of the game. Adding in NPCs doesn't raise the standards of the game, in fact it would make it worse. I don't want to have to fight off rhinos and zebras when I'm trying to fight off other players.

I agree that you should not have to fight them in anyway, I want them 100% PASSIVE but they can fill intricate story plot lines of the game and could be used in the xp system, objective base cap system, equipment system, training system, and enhancement of the worlds immersion as a whole.

DaddyTickles

2012-02-19, 10:39 PM

I agree that you should not have to fight them in anyway, I want them 100% PASSIVE but they can fill intricate story plot lines of the game and could be used in the xp system, objective base cap system, equipment system, training system, and enhancement of the worlds immersion as a whole.

Or we could just not have them at all.

Lol "intricate stroy plot lines", indeed.

Sirisian

2012-02-19, 10:40 PM

Virtual world stuff would be great in PS2, if it were free for SOE and without bugs.
That's a really good point. It's important for SOE to prioritize content. (Been waiting to see what their 3 year plan looks like).

It's also important to realize that forgelight is the same engine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forge_Light_Engine) being used for the new Everquest game which is an MMORPG according the wiki so it might already have stuff in that would make adding creatures later in the 3 year plan faster for low development cost and low performance cost.
it WILL degrade performance
I don't know about that. I mean sure there will be a performance impact of adding anything to the game. Does that mean nothing should ever be added? Like I said before it's best to leave it professionals to decide that. Having a few creatures spread throughout a world between bases in the 8x8 km might not be as intensive as you imagine since there's probably less of a concentration of players.

The way I was imagining it before was as someone else mentioned more of a virtual living world. So if you're heading to the battle and just grabbed a vehicle you might see a creature. Or if you were going through a forest with your squad you might see them. Some might prove to be very strong so messing with them might mean you just keep driving. (Like if a larger creature charged a tank and pushed it like a Sunderer does you might be inclined not to mess with them during battle or go near them).

Livefire

2012-02-19, 10:41 PM

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that people championing this idea either haven't played Planetside, or sucked really bad at it.

Wrong, Wrong big time I have played since beta and can hold my own just fine:) And I also know that at 3 in the morning hanging out in a dead world when ever it is not packed with players sucks. I want a fully immersive living world in planetside. And I think it can be done in 2012 with out performance drop.

Aurmanite

2012-02-19, 10:46 PM

Sirisian

2012-02-19, 10:55 PM

Planetside isn't about fully immersive living worlds. Planetside is a multiplayer shooter.
Planetside 1 was kind of immersive. I mean you had an alien world in a sense where they added odd looking trees and rocks to try to create a unique world. Obviously technology and time held them back last time. They specifically mentioned in the old screenshots and commentary (http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2007/08/planetside-screenshots.html) that they intended to add creatures into the world and even programmed a pathfinding system for them, but dropped them later. So they intended to make a fully immersive world inside of a shooter and bring the full MMOFPS experience of Auraxis alive. I was hoping they time they could do it.

Do other multiplayer shooters have NPC's and fully immersive living worlds? No.
Are there really any other MMOFPS games like Planetside 2? No? Okay they better no do anything then. Do you really want to restrict what an MMOFPS can be?

Aurmanite

2012-02-19, 11:01 PM

Planetside 1 was kind of immersive. I mean you had an alien world in a sense where they added odd looking trees and rocks to try to create a unique world. Obviously technology and time held them back last time. They specifically mentioned in the old screenshots and commentary (http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2007/08/planetside-screenshots.html) that they intended to add creatures into the world and even programmed a pathfinding system for them, but dropped them later. So they intended to make a fully immersive world inside of a shooter and bring the full MMOFPS experience of Auraxis alive. I was hoping they time they could do it.

Are there really any other MMOFPS games like Planetside 2? No? Okay they better no do anything then. Do you really want to restrict what an MMOFPS can be?

Here you linked me screenshots of them thinking about adding creatures and them dropping them. Can you guess why? Because they added nothing to the experience.

Yes I do want to restrict what an MMOFPS is. I want the focus to be on the M M O F P S

Massively multiplayer first person shooter. What about those words, when joined together, suggests to you that NPC's would fit into the genre? The Massively muliplayer? No. Online? No. First person shooter? No.

Livefire

2012-02-19, 11:03 PM

Or we could just not have them at all.

Lol "intricate stroy plot lines", indeed.

Wow keep thinking like that and are new shiny game will die real fast just like PS1 did with the highest pop only touching 75k, you really have no clue how many new players this game will have to attract to be successful, and how competitive the gaming market is today compared to 2003 do you. We need not just fps clone players but also all those mmorpg fans to that play all different kinds of games. Hell I remember playing with all the EQ players jumping over to planetside when it first came out, guess what they didn't last long and today those players are not going to like a static dead world even more.

Aurmanite

2012-02-19, 11:06 PM

Wow keep thinking like that and are new shiny game will die real fast just like PS1 did with the highest pop only touching 75k, you really have no clue how many new players this game will have to attract to be successful, and how competitive the gaming market is today compared to 2003 do you. We need not just fps clone players but also all those mmorpg fans to that play all different kinds of games. Hell I remember playing with all the EQ players jumping over to planetside when it first came out, guess what they didn't last long and today those players are not going to like a static dead world even more.

Do you think that Planetside's population had anything to do with the lack of NPC's?

I think it had more to do with
A) Lack of promotion; which lead to
B) Lack of awareness
C) It felt like an old shooter when it was released
D) Everquest players probably got tired of being stomped on

Do some research on other games that tried this same approach.

Livefire

2012-02-19, 11:41 PM

Do you think that Planetside's population had anything to do with the lack of NPC's?

I think it had more to do with
A) Lack of promotion; which lead to
B) Lack of awareness
C) It felt like an old shooter when it was released
D) Everquest players probably got tired of being stomped on

Do some research on other games that tried this same approach.

You mean lack of population right? No not just the lack of a living world, a total lack of stuff across the board that other games had then and even more have now. And your list is right but lacking many other things to which they will need to get right if they want success and a living breathing world is just one of them. This is a automatic accepted normal thing to the entire mmo player base. I believe planet side is a huge persistent world MMO right? The FPS part explain's the play style of the game and that has nothing to do with this discussion for we all agree this should be 100 percent PVP not PVE. Those I do want human NPC's just not ones that shoot back. It would be very fun to Massacre TR NPC civ's in a base cap even if it came with grief:)

Aurmanite

2012-02-19, 11:58 PM

You mean lack of population right? No not just the lack of a living world, a total lack of stuff across the board that other games had then and even more have now. And your list is right but lacking many other things to which they will need to get right if they want success and a living breathing world is just one of them. This is a automatic accepted normal thing to the entire mmo player base. I believe planet side is a huge persistent world MMO right? The FPS part explain's the play style of the game and that has nothing to do with this discussion for we all agree this should be 100 percent PVP not PVE. Those I do want human NPC's just not ones that shoot back. It would be very fun to Massacre TR NPC civ's in a base cap even if it came with grief:)

So you just want to kill sprites that have no AI? For what reason? What does this add to Planetside that will draw people in? How will you killing human NPC's that don't shoot back improve the immersion?

Those are rhetorical questions. I don't actually want you to answer them because there is no suitable answer. It's just a really, epically, supremely, *adjective*ly bad idea.

If you want to be immersed in a living breathing world, read a great book. If you want to play a game that has 1000's of people to shoot, play Planetside.

Livefire

2012-02-20, 12:07 AM

So you just want to kill sprites that have no AI? For what reason? What does this add to Planetside that will draw people in? How will you killing human NPC's that don't shoot back improve the immersion?

Those are rhetorical questions. I don't actually want you to answer them because there is no suitable answer. It's just a really, epically, supremely, *adjective*ly bad idea.

If you want to be immersed in a living breathing world, read a great book. If you want to play a game that has 1000's of people to shoot, play Planetside.

Please read the whole tread before your post what you are addressing, shows you do not know the context it was written in.

Firefly

2012-02-20, 12:13 AM

I'm just going to guess that everyone that said "No." didn't even get past the title. Shame on you.
I'm just going to guess that you made a blanket generalisation on everyone that said "No." as "didn't even get past the title". Shame on you. I read the fucking entire ridiculous mess.

I said no. In caps, bold and max-size.

After going back to pick up where I left off (which was where I posted), I saw your comment. I therefore re-read the fucking entire ridiculous mess.

I still say

NO.

WaryWizard

2012-02-20, 12:15 AM

I don't see why the instant people say NPC they think of an AI with a gun shooting at you.

I don't want any form of humanoid NPCs at all. I would however be ok with birds and small animals in the wilderness away from areas that will most likely have large amounts of players.(bases, towers, etc.)

They won't add much, but it could be nice to look at. I wouldn't want them to put it as a high priority or anything like that, but it would be a nice little addition.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 12:17 AM

IronMole

2012-02-20, 12:19 AM

Fixed.

Sorry, you fixed nothing.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 12:27 AM

This again.................

Edit: attempt to prove why there should be NPC's in this game and I will prove to you by means of logic given the type of game created why there should not be.

**Challenge**

I'm confused. Are you challenging me?

Would be pretty hard to do when I'm against this crappy NPC idea. :p

Livefire

2012-02-20, 12:28 AM

You just made a post that makes threads die by not posting something substantial to the topic at hand....

I want someone to convice me we need NPC's in this game.

I will send it to you in a personal message right now:) Go into the chat room it is a complicated idea and I can discuss it there.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 12:38 AM

Wrong, Wrong big time I have played since beta and can hold my own just fine:) And I also know that at 3 in the morning hanging out in a dead world when ever it is not packed with players sucks. I want a fully immersive living world in planetside. And I think it can be done in 2012 with out performance drop.

So, you want to look at pretty birds at 3am? If you were indeed a PS player since beta, then you will know why the servers were not "populated" at silly times in the morning.

Wow keep thinking like that and are new shiny game will die real fast just like PS1 did with the highest pop only touching 75k, you really have no clue how many new players this game will have to attract to be successful, and how competitive the gaming market is today compared to 2003 do you. We need not just fps clone players but also all those mmorpg fans to that play all different kinds of games. Hell I remember playing with all the EQ players jumping over to planetside when it first came out, guess what they didn't last long and today those players are not going to like a static dead world even more.

There are several reasons why PS died, having no NPCs wasn't one of them. There are several hardcore players. Those who like FPS games, those who prefer the RPG side.

Adding NPC's will not automatically make RPG players come to Planetside. :rofl:

WaryWizard

2012-02-20, 12:40 AM

I will send it to you in a personal message right now:) Go into the chat room it is a complicated idea and I can discuss it there.

I think he would want it in the thread so everyone can see it.

The only thing I can think of is immersion. Looking at this great forest/meadow and not any form of life at all is kinda meh.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 12:50 AM

I want someone to convice me we need NPC's in this game.
"need" is a strong word. We don't really "need" too many things other than the basics of an FPS. The game is going to grow as a F2P title with more content. Ideally I can see your point where they should focus strictly on content that will make them money, but at the same time I'd prefer if the continents themselves didn't get stale. So adding things to them would be nice (not necessarily creatures).

I want them to make the game world more immersive and alive even if no one is around in an area as I fly or drive my vehicle to the front. Or if I'm cloaking or sniping away from people finding my perfect area I want to know there are other dangers of going solo. To me adding creatures are like adding different types of trees or rocks to the continents. Another reason is to add memories to the game and cause a small level of chaos on certain regions of the maps. I have a full post (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=567050&postcount=1) though that's a little more in depth into what I'd specifically want to see.

The entire concept behind Planetside WAS PVP only worlds.
I know you registered late, but if you followed the development of Planetside 1 you'd know that isn't true. They had a lot of things they wanted Planetside 1 to be. You sound really ignorant when you say that. I linked this earlier (http://jratcliffscarab.blogspot.com/2007/08/planetside-screenshots.html), but most people have read it years ago and understand that the developers wanted Planetside to be bigger than it was.

They have the chance to do it now. Maybe not at release, but as the game grows they could definitely turn Auraxis into a living world with a persistence beyond just the players.
Here you linked me screenshots of them thinking about adding creatures and them dropping them. Can you guess why?
Why would I guess? You and I both have no idea why they did that and making assumptions about it is a poor form of debate, and one I won't partake in.

Hamma

2012-02-20, 12:57 AM

Let's all try and pretend we like each other ;)

CidHighwind

2012-02-20, 01:00 AM

Holograms.

If NPC's DO make it (and believe me, I am personally against it like 99.99%) then make them holograms. It explains away the need to kill them. It explains away how they're loyal [they just get reprogrammed at the time of facility hack... hell, that's WHY you hack if you'd like] and it provides an interesting element of "s*** guys, I hear footsteps...someone in the base with us?"

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 01:07 AM

Holograms.

I can't force people to read all the threads so I will say robots were mentioned a few times for base defenses in other threads. They were compared to moving spitfire turrets that are deployed by the base in hallways when no one is around to slow down pesky solo players. :lol:

CidHighwind

2012-02-20, 01:17 AM

I was imagining them more as walking ghosts within the facility. They go about their business as we go about ours... If anything it would provide more immersion as people realize that they are fighting for an operating facility. These holograms aren't things that individuals walk up to a console and say "hey give me a beer" they carry clipboards and move from station to station like ghosts of Esamir's past.

It's aesthetic for sure, but not 'non-immersive'

Livefire

2012-02-20, 02:13 AM

I think he would want it in the thread so everyone can see it.

The only thing I can think of is immersion. Looking at this great forest/meadow and not any form of life at all is kinda meh.

Sorry for the length but he asked for it.

First off forge light could do all this with no lag or fps problems for up to date computers so we don't need to talk about performance issues. The only thing that matters is dev's times and so I would be fine with it after more important game mechanics is done.

Ok I see 3 different kinds of npc's being useful for planetside2 and 2 of them could be combined in most cases.

First is a living world that is always changing with animals filling the landscape so it is not a starielle environment, this includes the already added weather, day, night cycle effects which they have said will be in the game. The alien animals could be run over, shot, or just stared at. They would run from you when you get near or if bullets are fired by them. So they would avoid battles by default.

Second you have human npc's that work at the bases and do things like help you with your training, mod your weapons, buy your weapons, repair your avatar, and repair your vehicles for you as well as rearming them. In place of just standing computer consoles now. They would populate the otherwise sterielle auto functions of the bases.

First 2 are just eye candy and for immersion and realism.

This one introduces a mission system I would call a side mission like in arma.
The third and more complicated way, and this would be combined with the second would gets involved with the xp system. So the civs run all the base systems for each empire, each empire has a certain number of civs maintaining all there bases. The more bases you have the more civs that arrive to man it. Presumable from the base each empire has that can't be captured. The more civs you have manning your bases as an empire the more xp bonus you get like the pop xp bonuses. So you want as many bases as you can get however you can get them and there for populate them with your civs for more xp bonus per kill and base cap. The civ's are empire specific engineers, scientist, researchers, and worker bees.

Now it gets real interesting, Like real world there should be penelties for killing non combatants so killing your civs would get you grief as well as killing the enemy's. So if the enemy can, they would want to capture them alive for important intelligence and by doing so they get even more xp bonus. So you would want to hold the base as long as you can or if you can't evacuate the civs from the base so they don't get killed or caputed, lowering your xp bonus and empowering the enemy's. If the enemy can capture some of your civs they will take them back to one of there base brigs for interrogation. So then you can go and put together a special forces team and go on a (side mission) bust them out and rescue them getting some of your xp bonus back if they don't defend off your attack, because they would lose some of there xp bonus for losing those prisoners. Another (side mission) could be your civs are transporting a new weapon system from one base to the other and you need to defend it because other wise if an enemy gets it they get some xp and if the transport is successful your empire gets the xp. Another (Side mission) during a base cap could be there is a VIP general in the base, cap the base and take the general dead or alive before he is evacuated. The base cap would be the primary xp of course but the side mission during the cap would be a bonus xp to the cap if you completed it. Another (Side mission) would give you weapons free and have you kill as many of there civs in that base for extra xp from the cap. Most of the time though you would not be able to hit one with out getting grief, you would want to capture them by default just as in RL.

So we would be playing are part as solders for are faction, ie protecting are bases attacking others and trying to keep are npc's safe from the enemy so we maximise are xp bonus. And the npc's would be doing there part running everything behind the scenes.

This is just some of the ways you can use human npc's in passive forms that would make the objective game play far more interesting and realistic, with precision and command having more stuff to do then just telling the army what base to attack and firing OSes. It would also bring the world of planetside alive everywhere rather then just where the biggest battle is taking place.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 02:22 AM

So the civs run all the base systems for each empire, each empire has a certain number of civs maintaining all there bases. The more bases you have the more civs that arrive to man it. Presumable from the base each empire has that can't be captured. The more civs you have manning your bases as an empire the more xp bonus you get like the pop xp bonuses. So you want as many bases as you can get however you can get them and there for populate them with your civs for more xp bonus per kill and base cap. The civ's are empire specific engineers, scientist, researchers, and worker bees.
What you said here offers no gameplay to the game.

Like real world there should be penelties for killing non combatants so killing your civs would get you grief as well as killing the enemy's. So if the enemy can, they would want to capture them alive for important intelligence and by doing so they get even more xp bonus. So you would want to hold the base as long as you can or if you can't evacuate the civs from the base so they don't get killed or caputed, lowering your xp bonus and empowering the enemy's. If the enemy can capture some of your civs they will take them back to one of there base brigs for interrogation. So then you can go and put together a special forces team and go on a (side mission) bust them out and rescue them getting some of your xp bonus back if they don't defend off your attack, because they would lose some of there xp bonus for losing those prisoners. Another (side mission) could be your civs are transporting a new weapon system from one base to the other and you need to defend it because other wise if an enemy gets it they get some xp and if the transport is successful your empire gets the xp. Another (Side mission) during a base cap could be there is a VIP general in the base, cap the base and take the general dead or alive before he is evacuated. The base cap would be the primary xp of course but the side mission during the cap would be a bonus xp to the cap if you completed it. Another (Side mission) would give you weapons free and have you kill as many of there civs in that base for extra xp from the cap. Most of the time though you would not be able to hit one with out getting grief, you would want to capture them by default just as in RL.
I'm not gonna lie. That just sounds painfully boring. I thought I hated the idea of humanoid NPCs before. It sounds like you haven't thought any of this through. You want to add basically LLU captures with living people. Why not just use disks taken from a base? Also this is a F2P game. People are going to kill these random civilians for fun and not even care about the XP. Look at the Planetside 1 generator issue when you gave people 2 choices. It's very difficult to get people to work together and not destroy something for fun.

Livefire

2012-02-20, 02:28 AM

What you said here offers no gameplay to the game.

I'm not gonna lie. That just sounds painfully boring. I thought I hated the idea of humanoid NPCs before. It sounds like you haven't thought any of this through. You want to add basically LLU captures with living people. Why not just use disks taken from a base? Also this is a F2P game. People are going to kill these random civilians for fun and not even care about the XP. Look at the Planetside 1 generator issue when you gave people 2 choices. It's very difficult to get people to work together and not destroy something for fun.

That is there choice, as the gen was. It would be up to them to decide if they want more xp or not. But the reason to not just have a disk is because that is boring and this is immersive and realistic. Really not fun compared to what recapping the same bases over and over the exact same way with no other objective? That is why they added the llu because people wanted different types of objectives.

Garem

2012-02-20, 02:44 AM

+1 to the "calm down folks" posters, although I understand the strong objections to the idea.

BTW, I'm not strongly swayed either way, but here's some food for thought.

The "animals" and passive NPCs issue has been discussed, so... what about NPC caravans?

Nobody really liked driving ANTs, but they had a very important purpose.
Resources in the game are changing; we're not exactly sure how, but we know that "territory is survival".
So we know they're going to be very important.

I can foresee it being interesting to have, say, an NPC caravan sending resources from the front line to a more secure location, or vise versa, for an outfit or just automatically by a faction itself. This creates an objective for the team to protect that isn't just a base.

Sure, I suppose it COULD be a player-driven convoy. But they got rid of ANTs for a reason- driving them really isn't as much fun as driving a tank. Player-directed NPCs could actually increase the game's PvP soul, not necessarily diminish it.

Addendum:

NPCs should never get computer space over players. I'm sure this can be scripted, of course, so that animals and any other NPCs disappear when poplocks happen. This makes sense, too- if that many people are around with guns, tanks, and aircraft and I were a helpless (insert NPC) I'd get the hell out of Dodge, too.

Livefire

2012-02-20, 02:50 AM

+1 to the "calm down folks" posters, although I understand the strong objections to the idea.

BTW, I'm not strongly swayed either way, but here's some food for thought.

The "animals" and passive NPCs issue has been discussed, so... what about NPC caravans?

Nobody really liked driving ANTs, but they had a very important purpose.
Resources in the game are changing; we're not exactly sure how, but we know that "territory is survival".
So we know they're going to be very important.

I can foresee it being interesting to have, say, an NPC caravan sending resources from the front line to a more secure location, or vise versa, for an outfit or just automatically by a faction itself. This creates an objective for the team to protect that isn't just a base.

Sure, I suppose it COULD be a player-driven convoy. But they got rid of ANTs for a reason- driving them really isn't as much fun as driving a tank. Player-directed NPCs could actually increase the game's PvP soul, not necessarily diminish it.

I actual was going to mention the ant being driven by a npc, lol forgot that one. Possible another thing command rank could do, give you the ability to tell a npc what to do as in evac the base and head to gal or sundere, move/stop that type of thing.

Canaris

2012-02-20, 03:02 AM

NPCs take CPU

NPCs don't add anything

waste

^ this most of all

MGP

2012-02-20, 03:24 AM

I've imagined the chat like this:
"LFG to kill that <random-dragon-alien-thing-in-the woods>, good exp and drop epic weapon mods!"
And then i've started to cry...

IronMole

2012-02-20, 04:46 AM

I actual was going to mention the ant being driven by a npc, lol forgot that one. Possible another thing command rank could do, give you the ability to tell a npc what to do as in evac the base and head to gal or sundere, move/stop that type of thing.

Oh so now were replacing players for NPC's?

All the ideas that you lot have come up with can just be done mission based with players.

What next? I will be able to hire an NPC to be my companion in fights?

Warborn

2012-02-20, 07:25 AM

The knee-jerk reactions in this thread are sort of funny and sad. Are they sure they want PS1 vets to get priority access to the beta?

IronMole

2012-02-20, 08:26 AM

The knee-jerk reactions in this thread are sort of funny and sad. Are they sure they want PS1 vets to get priority access to the beta?

Only if they don't want a care-bear game. ;)

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 02:11 PM

They should put wolves all over auraxis and I should control them and make hundreds of them maul armies and tanks apart.

Mastachief

2012-02-20, 02:14 PM

Only if they don't want a care-bear game. ;)

This.

If they want planetside 2 then vets are essential otherwise it will be wow with guns.

Garem

2012-02-20, 02:31 PM

I've imagined the chat like this:
"LFG to kill that <random-dragon-alien-thing-in-the woods>, good exp and drop epic weapon mods!"
And then i've started to cry...

Out of curiosity, would the following line gathering be as offensive to you?

"LF raiders; lightly defended NC caravan spotted by scouts heading across NE Indar. Need Gal pilot, AT inf, EMP nades, any pilots."

Assume that the caravan vehicles are not fighting NPC "soldier" driven, but more or less drones told basic commands like Start, Stop, Slower, Faster, and Scatter. They may or may not be protected by Players. Caravans may or may not be automatically dispatched, or dispatched at the command of a Player/Outfit.

I just don't understand how a blanket theory can be made that all "NPC" characters would necessarily mean less PvP. Nothing in Planetside happens in a vacuum- people are going to care about losing important resources, which reduce their ability to fight.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 02:34 PM

Only if they don't want a care-bear game. ;)
Having creatures that can kill players is care bear? :lol: I think you're underestimating what I and some other people want the creatures to be able to do to players.

They should put wolves all over auraxis and I should control them and make hundreds of them maul armies and tanks apart.
Sci-Fi wolves? That would be interesting to see. I mentioned before that the creatures could have abilities explained away by saying they evolved to use the NTU making them stronger than Earth creatures. Fighting a tank though might be going too far for a wolf. Maybe something larger.

If they want planetside 2 then vets are essential otherwise it will be wow with guns.
I'm not sure what you're saying. This might possibly be the worst thought out reply yet. Did you mean "if they want Planetside 2 to succeed then the game needs old players?" because without older players the game will become WoW with guns? I don't think anyone is suggesting WoW with guns. WoW is a primarily PvE game and doesn't fit with what people are suggesting. Also the connection is kind of weak and makes too many assumptions. Without the few veterans the game will probably still not turn into WoW with guns.

Zulthus

2012-02-20, 02:40 PM

Garem

2012-02-20, 02:45 PM

And this is where I say, "GTFO."

Livefire is taking all the heat from a suggestion I made. >.>

Zulthus, why would a drone-NPC that by its very nature made players more likely to engage in combat for a purpose different than merely taking territory be a bad thing? Given that NPCs were not allowed to take up "space" that players might otherwise fill. What's the logical reason for refusing this opportunity?

DayOne

2012-02-20, 02:50 PM

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 02:52 PM

I actual was going to mention the ant being driven by a npc, lol forgot that one. Possible another thing command rank could do, give you the ability to tell a npc what to do as in evac the base and head to gal or sundere, move/stop that type of thing.
And this is where I say, "GTFO."
Oh c'mon be a little nicer in your replies. For instance, I'll say that if you require such a boring gameplay mechanic that no one wants to do it manually then it serves no purpose in the game and actually detracts from the gameplay.

This is why I made the rethinking the ant (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37285) thread a while back. Take something that was painfully boring in the game and either make it fun or remove it.

TheBladeRoden

2012-02-20, 03:19 PM

If they can't even render weapons without killing the player count, what are NPC's gonna do?

Knocky

2012-02-20, 03:20 PM

no...no....a thousand times no!

SniperSteve

2012-02-20, 03:28 PM

Let's all try and pretend we like each other ;)

I don't like people who want PvE. >.>

Raymac

2012-02-20, 03:34 PM

Tatwi

2012-02-20, 03:38 PM

Oh c'mon be a little nicer in your replies. For instance, I'll say that if you require such a boring gameplay mechanic that no one wants to do it manually then it serves no purpose in the game and actually detracts from the gameplay.

This is why I made the rethinking the ant (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37285) thread a while back. Take something that was painfully boring in the game and either make it fun or remove it.

I liked driving the ANT, manning a turret, guarding a base, and repairing/healing things, because all of those things worked OK when my ping was 400+. They aren't boring for everyone, despite how you personally feel about it.

alienmoose

2012-02-20, 03:40 PM

The mere sight of the terms 'PvE' and 'PvP' showing up within the Planetside lexicon is disturbing. NPCs are not needed. The world and continents themselves are characters, have you not seen the in game footage of the sun setting and rising over the horizon? Weather patterns and day/night cycles are said to have an effect on gameplay, the developers have stressed this multiple times.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 03:42 PM

I really don't see what everyone's deal is with NPC's. Getting quests to kill and collect the helmets of 10 NC would be fun!

Seriously though. I get that people may not want them because they sap CPU and server power but if they could be implemented do they don't? It would be great!

Immersion is a great thing! Most games just won't work without it. CoD doesn't need it as it's an arcade shooter. Battlefield doesn't need for the same reason but it has it because of its graphics. They are pretty realistic in the way people move, that immersion is probably one of the only reasons I overlooked the bug filled mess of a game.

Planetside will benefit greatly from it. Would it be worse than PS1 without it? No. Would it become a much much better game than PS1 because of it? Most probably.

This is Planetside TWO people. Don't go down the CoD road of accepting a reskinned PS1 and just lap it up like a sheep.

Why are people so adamant?

The reasons as to why that people have given can be done via players. "Player created missions", which doesn't need an NPC to give you.

Planetside doesn't need NPC's full stop, it's not going to offer anything a player can't. What immersion are they going to give other than to look at them?

"Hey look, there's a bird."
"Great, now fucking shoot the tank in front of us."

Planetside works fine without NPCs solely because it's a player driven game. You're going to be too busy teaming up, organizing raids, fight for resources and blowing shit up.

I also don't see how Planetside would benefit greatly from it?

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 03:43 PM

If they can't even render weapons without killing the player count, what are NPC's gonna do?
You're assuming NPCs are as costly as rendering multiple models on a player and that they exist near fights. As others have discussed having creature near bases wouldn't be likely as turrets and mines would kill them so they'd be in the regions between bases. So the overall performance worry is very much exaggerated.
I don't like people who want PvE. >.>
How do you envision PvE being implemented? If you say deer then most of us are with you. That's not what we want in a sci-fi world. You have to be specific though about your complaints. Chances are you just have preconceived notions because of the MMORPG games you've played in the past. Case in point:

PvE is so stale and boring. It is just a pointless grind for levels or pointless quests. You are not interacting with real people that you can become mortal enemies or strong allies with. PvE feels empty and alone. PvP feels like an epic war where things matter.
Planetside 2 wouldn't have to implement it like an RPG game. That is to say there is no grind ideally since you wouldn't get experience or quests to kill the wildlife. It would just be there in regions between bases. So the game focuses on PVP, but the world is also alive. Mutually exclusive ideas that can exist within the Planetside universe together. (You don't have to make it a barren wasteland to keep it PVP centered basically).

So, it would be cool to have something that corrected the sterile stagnant world, but NPCs might have more cons than pros.
Getting people to discuss the cons has been proving difficult.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 04:03 PM

Getting people to discuss the cons has been proving difficult.

I've still yet to see the pros...

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 04:11 PM

Imagine if in a forested area, birds actually flew out from the trees if people moved nearby.

Raymac

2012-02-20, 04:11 PM

I do think it would be extremely cool to have NPC events that are for a limited time like a weekend or something where swarms of alien bugs, or a giant Dune sandworm, or ghosts of Auraxis' original inhabitants are roaming the landscape and sometimes crashing the party of certain battles. It would be cool to have moments where in the middle of a battle, soldiers are making second by second decisions on whether to kill the enemy or fight beside them and focus on this new outside threat.

Obviously, one of the keys to this would be that they are limited time events and not very frequent.

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 04:15 PM

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 04:20 PM

I've still yet to see the pros...

I want them to make the game world more immersive and alive even if no one is around in an area as I fly or drive my vehicle to the front. Or if I'm cloaking or sniping away from people finding my perfect area I want to know there are other dangers of going solo. To me adding creatures are like adding different types of trees or rocks to the continents. Another reason is to add memories to the game and cause a small level of chaos on certain regions of the maps. I have a full post (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=567050&postcount=1) though that's a little more in depth into what I'd specifically want to see.
So the pros are mostly to make the game world more vibrant.

The cons that have been listed are mostly based around performance concerns, cost of development time, and a fear of Planetside adding MMORPG type content to the game in the form of PvE quests, and the fear that it would detract from the PVP experience. All these points have all been refuted numerous times in this thread and others.

Development time is one of the harder ones to refute. I mean you can say that Forge Light is being used for Everquest Next so rigged creatures and rendering them should be implemented, but the content creation for designing unique sci-fi creatures and getting their gameplay tested and ironed out is obviously not a trivial task making it one of the strong cons toward adding creatures.

The humanoid NPCs on the other hand have 100s of cons ranging from adding boring gameplay in and replacing the duties of the 2K players on the continent.

I do think it would be extremely cool to have NPC events that are for a limited time like a weekend or something where swarms of alien bugs, or a giant Dune sandworm, or ghosts of Auraxis' original inhabitants are roaming the landscape and sometimes crashing the party of certain battles.
Events would be interesting, but just having it part of Auraxis would be better. You mention dune worms which I've discussed somewhat previously. More like tremor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tremors_%28film%29) crystal worms that come from below Indar from the caves. Capable of pushing tanks and attracted to gunfire on certain desert areas. (They'd have a warning where dust would form before they attacked).

It would be cool to have moments where in the middle of a battle, soldiers are making second by second decisions on whether to kill the enemy or fight beside them and focus on this new outside threat.
That's one of the big ideas behind this. It would be something players just know exists in the Auraxis world and creates a level of chaos in the battlefield.

WaryWizard

2012-02-20, 04:25 PM

I've still yet to see the pros...

immersion and aesthetics which have been said more than once I'm sure.

So long as NPCs stay away from bases, can't attack, and provide no xp or "drops" I am perfectly fine with having some SMALL animals here and there.

Also rockets should not explode if the hit a bird. It would be annoying (funny too) if that were to happen while attacking an aircraft.

Talek Krell

2012-02-20, 04:26 PM

I like the idea of doing things to add "life" to the world, but I don't know if NPCs are the way to do it. I mean, if you just stand in a quiet spot in Planetside, the place just feels dead. There is no movement whatsoever, not even a river.

So, it would be cool to have something that corrected the sterile stagnant world, but NPCs might have more cons than pros.I think that's an interesting thought. Given the uncanny valley effect that even the most advanced NPCs tend to have when you spend any amount of time near them, it might be both a more impactful and a more efficient use of resources to put life into the landscape than try to introduce animals and civilians.

Nobody is fooled into thinking that the NPC shopkeepers that all use the same 3 lines are actually people, but standing on a grassy hill during a quiet moment and hearing a river somewhere off in the morning mist would be kind of sublime. Being shot immediately afterward by some jackass using the mist as cover just means the environmental effects are adding to the gameplay as well.

Tatwi

2012-02-20, 04:26 PM

So the pros are mostly to make the game world more vibrant.

The cons that have been listed are mostly based around performance concerns, cost of development time, and a fear of Planetside adding MMORPG type content to the game in the form of PvE quests, and the fear that it would detract from the PVP experience. All these points have all been refuted numerous times in this thread and others.

Development time is one of the harder ones to refute. I mean you can say that Forge Light is being used for Everquest Next so rigged creatures and rendering them should be implemented, but the content creation for designing unique sci-fi creatures and getting their gameplay tested and ironed out is obviously not a trivial task making it one of the strong cons toward adding creatures.

The humanoid NPCs on the other hand have 100s of cons ranging from adding boring gameplay in and replacing the duties of the 2K players on the continent.

Refuted? No. They have been replied to, not refuted.

Refute: To prove (something) to be false or incorrect.

No proof has been provided.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 04:29 PM

Refuted? No. They have been replied to, not refuted.
Which con do you think wasn't adequately addressed?

IronMole

2012-02-20, 04:30 PM

So the pros are mostly to make the game world more vibrant.

Already done with the weather and day/night cycle... I believe that will give us more immersion than a few NPC's in the middle of "nowhere".

Define "nowhere" in Planetside 2...

Tatwi

2012-02-20, 04:33 PM

Which con do you think wasn't adequately addressed?

If you wish to refute something, you have to provide proof that the something is false. No here has provided any proof that the cons are false. It's just a lot of opinions on both sides, therefore it's inappropriate for someone to come in here with the blanket statement that the cons have been refuted on many occasions - such an assertion is simply false.

WaryWizard

2012-02-20, 04:37 PM

Already done with the weather and day/night cycle... I believe that will give us more immersion than a few NPC's in the middle of "nowhere".

Define "nowhere" in Planetside 2...

just cause adding the day/night cycles made it more vibrant than it was doesn't mean it is the most vibrant it could be. There is a long list of many things that could be added to make it aesthetically more appealing. Most of which are impractical, but there are a few that could be added. NPCs are one which could be added. So long as none of them are humanoid, and provide no benefit to any players upon death.

If you wish to refute something, you have to provide proof that the something is false. No here has provided any proof that the cons are false. It's just a lot of opinions on both sides, therefore it's inappropriate for someone to come in here with the blanket statement that the cons have been refuted on many occasions - such an assertion is simply false.

he didn't say that. (unless I misread) I think you miss read his comment. He wasn't saying anything has been refuted, but instead was saying that it would be difficult to refute that specific thing.

Espion

2012-02-20, 04:38 PM

Imagine if in a forested area, birds actually flew out from the trees if people moved nearby.

wow

Have you played an FPS before? Random dynamic events in an online team based shooter is one of the worst ideas imaginable. Games like Quake, Tribes, CS, etc are great team shooters because even though the gameplay was still spontaneous and unpredictable, everything that happened was the result of an action by a player in the match. As soon as you cross that line and start adding unknown and uncontrollable elements to the gameplay, it's a very steep and slippery slope away from quality team based play.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 04:46 PM

Already done with the weather and day/night cycle...
It's a start. Planetside 1 had weather back in 2003. The day/night cycle is definitely a modern addition.

If you wish to refute something, you have to provide proof that the something is false. No here has provided any proof that the cons are false. It's just a lot of opinions on both sides, therefore it's inappropriate for someone to come in here with the blanket statement that the cons have been refuted on many occasions - such an assertion is simply false.
I think you misunderstand what I said was refuted. As in shown to be incorrect statements.
performance concerns
Completely speculative assertions people made regarding performance cost. Refuted on the grounds that they have no idea what they're talking about.
a fear of Planetside adding MMORPG type content to the game in the form of PvE quests
Refuted since it's a straw man argument to direct the conversation to something everyone here has said they don't want.
the fear that it would detract from the PVP experience
Solutions were brought forth to keep them out of most of the fights. This con isn't well defined, but it's been brought up a few times. Refuting it isn't possible on that regard. It's based on assumptions from both sides toward a poor implementation and an ideal implementation.

wow

Have you played an FPS before? Random dynamic events in an online team based shooter is one of the worst ideas imaginable. Games like Quake, Tribes, CS, etc are great team shooters because even though the gameplay was still spontaneous and unpredictable, everything that happened was the result of an action by a player in the match. As soon as you cross that line and start adding unknown and uncontrollable elements to the gameplay, it's a very steep and slippery slope away from quality team based play.
:lol: I have no idea what side you're on, but that was awesome.

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 04:47 PM

wow

Have you played an FPS before? Random dynamic events in an online team based shooter is one of the worst ideas imaginable. Games like Quake, Tribes, CS, etc are great team shooters because even though the gameplay was still spontaneous and unpredictable, everything that happened was the result of an action by a player in the match. As soon as you cross that line and start adding unknown and uncontrollable elements to the gameplay, it's a very steep and slippery slope away from quality team based play.

Planetside isn't anything at all like any of those games.

It's not an unknown and uncontrollable element. It's something that happens in certain areas if you make too much a presence in the area.

This isn't an arena or match based shooter. And although I stated this as simply a cool idea. Well it actually gives players a better reason to pay attention to their environment and adapt. If you are attempting to sneak up on the enemy by land through a jungle and don't want suspicion in the area, you might not want to bring too big a party at once or roll in tanks.

Have you played an FPS before?

Please refrain from attacking a posters credibility, especially when you have zero knowledge of their background. This is how back and forth personal posts happen and it derails the thread's discussion.

Espion

2012-02-20, 04:50 PM

Planetside isn't anything at all like any of those games.

It's a shooter first, I think higby repeats that in every interview. The basic principles apply.

Please refrain from attacking a posters credibility

No.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 05:01 PM

It's a start. Planetside 1 had weather back in 2003. The day/night cycle is definitely a modern addition.

Yeah, shame the weather in PS1 was poorly done and such a bad hit on performance. Nothing beat fighting on Hossin in a storm.

As for the NPC's, I just don't see it fitting in an FPS game such as PS as it wouldn't benefit the immersion at all, especially if it's in the middle of nowhere.

The way Highby talks about getting into the fights quicker, leads me to believe it would be pointless and the immersion should be focused on the fights itself.

VioletZero

2012-02-20, 05:14 PM

IronMole

2012-02-20, 05:15 PM

Shogun

2012-02-20, 05:16 PM

a little life on auraxis wouldn´t hurt, but it should not be overdone.

maybe just a little wildlife that doesn´t have any impact.
and those critters only spawn in areas with low playerdensity to prevent the critters from killing framerates. this way an empty map would feel more alive. in a crowded space no npcs are needed and they would deconstruct or just don´t respawn and die to shots and as roadkill.

and i would love to see a critter that reacts different to soldiers of each factions ;-)
like the transformer owl...
vs approaching is like facing the small owl,
nc approaching is like facing the big owl
tr is ignored ;-)
Transformer Owl - YouTube

VioletZero

2012-02-20, 05:17 PM

Oh dear...

Something wrong with that? Did I screw up the lore again?

If so, I apologize.

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:19 PM

I do think there should be an NPC faction.

In particular: Nanite Systems. There's something really really wrong with them selling weapons to ALL the factions just to make money. And then watching them kill each other. Maybe they could explore the idea of Nanite systems being evil in a PvE continent.

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let the idea of an NPC empire go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Hmr85

2012-02-20, 05:20 PM

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 05:21 PM

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let the idea of an NPC empire go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Omg Liam Neeson is playing PS2!!!!!!!

I think just having a small amount of wildlife that runs away before anyone even gets close would be cool for immersion. Bored? Drive an ATV around chasing mini velociraptors across indar.

Tatwi

2012-02-20, 05:23 PM

You're not refuting, you're rebuffing (A sudden resistance or refusal) or at the very least, you're replying (To give a written or spoken response, especially to a question, request, accusation or criticism) based upon your opinion and I hate to break it to you, but your opinion is neither fact nor is it proof of anything. As such, you've refuted nothing at all and both sides of the discussion have merit and are not invalidated by your assertions.

In other words: Your opinion is not fact, but you're entitled to it just as much as anyone else is entitle to theirs. So, stop trying to invalidate everyone else by shooting your mouth off saying everyone else is wrong, because you say it's so.

Espion

2012-02-20, 05:23 PM

Something wrong with that? Did I screw up the lore again?

If so, I apologize.

How much do you think people will care about the lore when they are getting rolled by a squad of players that are actually interested in the gameplay (which seems to be rare so far). Just take a guess.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 05:26 PM

Omg Liam Neeson is playing PS2!!!!!!!

I think just having a small amount of wildlife that runs away before anyone even gets close would be cool for immersion. Bored? Drive an ATV around chasing mini velociraptors across indar.

NO! I WANT DRAGONS! I WANT TO TAME THEM SO I CAN USE THEM ON A DEFENCE OR EVEN A RAID. I WANT TO HAVE EXACTLY 3 AND BE ABLE TO RIDE ON ONE AND FIGHT REAVERS AND CYCLONS. I ALSO WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO DISABLE TANKS BY MY DRAGON TAKING A DUMP ON IT.

THEN I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STORE THEM IN A STABLE BECAUSE "NO PETS ARE ALLOWED" IN A BASE.

Fenrys

2012-02-20, 05:27 PM

I do think there should be an NPC faction.

In particular: Nanite Systems. There's something really really wrong with them selling weapons to ALL the factions just to make money. And then watching them kill each other. Maybe they could explore the idea of Nanite systems being evil in a PvE continent.

The existence of PvE combat would make PvP fights smaller and less fun. It would be like having a competing game within the game.

It would also require dev time that would be better spent improving the PvP game, and could mess with balancing the PvP game.

I'm ambivalent to the idea of wildlife, but strongly opposed to PvE content.

Graywolves

2012-02-20, 05:28 PM

NO! I WANT DRAGONS! I WANT TO TAME THEM SO I CAN USE THEM ON A DEFENCE OR EVEN A RAID. I WANT TO HAVE EXACTLY 3 AND BE ABLE TO RIDE ON ONE AND FIGHT REAVERS AND CYCLONS. I ALSO WANT IT TO BE ABLE TO DISABLE TANKS BY MY DRAGON TAKING A DUMP ON IT.

THEN I WANT TO BE ABLE TO STORE THEM IN A STABLE BECAUSE "NO PETS ARE ALLOWED" IN A BASE.

/thread

TacosWLove

2012-02-20, 05:30 PM

NO!

SAVE ALL ROOM FOR PVP MENG DUDERS WHO ARE ACTIVELY CONTROLLED BY A BIOLOGICAL ENTITY IN A DIRECT MANNER. DOING SO IN SUCH A MANNER THAT ALL BIOLOGICAL FUNCTION AND ACTIONS RESULT IN A DIRECT AND CORRESPONDING REACTION UPON WHICH ALL THINGS CONSIDERED STEM AND ARE NOT MODIFIED BY AN ELECTRONIC TRANSLATING UTILITY. KTHXBAI

Atheosim

2012-02-20, 05:32 PM

This thread sucks.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 05:34 PM

I think we should add diplomacy into PS2 so we can have leaders that we vote into important positions meet at some central location to negotiate things. Maybe even have it so you could level up your diplomacy skills by talking an enemy player down from shooting you or negotiating cease fires at stalemate fights. Possibly even add prisoner functionality so you could stab a guy and take him prisoner, then trade him for prisoners on the other team. When you're a prisoner, you could try to play a mini game in your prison cell to get out and go all Splinter Cell on the guards. And a guard skill because I think there are a lot of players that would love nothing better than to sit around staring at helpless things rather than being shot at.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 05:39 PM

They are already getting rid of guns being able to be holstered and seen on peoples back because it will take a hit on the number of players that can be on a continent fighting. So why are you wanting NPC's in a game that is only going to dwindle the number even more.
Ideally they would be added outside of the normal base fights so the performance implications wouldn't be there. If players are more spread out outside bases it shouldn't be much of a problem. :)
You're not refuting
Whatever helps you think you're making a point. :lol:

I'm ambivalent to the idea of wildlife, but strongly opposed to PvE content.
Yeah no one is arguing for PvE content in the sense of an MMORPG. Just wildlife for Auraxis.

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:40 PM

I think we should move away from the whole fighting aspect of the FPS. And change the meaning of "FPS" from "First Person Shooter" to "Fertilisers, Preservatives and Sprinklers". Where on continents as a player you are given different parts of the land to grow crops to feed your empire. The empire that can sustain itself through-out famines, droughts and insects would grow while the others would lose vital farming area.

Imagine how epic Planetside 2 could be if instead of mass warfare, you had 1,998 players farming trying to out sustain one another.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 05:42 PM

Tatwi

2012-02-20, 05:44 PM

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:45 PM

Can I trade you like a wagon wheel for 17 bushels of oats? I broke my wheel and my repair skill isn't what it should be.

I would but my negotiation level is not very high so I accidently give you 3 wagons for 7 bushels of oats.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 05:48 PM

I would but my negotiation level is not very high so I accidently give you 3 wagons for 7 bushels of oats.

I don't know what to do. I now have 3.75 wagons and only 1 wagon driver. My management skill isn't high enough to handle 3 wagon drivers. And I want to start work on my town church, but apparently I need to invite like 7 more friends to the PlanetsideVille before I have enough stones to build it.

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:50 PM

I don't know what to do. I now have 3.75 wagons and only 1 wagon driver. My management skill isn't high enough to handle 3 wagon drivers. And I want to start work on my town church, but apparently I need to invite like 7 more friends to the PlanetsideVille before I have enough stones to build it.

Do what I do and make 7 more accounts and invite yourself. If you also communicate to your empires tyrannical organic farming leaders they may give you some hydroponic crops so that your water usage is less and you can gain a higher crop yield.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 05:53 PM

Do what I do and make 7 more accounts and invite yourself. If you also communicate to your empires tyrannical organic farming leaders they may give you some hydroponic crops so that your water usage is less and you can gain a higher crop yield.

I would, but there were some bandits that used some very strong language and stole all of my stones. I almost wish there were SOME way to protect myself from unfriendly sorts, but allowing violence would be the downfall of the entire game. THE ENTIRE GAME.

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:56 PM

But it wouldn't be any good unless you added wild boars that would run around in empty fields and farm hands that would stand around and say, "Moar Wurk?" when you clicked on them. And that's a fact.

LMAO. This idea has to be implimented, whether or not we go down the correct, farming Planetside 2 route we have all wished for.

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 05:59 PM

I would, but there were some bandits that used some very strong language and stole all of my stones. I almost wish there were SOME way to protect myself from unfriendly sorts, but allowing violence would be the downfall of the entire game. THE ENTIRE GAME.

That is why you need to communicate with your empire and call upon other players with "fence building" certifications to ring fence your crop lands and buildings.

We could also put in place some form of slander system, where players could moan about bandits and other players to decrease their society standing rating and therefore should prevent people from using unfavourable language in-game.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 06:00 PM

Selling 2 Dragons...

XLynxX

2012-02-20, 06:02 PM

WTB 1 rare blue whale dragon.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 06:03 PM

Selling 2 Dragons...

I'll give you 6 light ales (dude, they get you drunk in game, how cool is that?) and 2 party suits. I think the suits are grey and one that's sort of beige with a blue tie. Looks really sharp when we do those mass conga line things at the town center.

VioletZero

2012-02-20, 06:04 PM

The existence of PvE combat would make PvP fights smaller and less fun. It would be like having a competing game within the game.

It would also require dev time that would be better spent improving the PvP game, and could mess with balancing the PvP game.

I'm ambivalent to the idea of wildlife, but strongly opposed to PvE content.

That's the risk you run with ANY new content at all.

After all, why even add new continents when all it will do is just split the playerbase?

IronMole

2012-02-20, 06:07 PM

That's the risk you run with ANY new content at all.

After all, why even add new continents when all it will do is just split the playerbase?

MY DRAGONS CAN HAVE THAT CONTINENT TO LIVE ON!

jakaul

2012-02-20, 06:28 PM

So if I'm being serious for a second, I'd pretty emphatically say no for the following reasons:

1) Performance for no value added - this is the case with cosmetic NPCs, such as animals and such. While it may be kind of fun to occasionally take your tank for a stroll to run down herds of helpless creatures, that's not something that would either get me into the game or keep me in the game.

2) Production for no value added - I want the developers doing work on making the PvP experience one that will maintain a healthy population of players for me to shoot at. I don't want them spending their valuable time trying to create pathing algorithms for stupid cows in a big field.

3) Losing sight of the main goal (PvP) - Where do you stop? People want an NPC faction? That won't be irritating. I'm fighting two other guys and it's awesome because I'm winning, only to get an NPC from out of the blue swoops in and either kills me or finishes the two guys I'm fighting. Or people that WERE fighting my group decide they can't win and go PvE it up for 30 minutes leaving us to hang out and have a dick measuring contest. Great...

4) And let me just expand 3 by saying that you'd likely destroy the game if you included a PvE component that was "safe" from PvP. Now this also ends up with the situation where PvE is there but not safe, which ends up in griefing. Trust me, if someone decided they couldn't beat me and went on a safari to track and hunt a purple giraffe, I'd VERY likely follow them and destroy their dreams. I might even dry hump the purple giraffe and piss on the corpse of the guy(s) that decided to relax and PvE it up.

Point is, PvE in PS2 would range from "nice to have" to "that's really stupid". I can't see a case that would change "nice to have" to "the game needs this".

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 06:47 PM

1) Performance for no value added - this is the case with cosmetic NPCs, such as animals and such. While it may be kind of fun to occasionally take your tank for a stroll to run down herds of helpless creatures, that's not something that would either get me into the game or keep me in the game.
Exactly. I mean I'm kind of okay with the idea of passive creatures, but hostile creatures add a lot more gameplay value to the game. That's why it bothers me when people interpret what I say for "deer and birds". Someone mentioned a dragon earlier. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned a wyvern type ice creature on Esamir which is basically a dragon.

Definitely more into hostile creatures wandering around in the game capable of being aggroed by players either on purpose maybe toward enemies or by accident when not paying attention. (In the case of a wyvern you might see a few flying around a mountain top. You can fly through them and they might use an EMP NTU attack (remember evolution Auraxis is fun) or go around them. They might also land.

2) Production for no value added - I want the developers doing work on making the PvP experience one that will maintain a healthy population of players for me to shoot at. I don't want them spending their valuable time trying to create pathing algorithms
Everquest Next already has pathfinding for its mobs. Chances are that means Planetside would easily have it. I mentioned this before that the actual development cost is a hard debate since it's hard to know how easily things are for them. I mean they could already have a full animation system for creatures in Forgelight so dropping them into Planetside 2 might be trivial. Saying one way or the other would be kind of jumping to conclusions.

3) Losing sight of the main goal (PvP) - Where do you stop? People want an NPC faction? That won't be irritating. I'm fighting two other guys and it's awesome because I'm winning, only to get an NPC from out of the blue swoops in and either kills me or finishes the two guys I'm fighting.
You stop when it makes the game not fun. We're looking at an ideal implementation, or I am, where they are added to make the game more enjoyable and immersive. They shouldn't detract from the core gameplay, but enhance it. Some people hate the idea of an NPC creature killing a player that wanders close to it or in its territory. Personally I find such an idea very immersive where you have a world with thousands of players and also a world that can fight back indifferent to the war. Like they've been there for millions of years before the 3 factions go there to fight for it.

Point is, PvE in PS2 would range from "nice to have" to "that's really stupid". I can't see a case that would change "nice to have" to "the game needs this".
Yeah I agree. I made this point earlier when I said priorities. I'm waiting to see their 3 year plan to see if creatures ranks higher than any of their decisions. It could be what they have planned is far cooler for Auraxis.

Mastachief

2012-02-20, 06:49 PM

jakaul that is a very well made set of points

jakaul

2012-02-20, 07:02 PM

Exactly. I mean I'm kind of okay with the idea of passive creatures, but hostile creatures add a lot more gameplay value to the game. That's why it bothers me when people interpret what I say for "deer and birds". Someone mentioned a dragon earlier. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned a wyvern type ice creature on Esamir which is basically a dragon.

Definitely more into hostile creatures wandering around in the game capable of being aggroed by players either on purpose maybe toward enemies or by accident when not paying attention. (In the case of a wyvern you might see a few flying around a mountain top. You can fly through them and they might use an EMP NTU attack (remember evolution Auraxis is fun) or go around them. They might also land.

My concern is when NPCs become detractors to the intended gameplay. It deals with the "value added" part of play - while immersion is something that they *might* add, they can sure end up as an irritation. I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon, which shuts off my weapons and ends up in me being killed. That takes away from the primary goal of the game, in my opinion.

Everquest Next already has pathfinding for its mobs. Chances are that means Planetside would easily have it. I mentioned this before that the actual development cost is a hard debate since it's hard to know how easily things are for them. I mean they could already have a full animation system for creatures in Forgelight so dropping them into Planetside 2 might be trivial. Saying one way or the other would be kind of jumping to conclusions.

I've been a software developer for over a decade, so I know that "trivial" things have a way of becoming very complex. :P You're right though, we are jumping to conclusions but the simple idea of adding this feature means an engineer has to spend time figuring out if it is trivial or not, which impacts schedule. There's something to be said for if they have one of the EQ2 devs that has intimate knowledge...then maybe the impact is small, but you also are dealing with art resources and such.

You stop when it makes the game not fun. We're looking at an ideal implementation, or I am, where they are added to make the game more enjoyable and immersive. They shouldn't detract from the core gameplay, but enhance it. Some people hate the idea of an NPC creature killing a player that wanders close to it or in its territory. Personally I find such an idea very immersive where you have a world with thousands of players and also a world that can fight back indifferent to the war. Like they've been there for millions of years before the 3 factions go there to fight for it.

Yeah I agree. I made this point earlier when I said priorities. I'm waiting to see their 3 year plan to see if creatures ranks higher than any of their decisions. It could be what they have planned is far cooler for Auraxis.

Immersion to me is being in a battle where I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out alive. It's not driving through a forest wondering if the giant slothbear is going to try to eat me. But that's me, and not everyone else. Personally, I think you spend 100% of the resources getting the PvP rock solid and healthy, then you can worry about adding what's, in my opinion, fluff.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:09 PM

I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon

fuckin lol

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:14 PM

I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon,

Pimpo isn't stupid, he's very smart and cute! :mad:

jakaul

2012-02-20, 07:15 PM

Pimpo isn't stupid, he's very smart and cute! :mad:

If he's in PS2, I'm going to donkeypunch your stupid dragon.

Espion

2012-02-20, 07:16 PM

I'd be so pissed to get EMP'd by a dragon... Dragons are usually shown in modern times with a body like a huge lizard, or a snake with two pairs of lizard-type legs, and able to emit fire from their mouths. The European dragon has bat-type wings growing from its back. A dragon-like creature with no front legs is known as a wyvern. Following discovery of how pterosaurs walked on the ground, some dragons have been portrayed without front legs and using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground.

Although dragons occur in many legends around the world, different cultures have varying stories about monsters that have been grouped together under the dragon label. Some dragons are said to breathe fire or to be poisonous, such as in the Old English poem Beowulf. They are commonly portrayed as serpentine or reptilian, hatching from eggs and possessing typically scaly or feathered bodies. They are sometimes portrayed as having especially large eyes or watching treasure very diligently, a feature that is the origin of the word dragon. Some myths portray them with a row of dorsal spines. European dragons are more often winged, while Chinese dragons resemble large snakes. Dragons can have a variable number of legs: none, two, four, or more when it comes to early European literature.

Dragons are often held to have major spiritual significance in various religions and cultures around the world. In many Asian cultures dragons were, and in some cultures still are, revered as representative of the primal forces of nature, religion and the universe. They are associated with wisdom—often said to be wiser than humans—and longevity. They are commonly said to possess some form of magic or other supernatural power, and are often associated with wells, rain, and rivers. In some cultures, they are also said to be capable of human speech. In some traditions dragons are said to have taught humans to talk.

Therefore, I really think a dragon has no reason to own an EMP device. That would be very unrealistic. SOE needs to consider this carefully but ultimately decide not to include NPCs, PvE content, and especially no EMP Dragons.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:19 PM

The word dragon entered the English language in the early 13th century from Old French dragon, which in turn comes from Latin draconem (nominative draco) meaning "huge serpent, dragon," from the Greek word δράκων, drakon (genitive drakontos, δράκοντος) "serpent, giant seafish", which is believed to have come from an earlier stem drak-, a stem of derkesthai, "to see clearly," from Proto-Indo-European derk- "to see" or "the one with the (deadly) glance." The Greek and Latin term referred to any great serpent, not necessarily mythological, and this usage was also current in English up to the 18th century.

The association of the serpent with a monstrous opponent overcome by a heroic deity has its roots in the mythology of the Ancient Near East, including Canaanite (Hebrew, Ugaritic), Hittite and Mesopotamian. The Chaoskampf motif entered Greek mythology and ultimately Christian mythology, although the serpent motif may already be part of prehistoric Indo-European mythology as well, based on comparative evidence of Indic and Germanic material. It has been speculated that accounts of spitting cobras may be the origin of the myths of fire-breathing dragons.

Therefore, espion is a ******.

Cobalt

2012-02-20, 07:19 PM

EMP Dragons are the worst, if you aggro two of them they will EMP lock you until you die, sucks.

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 07:29 PM

My concern is when NPCs become detractors to the intended gameplay. It deals with the "value added" part of play - while immersion is something that they *might* add, they can sure end up as an irritation. I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon, which shuts off my weapons and ends up in me being killed. That takes away from the primary goal of the game, in my opinion.
Depends you went near them. You probably saw it as a tactical advantage to fly into them and lucked out. The game has flares so in a way it could be a tactical advantage depending on how the hypothetical system works for an EMP attack.
I've been a software developer for over a decade, so I know that "trivial" things have a way of becoming very complex. :P You're right though, we are jumping to conclusions but the simple idea of adding this feature means an engineer has to spend time figuring out if it is trivial or not, which impacts schedule. There's something to be said for if they have one of the EQ2 devs that has intimate knowledge...then maybe the impact is small, but you also are dealing with art resources and such.
Yeah I mentioned that in an earlier post. (heh, lot of programmers here. 5 years in software dev myself).
Immersion to me is being in a battle where I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out alive. It's not driving through a forest wondering if the giant slothbear is going to try to eat me. But that's me, and not everyone else. Personally, I think you spend 100% of the resources getting the PvP rock solid and healthy, then you can worry about adding what's, in my opinion, fluff.
Why do people keep doing that. :D "slothbear" is a new one. I personally like that added level of awareness to my environment. It's not something I see often in multiplayer FPS games. Take the new Tribes game. Everything tends to get very predictable with their static maps when it's just players. Planetside started to feel the same way. Walking through Hossin during a battle I think really accented it. You had this eerie canopy of trees people fighting around you. It would have been an awesome place for creatures to live as players move through the swamp especially with low fog as I mentioned before. :p

EMP Dragons are the worst, if you aggro two of them they will EMP lock you until you die, sucks.
You guys lock into ideas amazingly well. It was an example, but what about flares to block them. You have to get a bit creative I guess. Or the developers would need to. They'd have to pick creatures which don't exist on earth and have an interesting set of abilities that players learn depending on the continent. Also the wyvern attack could be an NTU ice shard so planes can dodge them. Or ice missiles. It's a sci-fi game so there's a lot of leeway. Watching a wyvern attack infantry in passes launcing ice shards would be hilarious to see. I made a comment a while back in my creatures thread about how uncreative a dragon would be flying in the volcano cauldron of Searhus.

The crystal tremor worm for Indar and the cloaking tiger type creature for Esarmir are still probably my favorite ideas since they capture the idea of NTU abilities and fit into Auraxis. That and creatures that are camouflaged for Hossin to blend into the forest environment would be fun (for me at least) to run into. Especially designing them so they aggro differently based on threats. I mentioned this before. Having a larger creatures be indifferent to infantry but feel threatened by a tank or sunderer was an example.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:32 PM

cloaking tigers??

but that would give them a massive advantage over the esamir snowbunny, which would throw the ecosystem out of whack because nothing would kill the microbeatle which would eat all the trees and then there is no air and then we all suffocate just because you wanted an invisible tiger gee thanks

Sirisian

2012-02-20, 07:37 PM

nothing would kill
There is no concept of death on Auraxis. The creatures would be infused with the same NTU technobabble the infantry have except they're evolved to revive outside of warpgates. I think I mentioned that before. Smarter creatures would be inherently less fearful after thousands of years of living.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:39 PM

Don't get me started on the Wombats! They are evil little things. Especially when there's 5 of them. They can easily kill a cloaking tiger, never mind a heavily geared soldier.

It's also bad when they get on the tracks of your tank, that shit takes ages to clean!

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:40 PM

If he's in PS2, I'm going to donkeypunch your stupid dragon.

Pimpo would simply kick you in the nuts...

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:41 PM

Espion

2012-02-20, 07:42 PM

There is no concept of death on Auraxis. The creatures would be infused with the same NTU technobabble the infantry have except they're evolved to revive outside of warpgates. I think I mentioned that before. Smarter creatures would be inherently less fearful after thousands of years of living.

That doesn't seem probable considering the animal population would spiral out of control. You'd have to have animal control NPCs that went out into the wild to *****/neuter all the animals, and then again every time some asshole ran them over and forced them to respawn. Can you imagine trying to neuter stealth tigers in the middle of a warzone every day? There's just no way. I think it's time to shelf this whole concept.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 07:45 PM

Why do people keep doing that. :D "slothbear" is a new one. I personally like that added level of awareness to my environment. It's not something I see often in multiplayer FPS games. Take the new Tribes game. Everything tends to get very predictable with their static maps when it's just players. Planetside started to feel the same way. Walking through Hossin during a battle I think really accented it. You had this eerie canopy of trees people fighting around you. It would have been an awesome place for creatures to live as players move through the swamp especially with low fog as I mentioned before. :p

You guys lock into ideas amazingly well. It was an example, but what about flares to block them. You have to get a bit creative I guess. Or the developers would need to. They'd have to pick creatures which don't exist on earth and have an interesting set of abilities that players learn depending on the continent. Also the wyvern attack could be an NTU ice shard so planes can dodge them. Or ice missiles. It's a sci-fi game so there's a lot of leeway. Watching a wyvern attack infantry in passes launcing ice shards would be hilarious to see. I made a comment a while back in my creatures thread about how uncreative a dragon would be flying in the volcano cauldron of Searhus.

The crystal tremor worm for Indar and the cloaking tiger type creature for Esarmir are still probably my favorite ideas since they capture the idea of NTU abilities and fit into Auraxis. That and creatures that are camouflaged for Hossin to blend into the forest environment would be fun (for me at least) to run into. Especially designing them so they aggro differently based on threats. I mentioned this before. Having a larger creatures be indifferent to infantry but feel threatened by a tank or sunderer was an example.

While this may be true, again, I fall back on the primary goal of the game, which is PvP. Immersion, in that context, is figuring out how to achieve the objective the group is tasked to do and that can be done without PvE involvement. Now, if you're talking about movement in wooded areas causing birds to let off an audible noise to alert enemies, that's something I might fight cool. If I spend 10 minutes getting my squad in position to assault an enemy outpost and a giant batlemur drops down from the trees blowing my cover because it's trying to hump my face while the entire squad shoots the forest to pieces, that's annoying.

I get it. In a perfect world, I'd love to have animals roaming around that AVOID players, which can tip off others in the area that something's up. However, non players attacking players is a big problem to me because it negates a lot of the skill that I really enjoy in PS1 (unless the player is chinese, but that's a different issue).

Neksar

2012-02-20, 07:46 PM

I wouldn't care if there were fauna, as long as they were just alien wildlife - nothing specifically build for ruining folks' days, unless there were some sort of bear. The dragons thing is a little far-fetched. Maybe a few birds. Maybe some alien herds on the ground. I'd say it's good for immersion. As for gameplay, just let the animals be passive unless shot at. I'd stop at that; the focus should still be on the genocide, after all.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 07:46 PM

Pimpo would simply kick you in the nuts...

You're dragon is quite rude. I don't think you raised him very well.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:48 PM

wait

can i ride the tiger

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:50 PM

wait

can i ride the tiger

You would simply look stupid riding a cloaked tiger.

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:50 PM

You're dragon is quite rude. I don't think you raised him very well.

He used to be like me, until he took an arrow to the testicle.

jakaul

2012-02-20, 07:54 PM

He used to be like me, until he took an arrow to the testicle.

Arrows are clearly overpowered. I'd be pretty upset myself at that.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:55 PM

You would simply look stupid riding a cloaked tiger.

*heroic

IronMole

2012-02-20, 07:57 PM

*heroic

If it was a Koala I would be impressed.

Firefly

2012-02-20, 07:58 PM

This thread is about as fucking stupid as one of Traak's bigoted dissertations on why women are naturally whores, guns are for Jesus/Jesus is for guns, or anything dealing with the Bible and science.

Fortress

2012-02-20, 07:58 PM

koala's are too small to support a cloaking generator

cmon bro that's like 5th grade science

Espion

2012-02-20, 08:01 PM

This thread is about as fucking stupid as one of Traak's bigoted dissertations on why women are naturally whores, guns are for Jesus/Jesus is for guns, or anything dealing with the Bible and science.

Are you saying that both the bible and science are stupid individually, or that the confrontations that take place between the two are stupid? Please clarify.

Cobalt

2012-02-20, 08:09 PM

koala's are too small to support a cloaking generator

cmon bro that's like 5th grade science

If a small group of 4 - 6 koala's carried a larger cloaking generator between them, it could easily be done, i'd show you the math but science frightens me.

Also, if one of them was a wizard, well...

Hamma

2012-02-20, 09:26 PM

Going to lock this if it doesn't get on to some kind of topic ;)

WaryWizard

2012-02-20, 09:27 PM

So NPCs good or bad

post all reasons below

Firefly

2012-02-20, 09:30 PM

Going to lock this if it doesn't get on to some kind of topic ;)
It's on the topic of Fucking Stupid. Does that count?

CidHighwind

2012-02-20, 09:33 PM

Neksar

2012-02-20, 09:47 PM

NPC's are cool if they fulfill the following requirements:

1.) They don't take up any bandwidth that could instead be used for PvP focused activities.
2.) They are purely aesthetic with no impact on actual gameplay.
3.) They serve some purpose.

Seeing as #1 is impossible, and #'s 2 and 3 together fry robot brains and create distortions in time/space, my vote is no.

Nah, #2 isn't inconsistent with #3 if their purpose is to be aesthetic and add atmosphere. I just find it odd that a planet has plants but not animals. *shrug*

Firefly

2012-02-20, 10:11 PM

Maybe the plants ate all the animals.

Fenrys

2012-02-21, 12:49 AM

Can I trade you like a wagon wheel for 17 bushels of oats? I broke my wheel and my repair skill isn't what it should be.

I have wood for sheep. ;)

That's the risk you run with ANY new content at all.

After all, why even add new continents when all it will do is just split the playerbase?

New continents for players to fight over is still part of the same game - PvP conquest.

By splitting the player base by creating 2 different games within PS2 I meant that some players would participate in the fight for territory while other sugar-butted dragon-diddlers fapped the wildebeests.

. . . Or people that WERE fighting my group decide they can't win and go PvE it up for 30 minutes leaving us to hang out and have a dick measuring contest. Great...

This.

VioletZero

2012-02-21, 12:58 AM

New continents for players to fight over is still part of the same game - PvP conquest.

By splitting the player base by creating 2 different games within PS2 I meant that some players would participate in the fight for territory while other sugar-butted dragon-diddlers fapped the wildebeests.

Um, who says the PvE content can't contribute to the over all state of the game?

Of course it would still split the audience. Since now we'd have less players involved in the same objectives.

Warborn

2012-02-21, 01:05 AM

This.

If they want planetside 2 then vets are essential otherwise it will be wow with guns.

This is such a blisteringly asinine statement that it's all the more evidence to me that PS1 vets will be more of a burden than a help. Adding in NPCs which do not fight at all and which merely offer more complex game objectives will turn this into "WoW with guns"? Do you really mean that? I mean, you're using a computer so I assume your brain works well enough to see how that's a balls-out retarded thing to say.

Being outright opposed to anything which differs from PS1 isn't helpful. PS2 will need more complex "game modes" as such. You can't just expect simple cap-and-hold objectives to be the pinnacle of MMOFPS gameplay. How long was it before deathmatch was replaced by team deathmatch, and then stuff like king of the hill, or payload, or capture the flag became the gameplay du jour?

Having NPCs and stuff which have a purpose insofar as objectives are concerned but which do not fight in any way would enable something more complex than hack a console, wait 30 minutes. Giving that possibility a knee-jerk "NO THIS ISN'T WOW" response isn't a serious reaction, and I fear for Planetside 2's future if unimaginative replies like that are ever taken seriously.

Fenrys

2012-02-21, 03:12 AM

Um, who says the PvE content can't contribute to the over all state of the game?

That could be cool in a Dust/Eve kind of way. Put the PvE content in a separate game and let it somehow effect the state of PS2, or the other way around, or both.

If structures can be dynamically generated in Forgelight, then maybe clearing mobs in not-PS2 will cause towers and outposts to spawn in PS2. Talk about it as "taming the wild Auraxian frontier" and use it to explain the lack of wildlife.

If a different faction takes a base in PS2, then maybe mobs that are hostile to certain player factions in not-PS2 will start spawning in particular areas. Hostile ICE, robotic automated defense AI's, etc...

Espion

2012-02-21, 03:22 AM

Um, who says the PvE content can't contribute to the over all state of the game?

99.9% of all people ever.

i.e. everyone but you and the other guy arguing (getting trolled) in this thread

IronMole

2012-02-21, 04:37 AM

This is such a blisteringly asinine statement that it's all the more evidence to me that PS1 vets will be more of a burden than a help. Adding in NPCs which do not fight at all and which merely offer more complex game objectives will turn this into "WoW with guns"? Do you really mean that? I mean, you're using a computer so I assume your brain works well enough to see how that's a balls-out retarded thing to say.

Being outright opposed to anything which differs from PS1 isn't helpful. PS2 will need more complex "game modes" as such. You can't just expect simple cap-and-hold objectives to be the pinnacle of MMOFPS gameplay. How long was it before deathmatch was replaced by team deathmatch, and then stuff like king of the hill, or payload, or capture the flag became the gameplay du jour?

Having NPCs and stuff which have a purpose insofar as objectives are concerned but which do not fight in any way would enable something more complex than hack a console, wait 30 minutes. Giving that possibility a knee-jerk "NO THIS ISN'T WOW" response isn't a serious reaction, and I fear for Planetside 2's future if unimaginative replies like that are ever taken seriously.

You mad bro?

So what would these none fighting NPC's offer?

"Hello soldier! Please go kill 10 dragons before that NC/VS player does and we will grant you 3 wishes."

I fear for PS2 because of these stupid fucking ideas people keep posting on this forum.

MGP

2012-02-21, 05:00 AM

What's with all the "add animals for better immersion" thing?
Today, when i was going to work, i haven't seen any deers or bears around. Mostly humans and vehicles. Still i feel pretty immersed.

Graywolves

2012-02-21, 05:05 AM

What's with all the "add animals for better immersion" thing?
Today, when i was going to work, i haven't seen any deers or bears around. Mostly humans and vehicles. Still i feel pretty immersed.

Did you see birds?

If you didn't see birds something's wrong with where you live.

Like even inner city areas have birds and rodents.

I see animals everywhere I go and we all talk and sing together like it's a big Disney Movie.

Shogun

2012-02-21, 05:11 AM

RedKnights

2012-02-21, 05:12 AM

Well I hate to say it but Planetside 1 was supposed to have them, but they were not added because back then they wanted to pre-load every texture in the game beforehand to guarantee a seamless experience, and with slow load times of the day, decided it wasn't worth it. At least that was my understanding.

Personally I want to fight in an interesting and living world, not a world devoid of all interesting features like small animals. That kind of thing, as long as they're passive, will only add to the experience of the game, not detract.

Now here's a picture of some velociraptors in the game engine: :D

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/main/screenshots/old/ancient/ratcl02.jpg

that´s why i suggested to only spawn animals around lonesome players.

in a fight you feel immersed enough, but this changes when you are crossing the cont on your own.

if you go to work, and there were no vehicles, no humans and no animals, yould you still feel immersed?

but it´s not only about animals... a little movement of the plants, like leaves moved by wind, or rivers with moving water. all scalable to automaticly minimize when the army comes to take all the framerate.

I like these ideas, it makes sense mobs wouldn't be near fighting anyways, so if you were alone, and not fighting, that's where they'd be.

Magpie

2012-02-21, 05:17 AM

Did you see birds?

If you didn't see birds something's wrong with where you live.

Like even inner city areas have birds and rodents.

I see animals everywhere I go and we all talk and sing together like it's a big Disney Movie.

My town is full of magpies ;) crows and pigeons

IronMole

2012-02-21, 05:25 AM

that´s why i suggested to only spawn animals around lonesome players.

in a fight you feel immersed enough, but this changes when you are crossing the cont on your own.

if you go to work, and there were no vehicles, no humans and no animals, yould you still feel immersed?

but it´s not only about animals... a little movement of the plants, like leaves moved by wind, or rivers with moving water. all scalable to automaticly minimize when the army comes to take all the framerate.

Are a lot of people forgetting that in PS2 travelling across a whole continent will not be the case any more?

Highby wants the whole pace of fights to be quicker, so if you aren't already immersed within a fight or group then something is wrong.

Also, another thing. We don't know how the Forgelight engine will cope with amount of players they hope for.

Canaris

2012-02-21, 08:09 AM

Graywolves

2012-02-21, 08:16 AM

actually I like think think they weren't added due to the fact that the project manager at the time found out what they were doing and told them to get back to real work ;)

http://i.imgur.com/so0y0.gif

Hamma

2012-02-21, 12:37 PM

NPC's of some sort were in fact planned for PlanetSide 1. They even designed the AI for them.

Cosmical

2012-02-21, 12:56 PM

Your all saying no. But imagine the viral videos of people running over rabbits with tanks, or a sniper crapping his pants when a rabbit runs into his scope of view. Anything that makes me feel like im playing in a real world is only good news to me. Human NPC's ide probably say no to though. Even though the concept of dropping on an enemy base with NO ONE WHATSOEVER INSIDE IT! is rediculous.

And im a big fine of strategic choices. Cloaking and running into a forest only to have my persuers ripped apart by horney space apes sounds good to me.... but you know.... im into that stuff.

Geist

2012-02-21, 01:52 PM

Is there ever a time that you aren't just a complete asshole to everyone around you? My statement stands firm. If you have an argument against it, then back it up. Putting "NO" in all caps adds nothing to the discussion.

Honestly I don't know what the discussion is at this point past this page because I just had to reply to you.

Also, to everyone that's responding to this and saying that PvE doesn't belong in Planetside 2, read the suggestion again. It doesn't say anything about PvE. Nobody wants PvE. We simply want some immersion. It would be nice to have a living, breathing world to go along with our PvP.

The great thing about Planetside is that it is a living world because we the players make it so. Tank columns, infantry assaults, sky battles, that's all the immersion I need, because I don't need flocks of birds or screaming NPCs running around a base to give me true game immersion.

Admittedly, I didn't read anything besides the OP and your post, so not sure if someone came up with a better idea, but at the moment I have to give my disapproval of any kind of NPC in the game besides, maybe, a once in a while event where mindless alien monsters attack a base in hordes and it's up to us and our MCGs to mow down the endless hordes. :p

alienmoose

2012-02-21, 02:10 PM

TekDragon

2012-02-21, 02:14 PM

There was plenty of room for NPC's in PS1. Sanctuary felt like a virtual reality room everything was so sterile and automated.

Now that Sanctuary has been axed, there's no real room for NPC's.

NivexQ

2012-02-21, 02:28 PM

NPCs might be cool but only if they also add more Sims-like features like a restroom urgency gauge for your character and possibly a hunger meter that degenerates on a fixed basis that correlates directly to the body size and stomach girth of your character, which by the way is another thing I hope they add - sliders for fat and skinny character models...otherwise I will likely deduct points from the immersion scale in my review of the game. With all of these features and NPCs then I will really have no reason to go outside except to say that I left the house when my parents ask.

You forgot , I hope :lol:

There was plenty of room for NPC's in PS1. Sanctuary felt like a virtual reality room everything was so sterile and automated.

Now that Sanctuary has been axed, there's no real room for NPC's.

There's gonna be cities/urban areas in PS2, so there's room for human npcs, but I don't agree with human npcs, actually. They'll get in the way. The only way I see that working in any way is if, when fighting happens, they immediately run like crazy in terror for some super safe room that nobody can get in. But that'd be stupid.

What I want to see is some just a few animals. It's not like I want the world cluttered with them. Just a couple. Every once and a while i'd like to see the Auraxis version of a deer, or a rabbit. Some birds flying around, even if we aren't able to interact with them, would be cool.

Tatwi

2012-02-21, 05:42 PM

I'd bet $10 that if NPCs were added to PS2 then five years from now they would be treated like the BFRs of PS2 - "zomg they ruined everything! *hate hate hate scream*"....

Traak

2012-02-21, 10:25 PM

NPC's of some sort were in fact planned for PlanetSide 1. They even designed the AI for them.

What were they? The VS genblowmax NPC? NC Scattercannon spawn camper coward NPC? The TR Repeater-as-Sniperpistol-due-to-zero COF scum?

Did they realize they didn't need NPC's for mindless electronically-assisted zerg idiocy?

Furber

2012-04-20, 02:24 PM

If they do consider this (which I doubt they will), it needs to be very low priority.

Malorn

2012-04-20, 02:35 PM

Can't serve two masters. Either they make a game for PvP or they make a game for PvE. Games that tried to do both succeed in doing neither well. It also splits the playerbase between those who do PvE and those who do PvP. Energy spent on one is energy that could have been spent making the other better.

Do less; do better.

Planetside was awesome because it was PURE PvP. It's one of the very few MMOs that has been pure PvP. That is one of the reasons for its success. The developers don't have to balance PvE crap. They don't have to try to equalize rewards of PvP and PvE. They don't have to balance abilities for PvE and PvP. They don't need to bother with that whole level crap. This has been a thorn in the side of games for a long time. When you try to balance two fundamentally different things one or both suffer.

Planetside also showed us that Pure PvP can thrive and be awesome. It showed us that we didn't need PvE. It is a losing prospect in a PvP game to have PvE. Why? Because you want all of your players engaging in PvP content. Anyone not engaged in PvP is effectively removed from the game. That's one less person in the big battle. One less person in the squad. It takes the focus away from the core concept of an endless war among players and distracts them with something completely unnecessary.

Players are the content in Planetside. All they need to do is focus on making our interactions more rich. Any effort spent deviating from that core principle is the wrong direction for Planetside.

Garem

2012-04-20, 03:02 PM

Can't serve two masters. Either they make a game for PvP or they make a game for PvE. Games that tried to do both succeed in doing neither well. It also splits the playerbase between those who do PvE and those who do PvP. Energy spent on one is energy that could have been spent making the other better.

That simply isn't true. Many, MANY games have been quite successful with both.

A few come to mind off the top of my head...
FPS: Call of Duty series, Battlefield series (to a lesser degree), Gears of War series, Halo series
Fantasy MMO: DAoC, Guild Wars, (from the looks of it) GW2's WvWvW

You may not like these games. Many, I don't. But they work and they're successful.

Co-Op Shooters have been wildly popular ever since Perfect Dark for the N64; I'm sure it wasn't the first, just the first to get major attention. And, for its time, Perfect Dark was great PvP fun too. Halo went on to rule the console gaming industry for what, 6 years? It wasn't just the PvP multiplayer, it was the single player greatness too, the PvE.

If the game is balanced for PvP, that's all that matters. PvE non-major imbalances make no difference whatsoever, as virtually all successful PvE MMOs have shown, and exactly as you say.

This is in no way an endorsement for NPCs. Or PvE. I'm absolutely neutral to the whole idea; won't phase me either way. I will play this game for PvP. However, it deserves a fair discussion at least- if it can and has been done, please don't say that it hasn't or can't. We know it can. This discussion is a question of whether we want it, what kind, and what priorities come first.

Purple

2012-04-20, 03:11 PM

Please remember we are fighting on a colonized world with at lead 40,000 stranded explorers who have now multiplied over years of living there all over the planet, and not even a forth were soldiers, where is everyone,? they should be out and around doing there thing with us professional soldiers having to fight around them just like all wars in the past. And what about all the native alien wildlife that should be roaming around getting run over by tanks, getting shot by bored soldiers waiting for a base cap to go through.

there are no civilians anymore. the 1/4 you say were soldiers are infact the TR. the civilians split up between the NC and VS. the animals got killed off with the years of war. all food can be constructed with Nantes. this is just a world at war nothing more.

FPClark

2012-04-20, 03:15 PM

So add a yeti...Make his spawn timer once every 3 months or so and make him spawn on the edge of the map. Also give him a random cloak timer and see what stories come out of it :rolleyes:

Fenrod

2012-04-20, 03:16 PM

I'm totally against this idea, but things such as little extra-terrestrial animals would be nice.

Magpie

2012-04-20, 04:25 PM

God no, been asked to many times it would just make the game lag And cost a lot, there are talking about maybe a 4th empire of ai bots tho

kertvon

2012-04-20, 04:35 PM

I vote for giant sand worms as a fourth faction...

seriously though. NPCs = not.

Eyeklops

2012-04-20, 04:44 PM

Non-combatant NPC's would be cool. Namely, herds of animals that roam the map. A variety of large and small dinosaurs would be neat. To me, this would make the maps feel much more organic and alive.

I guess they could be considered "hazards", like if your driving around and hit the equivalent of a super large cow, or accidentally shoot one and provoke it. Give them some simple, predictable, attack in the event they get shot or hit by a vehicle. Make them tough as nails and powerful so people won't mess with them solo unless they want an ass-kicking. Not really fond of AI that attacks unprovoked though, it should really be the players fault when they get attacked.

An interesting idea: If you shoot one within a certain radius it will attack you, but if you are farther away it attacks the nearest player, friendly or enemy. I would make the radius pretty large, 300m or larger. Snipers could have a blast with this. Counter them with a fast-acting tranquilizer dart sidegrade (then run like hell).

Shogun

2012-04-20, 05:24 PM

halflife like antlions that burry themselfes in the ground if disturbed by too many players.

if there are animals, they have to be restricted to low pop areas. dynamicly, so they vanish, when too many players arrive and only respawn, when the playercount gets lower.
npcs should not be allowed to decrease the maximum players on screen.

edit: or make it really creepy and design some bugs that try to mimik tr,nc and vs soldiers by form and color.
just to distract and create creepy night time play ;-)

ringring

2012-04-20, 05:35 PM

Not this again

Malorn

2012-04-20, 05:37 PM

That simply isn't true. Many, MANY games have been quite successful with both.

A few come to mind off the top of my head...
FPS: Call of Duty series, Battlefield series (to a lesser degree), Gears of War series, Halo series
Fantasy MMO: DAoC, Guild Wars, (from the looks of it) GW2's WvWvW

You may not like these games. Many, I don't. But they work and they're successful.

First I said MMOs, not single player FPS games that get shat out every year whose single player is only played when the internet connection is down or for shits and giggles.

Just because a game is "successful" doesn't mean it has good gameplay or that they made good design decisions.

DAoC was a decent PvP game and it had very shitty PvE. Guild Wars had shitty PvE. Wow had good PvE but shitty PvP (I'm sure people will disagree but I don't really care, it was terrible to me). WAR tried to do both and ended up with decent PvP and shitty PvE. SWTOR could have had good PvP but not enough PvP content. Rift had some good potential with all the class combinations but again a split between PvE and PvP caused the PvP to run stale real fast.

As someone who yearns for good PvP I've been consistently disappointed by every MMO in existence except PlanetSide. And the reason is because PlanetSide doesn't half-ass player-vs-player and designed the entire game around it. They didn't try to cater to "casuals" or "pvers" to try to widen their player base. Every game that's tried to do that leaves both sides dissatisfied because they halfass one thing at the expense of the other.

Zenben

2012-04-20, 05:44 PM

WTF is up with the necros lately? Knock it off people. When a discussion has run its course, let it die.

Malorn

2012-04-20, 07:51 PM

lol

When people start a discussion that already has a thread they get yelled at for not using the search function.

When people use the search function to find an existing discussion and contribute to it they get yelled at for necro'ing.

There's just no winning!

SniperSteve

2012-04-20, 08:16 PM

@Furber, I will need to kill you in-game a few times for resurrecting this topic from its grave on page 24. >.<

No AI, ever. Destroys the whole point to a multiplayer game... (you know... _multi_ . . _player_)

Edit: Malorn, I think it is because no one wants AI in the game, and we are afraid the devs will see it and get bad ideas...

Stew

2012-04-20, 08:20 PM

I don't know who you are. I don't know what you want. If you are looking for ransom, I can tell you I don't have money. But what I do have are a very particular set of skills; skills I have acquired over a very long career. Skills that make me a nightmare for people like you. If you let the idea of an NPC empire go now, that'll be the end of it. I will not look for you, I will not pursue you. But if you don't, I will look for you, I will find you, and I will kill you.

Calm down dude take it easy try to make the difference between a game and the real life ! thanks !

Stew

2012-04-20, 08:24 PM

And on the topic i dont really care about NPC i prefere player driven contents but down the road having a (( FAUna )) like frogs and crocodiles in the swamp and a few little lizard in the desert would not hurt the gameplay it will had flavor and immersion to the game !

So dont be rude he said thats the NPC are not Bots who play agains players

The original post is about NPC thats make the wold having an extra flavor !

And i think he is right if he talk about FAUNA having few animals crossing ur way few times couls be cool and wouldnt hurt anyones !

Malorn

2012-04-20, 09:18 PM

Edit: Malorn, I think it is because no one wants AI in the game, and we are afraid the devs will see it and get bad ideas...

They already have bad ideas! I've seen a NPC faction/PVE being talked about in their long-term plan at least twice. Reminding them how terrible of an idea this is might help purge it from their minds.

The Kush

2012-04-20, 09:50 PM

No.

kertvon

2012-04-20, 10:24 PM

Calm down dude take it easy try to make the difference between a game and the real life ! thanks !

FYI:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0936501/

Awesome movie.

Hooah

2012-04-21, 05:45 AM

I wouldn't min for roaming NPC life forms if the NPC doesn't have a big impact when it comes to gameplay.
I'd prefer not like to get a mission that says "I need you to kill X of Y"

They have to be easy to kill and the majority of them didn't aggro.

(Wouldn't it have been better with a poll?)

Immigrant

2012-04-21, 05:54 AM

I don't see the need for NPCs in this game so I'm against.

Stew

2012-04-21, 07:34 AM

Well I hate to say it but Planetside 1 was supposed to have them, but they were not added because back then they wanted to pre-load every texture in the game beforehand to guarantee a seamless experience, and with slow load times of the day, decided it wasn't worth it. At least that was my understanding.

Personally I want to fight in an interesting and living world, not a world devoid of all interesting features like small animals. That kind of thing, as long as they're passive, will only add to the experience of the game, not detract.

Now here's a picture of some velociraptors in the game engine: :D

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/main/screenshots/old/ancient/ratcl02.jpg

I like these ideas, it makes sense mobs wouldn't be near fighting anyways, so if you were alone, and not fighting, that's where they'd be.

I agree few passive creature even some deadly one in swamp like crocodile could be cool if possible witht eh engine limitation