Nanite Weapon Holstering

[Sirisian]

In a recent tweet (https://twitter.com/#!/Sirisian2/status/172931207884054528) I made to T-Ray I tried to summarize a change to their holstering system in 140 characters.
How are you doing holstering? Does the gun disappear? Make it dissolve into green glowing nanites and that's the holstering delay.
He clarified how their doing holstering right now:
its just like gta
If anyone isn't familiar with GTA here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmdZ0z1pnA#t=14s) demonstrating the basic holstering and unholstering of many weapons. The idea is the weapon animates to a holstering position and the weapon disappears or appears in the player's hands.

Since we're in a science fiction world with nanites I think we could actually make the concept more believable. I explained the basic idea in the tweet, but I'll expand on it.

Say you you're holding a pistol and wanted switch to a MCG. The pistol would animate by dissolving toward the player's hands with a red/teal/blue glow along the borders depending on the faction. From a technical point of view it's a cheap GPU operation. You'll have to take my word for it. The time for the animation would define the holstering delay. The character would then move his hands into the position for the MCG as the weapon formed in his hands. (I haven't seen the movie, but there's a scene in the trailer for Green Lantern where the protagonist makes a MCG (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-GO9fo9DtM#t=2m22s). It would be kind of like that probably but not as bright for the visual).

As a cheap visual (note, I'm not an artist) dissolving a pistol might look like:
http://sirisian.com/pictures/nanitetrpistol.png

Going from a MCG to a pistol would be similar. The MCG would dissolve into the player's armor then a pistol would form into their hand.

What this allows for is a way for large weapons (HA and AV) to get holstered by essentially going into the player's armor after dissolving so they aren't forced to just disappear instantly or fade away with no sci-fi explanation.

Any comments or similar ideas?

This is probably one of my more non-controversial topics. :lol: Seems like win since we don't have visual holstering slots anymore.

[VanuMAXGuy]

If we can't have PS1 style weapon slinging over our backs, this would be a pretty rad alternative.

+1 from me.

[VioletZero]

How about "It's a design shortcut, don't think too hard about it."

[FastAndFree]

I really like this idea. Reminds me of the scene from Tron Legacy where the bad guys jumped out a window and summoned their Light Jets around themselves as they were falling. How awesome would it be if THAT was how vehicle spawning happened?

I can but dream

Although I guess if weapons just appeared out of thin air people might ask, not unreasonably, why you can't "carry" every single weapon in your empire's inventory

[CutterJohn]

That could be pretty sweet i think. Wouldn't be too hard to pull off either, just a particle effect and a moving transparency on the weapon.

[Sifer2]

It still sucks they are taking all the little details out. Holstered weapons, vehicle enter/exit animations. But yeah since its Sci-Fi they could at least add an effect like this rather than just lazy weapons disappearing.

[CutterJohn]

It still sucks they are taking all the little details out. Holstered weapons, vehicle enter/exit animations. But yeah since its Sci-Fi they could at least add an effect like this rather than just lazy weapons disappearing.

Honestly I'd prefer not having holstered weapons. I hate the look of giant weapons welded to someones back clipping through their backpacks. A single MA sized weapon looked ok, but dual HA/AV looked ridiculous.

[DviddLeff]

As long as the act of drawing your weapon doesn't make you light up like a Christmas tree I don't mind.

[Bags]

I like it.

[Hermes]

Mmm its a neat idea. But I don't really think I'm on board with it. You sort of have different levels of sci fi from gritty to glowy... and I like the fact that here we have a subtle combination of those elements - with the flashy extravagance mainly provided by the VS faction style.

In short I think it would alter the portrayal of TR/NC too much. If we can't have holstering I'd rather just let my mind ignore the seam than this.

Kudos on thinking outside the box though, I chewed it over mentally for a while :)

[Death2All]

Honestly I'd prefer not having holstered weapons. I hate the look of giant weapons welded to someones back clipping through their backpacks. A single MA sized weapon looked ok, but dual HA/AV looked ridiculous.

Never thought I'd hear that, a TR CR5 with two MCGs on his back looked dumb? Hm...


I always love holstered weapons that you could visually see. I loved being able to tell what weapons someone had. It also gave a realism aspect to the game that everyone these forums seems to have a hard on for.

When I see a guy with HA and a Thumper and he retreats around the corner, I know to back off a little bit or else he's going to start pummeling me with his grenades.

If I'm in a MAX and I see a guy with AV on his back I know to be a little more careful when engaging him or he's going to rip me up.

I'm glad we can holster our weapons, though. I'd be really disappointed if we just constantly had our guns out and were for whatever reason incapable of putting them away. Especially since there's a lot of moments in PS where you don't always need your weapon out, I.E. waiting for a vehicle to spawn or organizing a raid in the sanc. I don't need to walk around with my weapon out like a mongoloid the whole time.

But holstering like "GTA" kind of worries me. Are we not going to be able to see weapons holstered on our backs? Say it ain't so :(

[Bags]

Never thought I'd hear that, a TR CR5 with two MCGs on his back looked dumb? Hm...


I always love holstered weapons that you could visually see. I loved being able to tell what weapons someone had. It also gave a realism aspect to the game that everyone these forums seems to have a hard on for.



This is the ironic part, since we are having classes because they want this goal... then they hide weapons.

[Warborn]

It still sucks they are taking all the little details out. Holstered weapons, vehicle enter/exit animations. But yeah since its Sci-Fi they could at least add an effect like this rather than just lazy weapons disappearing.

It's not lazy, it's a consideration of system resources. If simply equipping a weapon creates some kind of particle effect, that's more of a strain on people's systems than otherwise, and for what? People are cool with guns just disappearing. Happens all the time in games. Not a huge deal. But if it means crappier looking explosions, or weapon fire effects, or whatever else, is it really worth it to have fancy effects for switching weapons? Or a lower frame rate?

[SpLiTNuTz]

This is the ironic part, since we are having classes because they want this goal... then they hide weapons.

There uniform shows that class they are not the weapons. Plus once we've all played the game for a while we will all learn what guns certain classes can use.

[FastAndFree]

There uniform shows that class they are not the weapons. Plus once we've all played the game for a while we will all learn what guns certain classes can use.

But say, it's a HA, he may or may not have a rocket launcher on him. No way to tell until he pulls it

[Redshift]

There uniform shows that class they are not the weapons. Plus once we've all played the game for a while we will all learn what guns certain classes can use.

It would still be nice to have some visualisation of the weapons someone has, for example i'm sure a MAX would like to know whether the HA he's about to engage is a AI or AV setup

It would be nice to be able to tell whether a med/eng had a carbine or shotty as it influences the range you'd prefer to engage from

[Cosmical]

Im usually a beleiver in change, and can understand design choices and how things have to adapt and grow. But this seems like a lazy shortcut to me. If your telling me that time will be spent making the overall game play better because they dont have to work on these little issues then fair enough. Or maybe they will come back to this detail later.

But what possible reason is there to not have these weapons on your avatar? They talk about customisation, and weapon loadouts. Yet we are all going to be running around looking exactly the same until battle starts and we pull one of 50 guns out of thin air. The nanite thing would go a ways to making me feel better about it, but still.

I'm pretty sure the reason theyre doing this is because certain weapons look too big and rediculous sitting on a characters back. MCG. and Anti vehicle weaponry. But theres a whole manner of minor issues to do with this.

A cloaker now wont be able to pick and choose vulnerable targets, because every character could potentially have any weapon (within their class). And i wont be able to ifentify engineers from far off with their large launchers sat on their back.

Dare say the class system makes my issue mute. But even battlefield now lets you see mines sitting on the back of your engineer. Little touches i appreciate. If we are saying that we all carry a nanite system weapon generator with us, then why do we have to go to a base to generate weapons and ammo?

[Sirisian]

As long as the act of drawing your weapon doesn't make you light up like a Christmas tree I don't mind.
I hinted at that in my original post when I said "not as bright" as the green lantern animation. So it would be a dull red/teal/blue. Not something that would make you glow at night. You bring up a really good point though for night time. It would be odd to see someone shimmer when they switch weapons. Ideally this idea shouldn't change anything except the small visual change.

But what possible reason is there to not have these weapons on your avatar?
Performance was the quoted reason. Apparently rendering 2 weapons and then the player's other holstered items hurt their render count of players. I believe they said when they got rid of holstered items they could render 60 more characters. In a game with 2K players on a continent I imagine it was important. I think a lot of us are a little disappointed, but it didn't seem like a game breaker to me.

[Cosmical]

I believe they said when they got rid of holstered items they could render 60 more characters. In a game with 2K players on a continent I imagine it was important. I think a lot of us are a little disappointed, but it didn't seem like a game breaker to me.

Well way to make me look like a jerk. I will gladly take that excuse if it means more people on the battlefield.

Im really curious to know how the game will function with 90% of a conts population fighting for one base. It's said that with the teritory control that it wont happen, because there will always be other things to be fighting for. Still dont know how theyre going to gurantee that though, and stop everyones computer dieing when a big show down happens.

[SniperSteve]

Cool idea. Maybe it would look something like the following where there is a more 'construction' effect than a 'magic' effect.

http://img593.imageshack.us/img593/431/ncwep.jpg



Not sure how it would be in-game, but a cool possibility for 'explaining' why the guns are not shown on the player's backs.

Also, if it is system intensive, then certainly not worth the effort or the resources.

[Talek Krell]

I'd kind of like to hang on to the current system in the hope that they'll add in visible holstered weapons later. If it's a technical/resource hurdle now then they may expand to the point when it's no longer an issue in the future.

[Vash02]

I would like to remind the devs that numbers isnt everything, immersion is just as important.

I would happily sacrifice 60 players on the alter of holstered weapons. Who would really tell the difference between 2000 players and 1940 players.

[Zulthus]

I would like to remind the devs that numbers isnt everything, immersion is just as important.

I would happily sacrifice 60 players on the alter of holstered weapons. Who would really tell the difference between 2000 players and 1940 players.

this

[Sirisian]

I would happily sacrifice 60 players on the alter of holstered weapons. Who would really tell the difference between 2000 players and 1940 players.
That's not how it works. At no point will their engine be attempting to render 2K players on your screen. The numbers would probably be closer to 150 vs 90 players. From some of the screenshots I'm getting the impression for players and vehicles far away they're using imposters (2D billboarded textures that look close enough to the 3D model). So it might look like 200 people unless you try to get them all close to your camera.

I will point out that PS1 did this also. You saw it probably if you played over 64 CE around your player all the CE away from you dissapeared so only the closest 64 CE were rendered. Players were the same way. It was really rare to see this, but on the test server where you could actually get 500 people in a base at one time you'd see people pop in and out of existence because their algorithms limited the render calls.

They're really hoping we spread out I imagine so we don't stress test theirs system.

[Vash02]

Make it a toggle option in the graphics settings then.

[Biscuit]

anyone played a game called Vanquish

the weapon
"holstering" was pretty nifty the way they did it for their game.

VANQUISH - Weapons Trailer - YouTube

[Sirisian]

anyone played a game called Vanquish
That's the game I was trying to think of. I remember seeing that trailer and was thinking of it when I made my post. Bit complicated on the animation side though, but it's an awesome holstering system.

[cellinaire]

At least they said it's population/framerates issue, not that they removed it because they don't like it.

[BigBossMonkey]

Would be really cool, but maybe not at launch (as not to delay release over fluff)

[Vancha]

I support this. It doesn\'t sound like much, but it\'s one of those things that people who\'ve ever played CoD/BF would appreciate. They wouldn\'t just see a weapon slide off the screen and have another one appear from their crotch, but instead get some nifty animation and be like \"Oh...cool!\"

Or to put it another way, I think little things like this give a game character to an extent that perhaps isn\'t appreciated.

[Kran De Loy]

Having the weapon formed in your hands is really awesome, tho I think that idea from that video would be way too much, imo.

While I cringe at the idea of weapons just appearing and disappearing I know that in times of emergency I wouldn't notice and thus wouldn't care. However there are plenty of times that one is in a more leisurely pace of things I will notice, quite often, that no matter how much I may wish it were so I do not have a LMG in my pants.

Besides, what they say about military life is long stretches of boredom punctuated by extreme spikes of "OH **** I'MMA DIE!!!"

So, how then would SOE explain why you can have nanites make 1 weapon, but not another? Easy actually, surprised that no one else picked up on it yet. Modules. Nanites are magic substance that appear out of the air, they take up mass just like everything else, they just make for good storage methods.

Also Governments/Major Corporations and their tricky little secrets do not go around making military grade weaponry designs available to anyone. As field grunts or commander or whatever, you are NOT expected to know how this stuff works much less how to reprogram it.

So than Module Packs for weapons is what you'd be carrying around. Nanites themselves are everywhere anyway they're not a scarce commodity, so there isn't any reason that every vat grown soldier shouldn't be carrying around 3-4 or 7 of these things in their entirely nanite purpose built vehicles.

[Geist]

Having the weapon formed in your hands is really awesome, tho I think that idea from that video would be way too much, imo.

While I cringe at the idea of weapons just appearing and disappearing I know that in times of emergency I wouldn't notice and thus wouldn't care. However there are plenty of times that one is in a more leisurely pace of things I will notice, quite often, that no matter how much I may wish it were so I do not have a LMG in my pants.

Besides, what they say about military life is long stretches of boredom punctuated by extreme spikes of "OH **** I'MMA DIE!!!"

So, how then would SOE explain why you can have nanites make 1 weapon, but not another? Easy actually, surprised that no one else picked up on it yet. Modules. Nanites are magic substance that appear out of the air, they take up mass just like everything else, they just make for good storage methods.

Also Governments/Major Corporations and their tricky little secrets do not go around making military grade weaponry designs available to anyone. As field grunts or commander or whatever, you are NOT expected to know how this stuff works much less how to reprogram it.

So than Module Packs for weapons is what you'd be carrying around. Nanites themselves are everywhere anyway they're not a scarce commodity, so there isn't any reason that every vat grown soldier shouldn't be carrying around 3-4 or 7 of these things in their entirely nanite purpose built vehicles.

Haha, that's actually pretty funny. I had a long post explaining pretty much everything you just said a few days back. My computer froze in the middle of typing it up and just never got around to trying again. Thank you for the time saver. ;)

Just a minor thing I doubt they'd do, but I'd personally love it if they made it so after it forms in front of you, your character caught it in mid air. Too much to ask for?

[Vancha]

Just a minor thing I doubt they'd do, but I'd personally love it if they made it so after it forms in front of you, your character caught it in mid air. Too much to ask for?

Probably. They removed vehicle boarding animations due to the amount of time they'd take, so anything that's too technical is probably asking too much. Any effort to make weapon switching cooler would be a case of "flashy but simple", I think.

[Xaine]

How about "It's a design shortcut, don't think too hard about it."

I don't think I've ever seen you post something remotely positive or complimentary.

Do you just hate everything or? :P

[Kran De Loy]

I don't think I've ever seen you post something remotely positive or complimentary.

Do you just hate everything or? :P

Some people paint beautiful pottery, others cook like a 5 star chef. Maybe he just has an innate talent for being a grouchy cu t?

[Sirisian]

Okay update. I made an OpenGL program to show off what it might look like.

I could have added another texture defining the order for when and where things dissolve, but I just made it go from a center position (It would only require one sample to implement that so the cost would be negligible). Basti gave me an older model he made (before he fixed the star) so I used it and applied a shader to it to create what the effect might look like. Then again I like their GDC green glow dissolve effect. That looked cool. Mine's just a few lines in a pixel shader (a program that runs on the GPU per pixel).
OpenGLDissolve Model - YouTube

[Skitrel]

Not a fan of magical weapon holstering. Higby mentioned somewhere before that while weapons on backs won't be in at launch, they plan on adding it after launch. I vote for that. It just looks better, it has a more military feel to it, and it'll make videos and machinima look far better.

I don't think we should be building stories around gameplay design that's only there as a temporary measure.

[Tikuto]

(Contribution to idea of the visual effect)Emphasis on Respawning technology. A humane reason to prevent them yet keep them for war - a special device as such...

Command Ability:
Nanite Electrothermic Decomposition (N.E.D.) Bomb - Command has special remote sticky-bomb; a Nanite Bomb which can be planted anywhere and detonated remotely. This is delicate variation of EMP blast. These Nanites disrupt electronic function and degrade Nanite System constructs but do not permanently damage electronic circuitry. Appears like a spreading sparkly mould. A concept of 'Nanite Bombs' (http://youtu.be/hwyrMdchMwg?hd=1&t=1m46s). Enemy Nanite Systems including respawns take longer to complete task.
Greater respawn nausea (Visual defect at Respawn)
Enemy Nanite Systems constructions have reduced integrity.
Engineer can disarm satchel before it's detonated.
Longer duration than E.M.P. Blast.

[chanic]

Not a fan of magical weapon holstering. Higby mentioned somewhere before that while weapons on backs won't be in at launch, they plan on adding it after launch.

Really? It doesn't seem like it would be possible for classes like Light Assault, Medic, or Engineer since they already have a jetpack or backpack on their character model.

[sylphaen]

So up until now, while we know we won't see guns on soldiers' backs (until after release - MAYBE), we have seen only screenshots of soldiers holding their weapons.

Switching weapons in Planetside, like reloading, was about taking a calculated risk. Do we know if PS2 will do like PS1 with "holster weapons, run faster" ? I'm also curious about the speed at which weapons can be switched.

[Atheosim]

I'd also like to know if we have the option of simply running around without a weapon drawn. You could always tell the newbs apart in PS1 because they would always run around with their weapons drawn lol

[Blackwolf]

I'd like to see a system closer to Mass Effect. The weapons compacted themselves to reduce their size and clipped to your backpack. You could have 2 weapons on your back, one on the small of your back, an AV weapon centered on your back, and a pistol on your hip.

Typically the rifle went on the left, the AV went in the middle, and the sniper rifle went on the right. Shotgun accupied the small of your back and pistol or SMG took up a spot on your left hip.

Not exactly the same set up of course, but similar. Maybe designated locations for items such as a assault rifle and an HA weapon for the HA class.

The weapons themselves could fold up and tuck into a kind of backpack of their own, rather then just disapear. I don't think it would take much system resources if all the weapon did was turn into a smaller boxed version of itself.

[Tialian]

Man hearing about this is like another nail in the coffin.

The more good things I hear about being left out of PS2 the more I wish they would have just stuck with their original plan to upgrade PS1.

You always hear rumors that certain things *might* get patched into the game later but there's no guarantee that's going to happen. People don't understand immersive elements aren't just fluff, they are the little details that make a game shine. Fluff is pretty graphics and 2,000 players, I would rather have immersion with average graphics and 300-400 players.

Always remember, quality over quantity.

[Brusi]

It's funny... so much has happened since we heard the initial news about PS2 that even posting a new post in a thread that is a only a month old seems like a necro, lol

[MrBloodworth]

I would rather know what people have equipped, ALA PS1.

[Sirisian]

I would rather know what people have equipped, ALA PS1.
Yeah I think everyone would, but the developers said they aren't going to do it. This thread was basically just an idea so we don't have weapons appearing/disappearing from the players hands. It also elegantly describes holstering delays and makes them easy to change. :)

It's funny... so much has happened since we heard the initial news about PS2 that even posting a new post in a thread that is a only a month old seems like a necro, lol
Yeah it does. Totally forgot about this thread.

[headcrab13]

The pistol would animate by dissolving toward the player's hands with a red/teal/blue glow along the borders depending on the faction.

I love the idea, but since all other "nanite animations" from PS1 and PS2 are done in bright green, it would probably make sense to look like this (skip to 6:42) :

Planetside 2 - GDC First Gameplay Part 1 - YouTube

That neon, sweeping nanite construction effect is so badass. It's great that it does that every time someone spawns a vehicle, and I'm hoping bodies breaking down will have the same look.

[Fenrod]

Damn right, I've never really paid attention to this, but it's really badass. This would be cool in a weapon holstering system, with blue for Vanu, yellow for NC and red for TR.

[headcrab13]

Here's a better link so you don't have to skip through the vid:

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=3635725&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/3635725/ps2-nanites.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com/)

[Talek Krell]

We could take a cue from Borderlands too. Each character had a little box strapped to some part of them. whenever they switched weapons the gun would dissolve into particles and disappear into the box. I can try to find a video later.

[Eyeklops]

I want the guns to get pulled out of your ass, literally. The player reaches around and pulls out a Beamer with one good tug. Wouldn't see me kissing my guns though. You can imagine the reverse of the process on your own. I lol thinking about people holstering those massive AV weapons.

[sylphaen]

It's funny... so much has happened since we heard the initial news about PS2 that even posting a new post in a thread that is a only a month old seems like a necro, lol

Yes, I did not want to create a new thread since there was one about holstering. Unfortunately, no one understood that I was mentionning a different issue than the OP. Maybe I should have created a new thread.

While the focus of the OP was about the "art" part of holstering, I am more concerned about the gameplay/mechanics.

For instance, that video shown above proves (at least if nothing changed since GDC) that holstering weapons is not required to enter vehicles. That's an interesting change from PS1.

[Talek Krell]

While the focus of the OP was about the "art" part of holstering, I am more concerned about the gameplay/mechanics.As far as I know nothing about holstering weapons entirely has ever been mentioned, so I'm in the same boat as you.

[Fenrod]

I want the guns to get pulled out of your ass, literally. The player reaches around and pulls out a Beamer with one good tug. Wouldn't see me kissing my guns though. You can imagine the reverse of the process on your own. I lol thinking about people holstering those massive AV weapons.

That's even more funny and disgusting than your avatar :rofl:

[Khellendros]

What I don't get about this idea is, if the devs have decided not to work on holstering, why would they work on this?

[Vancha]

What I don't get about this idea is, if the devs have decided not to work on holstering, why would they work on this?
Because the reason that they decided not to have holstering was due to the additional weapons on people's back/waist reducing the amount of people you could render on the screen at one time.

[Sirisian]

I love the idea, but since all other "nanite animations" from PS1 and PS2 are done in bright green, it would probably make sense to look like this (skip to 6:42) :
Note the date of the original post. Also this:
Then again I like their GDC green glow dissolve effect. That looked cool.
Definitely would like their nanite effect. It's what I had in mind when I linked that Green Lantern video, but not as bright. As someone else mentioned you don't want it giving away your position at night all the time. (Or do you?) :lol:

Damn right, I've never really paid attention to this, but it's really badass. This would be cool in a weapon holstering system, with blue for Vanu, yellow for NC and red for TR.

The pistol would animate by dissolving toward the player's hands with a red/teal/blue glow along the borders depending on the faction.
*gasp* blue for vanu? Madness. We'll take teal. NC can have blue or yellow or a cool visual mix (cash shop?) and TR can have red.

As far as I know nothing about holstering weapons entirely has ever been mentioned, so I'm in the same boat as you.
Original post mentioned it will be like GTA where the gun forms out of nowhere. (T-Ray is the lead artist so I'd imagine he knows the most about how things are being implemented art wise). I was not happy when hearing this so I made this thread for discussion.

[Khellendros]

Because the reason that they decided not to have holstering was due to the additional weapons on people's back/waist reducing the amount of people you could render on the screen at one time.

So, with all the eye candy they have, this somehow is the one that breaks it? Huh.

[Sirisian]

So, with all the eye candy they have, this somehow is the one that breaks it? Huh.
Each weapon is customized with attachments and skins. Each soldier is customized possibly with cash shop skins. I was doing the math on this earlier in an old thread when it was released and it does eat up a lot of memory when you realize how many units will be customized and rendered possibly in the player's view. I think they have a pretty strong case for not allowing it, but honestly it is something they could add later since most of us have 2GB of video ram. (I'm using a year old laptop with that much, so I can only imagine what most desktop users have).

Another thing is you don't want to implement something that takes a lot of developer time if people are going to turn it off for performance. So their priorities are probably in the right place.

[Dairian]

I think this is a great idea, and I don't think it would take to much to implement into the game, since the reaver Higby spawned did that exact thing in the GDC video...... I mean come on they are adding cockpits this late.

[TerminatorUK]

Hmmm for me this isn't enough - there needs to be some visual representation on of what the person is carrying when the weapon isn't drawn.

Weapons strapped onto back and the holster / un-holster animations were yet again (like the vehicle animations) another Planetside unique feature / detail. I'll be saddened if didn't make a return.

I was playing PS1 the other day as a VS Quasar MAX and when I was outside a tower and came up against 3 opponents, I priorised the 1 guy who had AV over the other two in order to survive longer.

Without details of what people are carrying, this sort of information is lost.

[Khellendros]

Each weapon is customized with attachments and skins. Each soldier is customized possibly with cash shop skins. I was doing the math on this earlier in an old thread when it was released and it does eat up a lot of memory when you realize how many units will be customized and rendered possibly in the player's view. I think they have a pretty strong case for not allowing it, but honestly it is something they could add later since most of us have 2GB of video ram. (I'm using a year old laptop with that much, so I can only imagine what most desktop users have).

Another thing is you don't want to implement something that takes a lot of developer time if people are going to turn it off for performance. So their priorities are probably in the right place.

Yea, but what about when the weapons are drawn? Same problem, how are they solving it then? Dunno, this sounds like a cop out.

[Blackwolf]

Yea, but what about when the weapons are drawn? Same problem, how are they solving it then? Dunno, this sounds like a cop out.

Only 1 weapon is drawn at a time. Imagine how much more complicated it is when 3-4 weapons are detailed on every soldier with the one he holds and the ones he's also carrying?

Really not seeing them on enemies is a relatively small tactical disadvantage. And I'd rather have a viable effect like nanite disolve then that tacky GTA look. I'm sure the DEVs will do something more with it when they get around to it though.

[ArmedZealot]

I love this idea and hope they implement it. I'm not familiar with animation or graphics but it seems like they can already do it with vehicles, it wouldn't be too far out of the realm to see it happen to weapons as well.

Coming from T:A not seeing what an enemy is carrying isn't that big of a deal. They are usually on top of you before you would be able to gauge that anyway.

Seeing what they look like is enough to judge what they can do.

[Hypevosa]

I like having visible weapons as opposed to dissolving due to the fact you can then see what your opponent and friends are toting around to make more strategic decisions... like not charging the guy with a shotgun, or reminding your teammate to please use the rocket launcher strapped to his back so we can move forward... stuff like that.

Also, from a sniping perspective, seeing weapons is important since you can then pick off high priority targets, like the guy with AA weaponry when you have birds about to fly in overhead.

[headcrab13]

Hmmm for me this isn't enough - there needs to be some visual representation on of what the person is carrying when the weapon isn't drawn.

Yeah but then again with the new class system, even the profile of an enemy at range will narrow down which guns they may be carrying.

You won't know exactly what they're going to attack you with, but you'll have a good idea of what to expect.

[Purple]

i guess i just assumed that they would have weapons like they did in PS1 but now i am concerned. i dont want my guns to just disappear. this also bring up another issue of if your able to see if players are carrying grenades. a scout should be able to tell his troops if they can expect grenades to be thrown at them.

[The Kush]

If we can't have PS1 style weapon slinging over our backs, this would be a pretty rad alternative.

+1 from me.

Agreed. Would rather have it holstered on side/back but this would also work

[Toppopia]

They could add a scanning feature which could be an equipment to allow you to see what weapons and equipment they have so you could still find out who is the bigger threat and would give scouts more detailed information and could give snipers effective spotters to help prioritize targets etc etc.

[Blackwolf]

They could add a scanning feature which could be an equipment to allow you to see what weapons and equipment they have so you could still find out who is the bigger threat and would give scouts more detailed information and could give snipers effective spotters to help prioritize targets etc etc.

I think if the Enhanced Targeting implant was making a comeback, this would definitely fall into that category.

I could see Enhanced Targeting showing health, armor, brackets for an idea on the size of the target, and icons along the side revealing what weaponry the target currently has.

The icons would be pretty basic, a bazooka to indicate AV weaponry for example.

[xSquirtle]

So many design shortcuts are making it into this game.

[Destroyeron]

There's no holstering? Why the fuck not?

[Khellendros]

Only 1 weapon is drawn at a time. Imagine how much more complicated it is when 3-4 weapons are detailed on every soldier with the one he holds and the ones he's also carrying?

Really not seeing them on enemies is a relatively small tactical disadvantage. And I'd rather have a viable effect like nanite disolve then that tacky GTA look. I'm sure the DEVs will do something more with it when they get around to it though.

That doesn't really make much sense, frankly. There is an easy solution to this that does not require scrapping holstering wholesale: for other than high end machines, simply show the base model of the firearm the player is carrying, OR make it a menu option to toggle on/off.

Again, sounds like a cop out.

[ArmedZealot]

That doesn't really make much sense, frankly. There is an easy solution to this that does not require scrapping holstering wholesale: for other than high end machines, simply show the base model of the firearm the player is carrying, OR make it a menu option to toggle on/off.

Again, sounds like a cop out.

Well, sounds like you know how to do a better job then the devs. SOE hire this guy!

[Khellendros]

Well, sounds like you know how to do a better job then the devs. SOE hire this guy!

To be honest, I think their decision has nothing to do with technical issues, more like pressure from up to to git 'er done.

[ArmedZealot]

To be honest, I think their decision has nothing to do with technical issues, more like pressure from up to to git 'er done.

That's quite clear. Maybe you should avoid making judgements about the technical detail of things unless you happened to be versed in such.

Or we could pollute a good compromise to the situation with blame for the management, because that is equally constructive.

[Toppopia]

I wouldn't mind if in the beta they are missing features like holstering animations because they are things that aren't necessary for testing more important features, maybe once it gets closer to the official launch date then it should be in it but for the mean time they need to make sure we can play without massive game breaking problems.

[Hamma]

Here's a better link so you don't have to skip through the vid:

http://gifsoup.com/imager.php?id=3635725&t=o (http://gifsoup.com/view/3635725/ps2-nanites.html) GIFSoup (http://gifsoup.com/)

Man that is pretty badass. :D

[Bittermen]

Aww no weapon slinging.


I like this idea.

[JediADo]

There's no holstering? Why the fuck not?

This is the exact thought I had.

Fuck everything else. This shit should be in the game.

Period end of story.

[Captain1nsaneo]

This is the exact thought I had.

Fuck everything else. This shit should be in the game.

Period end of story.

This has been addressed by the devs, having weapon models stick around uses up too many resources. It becomes either you get larger fights or you get visible holstered weapons. The devs chose to have higher player count.

[JediADo]

There's no holstering? Why the fuck not?

This has been addressed by the devs, having weapon models stick around uses up too many resources. It becomes either you get larger fights or you get visible holstered weapons. The devs chose to have higher player count.

Cool story bro, the devs obviously never played PS1. And let's not forget, PS1 is how many years old? They obviously can't code a game to have weapon holstering and have the game run smoothly. You can have both nice graphics and an engine that doesn't hog your resources.

[CuddlyChud]

Cool story bro, the devs obviously never played PS1. And let's not forget, PS1 is how many years old? They obviously can't code a game to have weapon holstering and have the game run smoothly. You can have both nice graphics and an engine that doesn't hog your resources.

There are a lot of things to be said about Planetside 1, but that it ran smoothly is not one of them :p

[Red Beard]

Cool story bro

I'll go with the higher player count.

[Zenben]

I can honesty say I like this idea almost as much as holstering itself, and I think it fits well with the overall "nanites" theme.

[Katanauk]

It still sucks they are taking all the little details out. Holstered weapons, vehicle enter/exit animations. But yeah since its Sci-Fi they could at least add an effect like this rather than just lazy weapons disappearing.

Is this true? If I don't see my guy get in and out of vehicles Ill be truly disappointed. Will this be like BF where I magically end up in my seat?

[TheRagingGerbil]

Cool story bro, the devs obviously never played PS1. And let's not forget, PS1 is how many years old? They obviously can't code a game to have weapon holstering and have the game run smoothly. You can have both nice graphics and an engine that doesn't hog your resources.

With all the custom camo/coloring options and all the shit you can strap on your gun that would be thousands of variables for them to track and display. I would rather have the nanite explanation similar to how weapons and ammo in the Ultra Violet universe work then a generic Gauss rifle strapped to my back.

[Xyntech]

While having full holstering is ideal, I certainly would rather have a nanite holstering explanation than just having the standard appearing/disappearing weapons from many games.

Cool story bro, the devs obviously never played PS1. And let's not forget, PS1 is how many years old? They obviously can't code a game to have weapon holstering and have the game run smoothly. You can have both nice graphics and an engine that doesn't hog your resources.

lol

[RodenyC]

Is this true? If I don't see my guy get in and out of vehicles Ill be truly disappointed. Will this be like BF where I magically end up in my seat?

Yup exactly like that.Game is catered to the masses now.If it was in PS1 more than likely it is not gonna be in PS2.Sucks to have to say that.

[Xyntech]

Yup exactly like that.Game is catered to the masses now.If it was in PS1 more than likely it is not gonna be in PS2.Sucks to have to say that.

How is a lack of entry animations "catering to the masses" exactly? Failing to cater to PS1 players, maybe, but the only thing it really caters to is budget and development time restrictions.

They have even discussed the possibility of having a vehicle start up delay, so that if and when they do add entry animations at a later point, it won't drastically change the game.

There are legitimate things you could point out that are catering to the masses, like iron sights. While a case could be made whether adding iron sights is a good thing or a bad thing for the game, it is certainly being added because it is a popular feature that the masses will expect.

But go on being a pessimist. There is doubtless little chance of you being happy with PS2 unless it's an identical clone of the first game. I sincerely hope SOE keeps the original Planetside running for people like you.

For some of us, we expect more out of a sequel. Not every change will be to our preference, but for me, the good of the sequel outweighs the bad.

[Vancha]

This thread seems to have taken a turn for the stupid.

[RodenyC]

How is a lack of entry animations "catering to the masses" exactly? Failing to cater to PS1 players, maybe, but the only thing it really caters to is budget and development time restrictions.

They have even discussed the possibility of having a vehicle start up delay, so that if and when they do add entry animations at a later point, it won't drastically change the game.

There are legitimate things you could point out that are catering to the masses, like iron sights. While a case could be made whether adding iron sights is a good thing or a bad thing for the game, it is certainly being added because it is a popular feature that the masses will expect.

But go on being a pessimist. There is doubtless little chance of you being happy with PS2 unless it's an identical clone of the first game. I sincerely hope SOE keeps the original Planetside running for people like you.

For some of us, we expect more out of a sequel. Not every change will be to our preference, but for me, the good of the sequel outweighs the bad.
So are the masses not used to games with Instant entry and exit? BF3?A game they have been praising alot?What about One man tanks? A stand by Control Point A to capture? Do these not appeal to the masses?There are indeed some things that I do find interesting that they are adding like classes or iron sights.They as well appeal to masses because they are something that are in most games these days like you have said. But to me it feels like they are playing it safe and just doing what every other game is doing these days. That is what tends to make games boring.That is what I liked about Planetside.It wasn't like every other game.Even for me if you took away the Masses of people it was still a different game from others.And I do hope they keep PS1 running for people like me.I'd rather play the original than a game that falls short(imo) of being a true sequel so far.And for me the cons outweigh the pros.

[Xyntech]

So are the masses not used to games with Instant entry and exit?

Used to, yes. Entry animations aren't unique to Planetside though. It's just easier to not put them in. Blame the devs for being lazy/rushed/under funded maybe, but that's a terrible example of catering.

Some of your other examples are legitimate examples, but I already acknowledged they were pandering with some of the stuff. The entry animation and weapon holstering things are just terrible examples.

---

Slightly back on topic, I suppose they could do the same proposed idea of nanite holstering with vehicle entry. Have the player model disappear in a grean flash of nanites and be rebuilt inside the vehicle :D

Who needs doors when you have nanites?

Speaking of green flashes, I'd hope they would tweak the effect for nanite holstering somewhat. That would suck to be a cloaker and have your position given away by blinding green light every time you holstered or unholstered something. Forceblade 1.0 all over again, although I loved it in that case.

[SztEltviz]

Question: Run speed still higher with holstered weapons?

[Bags]

I don't think you even can.

[Xaine]

How about "It's a design shortcut, don't think too hard about it."

If i see one post, where you don't shoot down someone's idea with a retarded one liner like that. I'll eat my hat.

Really, that is all i ever see you do. I've yet to see a constructive post from you. I'm not sure why you haven't been banned, because you contribute nothing to this forum apart from things such as the above quote, after someone has put together an idea.

[Alderego]

It's not lazy, it's a consideration of system resources. If simply equipping a weapon creates some kind of particle effect, that's more of a strain on people's systems than otherwise, and for what? People are cool with guns just disappearing. Happens all the time in games. Not a huge deal. But if it means crappier looking explosions, or weapon fire effects, or whatever else, is it really worth it to have fancy effects for switching weapons? Or a lower frame rate?

actually, the way he suggests it is not a particle effect.
It's merely a shader with a transparency aspect. The biggest strain would be the calculation of what is visible behind the gun/through the parts at the edges that seem to be semi-transparent.

A bit like the cloak for the inf: (assuming that he just doesn't go *poof now I'm invisible*) the model is still there, the shader is just displaying a different material, in this case: none, the real one or the transparency one depending on the state.

[JHendy]

It's not lazy, it's a consideration of system resources. If simply equipping a weapon creates some kind of particle effect, that's more of a strain on people's systems than otherwise, and for what? People are cool with guns just disappearing. Happens all the time in games. Not a huge deal. But if it means crappier looking explosions, or weapon fire effects, or whatever else, is it really worth it to have fancy effects for switching weapons? Or a lower frame rate?

What are you talking about?

It's a particle effect. It would be possible enable/disable it at a whim through the graphics menu, if they implemented it.

They aren't going to rebalance or redress every other particle effect for the sake of a this one, given that you can disable it yourself if you feel its the straw breaking the camel's back.

Dear god...

[Fanglord]

It doesnt have to be too detailed, just a purple/red/blue light/fade from the weapon as change animation occurs. +1 for the little details make a good game.

[MrBloodworth]

If i see one post, where you don't shoot down someone's idea with a retarded one liner like that. I'll eat my hat.

Really, that is all i ever see you do. I've yet to see a constructive post from you. I'm not sure why you haven't been banned, because you contribute nothing to this forum apart from things such as the above quote, after someone has put together an idea.

Hes/she is not wrong.

[SpcFarlen]

It doesnt have to be too detailed, just a purple/red/blue light/fade from the weapon as change animation occurs. +1 for the little details make a good game.

Little details add immersion, that keeps so many of us playing for hours just because we want to live there. I want nanites now :(