Battles in space for the future

[Stardouser]

Have the devs ever expressed any interest in space combat? I mean, if it were possible you'd want to see dropships entering an atmosphere, but that's probably NOT possible. However, what might be possible is if there were orbital space defense stations that you had to capture before you could begin an assault on a planet.

Capital ships that can spawn light bombers and fighters, breaching pods that can drill through the wall of an enemy capital ship or space station, and, if your advance breaching pod teams can get the docking bay shields down, you could land Galaxy transports right in the docking bay of a capital ship or space station.

I mean, there could be varying tactics, for example, against an enemy capital ship, hammer away at its shields and then its hull until it's destroyed, send in breeching pods to get some stealth teams in there to get the shields down faster, etc. Heck, individual stealth soldiers could possibly use EVA suits to make assaults...

anyway, I'm sure it's not on the table for release but what about 3 years from now as an expansion?

[WiteBeam]

They have mentioned it as a possibility for future implementation. It wouldn't have to be any different than how they added core combat to PS. Just this time it could be in mother ships instead of caves.
It wouldn't be hard to write into the story. I just hope they don't feel the need to remove a continent altogether to do it like they did with oshur.

[Figment]

I have some constructive critique, this title could have been more dramatic, for instance:

"Battles, in SPACE, for... THE FUTURE!"


That said, it would basically be the opposite of what EVE is doing. Could feel like copy-catting.

[Stardouser]

I have some constructive critique, this title could have been more dramatic, for instance:

"Battles, in SPACE, for... THE FUTURE!"


That said, it would basically be the opposite of what EVE is doing. Could feel like copy-catting.

The thing about Eve is that you don't actually use, I believe it's actually called "twitch combat" to fly your ship, you fly your ship through indirect commands. I HATE that. I'd be playing Eve right now if I could tolerate that control style...if anything it might be copying Jumpgate, a dead franchise.

[Skitrel]

I've always envisaged a potential direction for Planetside to go would be to have every server be a unique planet, allowing players and outfits to compete cross server. This would add a persistence to absolutely everyone playing the game, together, as one community playing one game as opposed to individual servers essentially playing lots of different games on the same world.

Not really possible for Planetside 2 I'm guessing, but perhaps for the future. Shit, that's thinking small for the future, qubits are right around the corner.

[Unforgiven]

i think space combat was mentioned as an idea for the future, and i would defiantely enjoy it! but the problem could be that many gamers (such as higby himself) are not really that good at flying. so it would be somewhat of a turn off, to some players, just like the caves were in PS1.

dont get me wrong, i would really love to see it happen!

[Stardouser]

i think space combat was mentioned as an idea for the future, and i would defiantely enjoy it! but the problem could be that many gamers (such as higby himself) are not really that good at flying. so it would be somewhat of a turn off, to some players, just like the caves were in PS1.

dont get me wrong, i would really love to see it happen!

Well, not all of it is flying...if it were my vision, there'd still be plenty of infantry combat in space...you'd have to secure the orbital station before commencing ground assaults after all.

[artifice]

I don't think you should require space combat, but it would be a nice addition.

You could also have battles over asteroids, moons, and planets that aren't Earth-like as well.

[Malorn]

Yes, actually...

From the article here:http://www.fpsguru.com/game/284/features/120/Planetside-2-at-SyndCon.html

He also alluded to EVE Online’s outside-in approach in that they started with space and have since created on- planet game play while their plans are inside-out, with plans for space game play in the future.

“We will start with a single planet and continent,” said Smed, “then add more continents, and eventually planets.”

[Stardouser]

There's no way it can be done right now but someday I seriously hope to see a space combat MMO where you can actually jump to hyperspace/FTL in real time, whether that's to enter combat, escape combat, etc.

[Malorn]

There's no way it can be done right now but someday I seriously hope to see a space combat MMO where you can actually jump to hyperspace/FTL in real time, whether that's to enter combat, escape combat, etc.

You should look into EVE Online, you can do that in that game today.

[Stardouser]

You should look into EVE Online, you can do that in that game today.

I have looked into EVE, it's indirect flight control and I really can't stand playing it that way.

[Talek Krell]

If they get together with the people that made Shattered Horizon to do a space expansion I will do a little ***.

[Highwind]

The problem with "space combat" ideas is the same problem with "naval combat" ideas. If you distract people from the core gameplay of Planetside 2 in a significant way there will be only downsides in the end.

People will either like or hate the new "mini-game" that has been built onto the existing world. If people like it, then it won't have enough features or depth satisfy them; if people dislike it, then it will be pulling population from the perfectly good game that existed before the update. The playerbase as a whole won't be happy with an addition like this because it is too dissimilar to what everyone signed up for in the beginning, in my opinion.

I feel like Core Combat in Planetside 1 suffered from this effect, mainly due to the addition of BFRs on top of the new environment. The caves alone should have been ok, mixing up scenery and forcing slight gameplay changes in close quarters combat etc, but the BFRs changed the core of Planetside gameplay irreversibly from Tanks, Air and infantry to include a 4th unique area BFRs.

If you start throwing around situational vehicles like "space ships", "motherships", "boats" or "naval gunships" you distract from Planetside the same way BFRs did in my view.

The best and only way to add "space" to planetside would be to focus on space-PLATFORMS, aka spacestations that are large enough to be continent size and are effectively just that, another continent but with a harsh visual update to include a space-skybox, and replacing "water" with "empty space" you can fall through and die like a bottomless pit in a mario game. The space-platform could orbit auraxis, or it could be the surface of another planet/moon, but most importantly it should have the same core gameplay as any other continent taking and holding land/bases using tanks, air and infantry. If you want to get fancy you can reduce gravity on the Platforms, but they should effectively be the same as land, just look really cool, the example that comes to mind is the Space station at the start of Metroid Prime if that was blown out with more open "air" connecting platforms to roll tanks on, and extra bases etc.

[Full of Fail]

I love Shattered Horizon, but adding that kind of combat would be significantly different from the current PlanetSide gameplay. It probably wouldn't be the best use of development resources. Maybe combat like the game "Eternal Silence" could work (e.g. flying around, boarding enemy ships), but I would worry it could turn into "Core Combat in space," which might not be a good thing. But overall, I feel like this idea has some potential to go wrong.

Maybe I'd change my mind in a few years, but I think I'd rather them focus on continuing to make the main aspects of PlanetSide better, by adding new weapons, vehicles, continents, and fun things to do. If they're going to bring space elements into it, perhaps supporting elements would be better, e.g. a space station sanctuary for each empire, where you can launch drop-pods onto the planet. Not sure if actual space combat would fit well.

[Malorn]

Naval combat might not be a niche if the continent is designed for it. Indar clearly isn't, but I can see a remake of Hossin where there's a lot of swamp water and what not where tanks are replaced by boats. Another new continent might be a bunch of small islands and you need boats and/or aircraft to move around. In those cases you could ahve a lot of huge naval battles as part of the continent design.

[Full of Fail]

Naval combat might not be a niche if the continent is designed for it. Indar clearly isn't, but I can see a remake of Hossin where there's a lot of swamp water and what not where tanks are replaced by boats. Another new continent might be a bunch of small islands and you need boats and/or aircraft to move around. In those cases you could ahve a lot of huge naval battles as part of the continent design.

Naval combat could definitely have a place in the game in areas designed for it. Maybe some coastal fortresses and such. And how about a carrier ship with an aircraft spawn pad? That'd be awesome.

[Malorn]

I can imagine a continent that has 5-6 medium-sized landmasses, with several small island outposts and some territories that might only be conquerable with naval units.

Could be awesome fighting over the open water. Aircraft woudl be important but with no terrain to hide behind it might not be nice for them.

[Mr DeCastellac]

Just so long as they don't pull the same "Continental Planets" bullsquirt they did in the original :P

[VioletZero]

I don't think fighting in space is quite right for Planetside.

[Full of Fail]

I'll also add here that the name "PlanetSide" tends to suggest it should be about fighting on a planet.

[Warborn]

Space combat would be interesting and I could see it essentially being a new continent in a way. A large, mostly open area above the planet with interspersed platforms, satellites, space stations, and so on. Intense infantry combat in relatively confined areas, with a really deep "air" combat game in between.

Naval combat, like actual ocean-going vessel combat, is pretty dumb, but recreating that kind of gameplay in space makes sense.

I'll also add here that the name "PlanetSide" tends to suggest it should be about fighting on a planet.

It's called Planetside because that's what the first one was called. It would be really quite foolish of them to restrict themselves in any way over something as unimportant as what the name of the game is.

[SurgeonX]

The problem with "space combat" ideas is the same problem with "naval combat" ideas. If you distract people from the core gameplay of Planetside 2 in a significant way there will be only downsides in the end.

People will either like or hate the new "mini-game" that has been built onto the existing world.

But who says that it wouldn't be part of the core gameplay?
I wouldn't see it as being implemented at all like a mini game.
For me both Space Combat and Naval Combat would need to be integral parts of the game in order to work.
So certain territories, and therefore resources, would be islands/carriers and space stations/capital ships.

PlanetSide is all about epic combat, and what's more epic than having battles fought on land, on sea and in space, at the same time?

I'd want to see shared objectives, and objectives that had to be completed in series, shared between each of the these three aspects.

There's nothing I'd love more than to see PlanetSide turn into SolarSystemSide.

[Stardouser]

They could still have warpgates that allow planet to planet travel on land, it's just that you can also assault directly by traveling to the planet through space.

how cool would it be if the enemy could defend by piling up tanks and shit in front of warpgates, forcing you to attack through space? Think of Stargate Command closing the iris, forcing the Goa'ulds to come in their motherships;.

[Eyeklops]

A large, mostly open area above the planet with interspersed platforms, satellites, space stations, and so on. Intense infantry combat in relatively confined areas, with a really deep "air" combat game in between.
I like this idea.
It's called Planetside because that's what the first one was called. It would be really quite foolish of them to restrict themselves in any way over something as unimportant as what the name of the game is.
I agree again. Creating a good space shooter MMO integrated into PS2 could draw in lots of people from other games. Some of those players might even get into the ground part game here and there.

Also, once PS2 becomes successful, there is no reason they cannot change the name of the franchise, or just call the space based part Spaceside.

It is comical to think of goofy names though.

NotJustPlanetside 2
EverythingSide 2
Side 2 (my favorite)
DoItAllSide 2

[Stardouser]

I like this idea.

I agree again. Creating a good space shooter MMO integrated into PS2 could draw in lots of people from other games. Some of those players might even get into the ground part game here and there.

Also, once PS2 becomes successful, there is no reason they cannot change the name of the franchise, or just call the space based part Spaceside.

It is comical to think of goofy names though.

NotJustPlanetside 2
EverythingSide 2
Side 2 (my favorite)
DoItAllSide 2


Hell, I'd be interested in the space combat even if it wasn't tied to the ground. If you've ever played Star Wars Empire At War, I love destroying the space forces around a planet, not so much going down on the planet to secure it.

Though you have to remember that at least in my vision, there's still infantry combat in space combat. Breaching pod squads!

[Highwind]

But who says that it wouldn't be part of the core gameplay?
I wouldn't see it as being implemented at all like a mini game.
For me both Space Combat and Naval Combat would need to be integral parts of the game in order to work.
So certain territories, and therefore resources, would be islands/carriers and space stations/capital ships.

PlanetSide is all about epic combat, and what's more epic than having battles fought on land, on sea and in space, at the same time?


It might not be a "mini-game" but it wouldn't be part of the core gameplay. Any addition to the game that adds content, classes or vehicles, that can only be used in a unique new area but not in all other old areas are distracting from the game as a whole. You can have the devs use a lot of time and make "boats" with cert trees and spawning points, places to use them etc etc, but everywhere other then water/some bridge battles that skill is useless, and in my opinion distracting.

The Space-Platform, continent sized open air / with bases, that could support all classes and vehicles from foot soldiers to tanks, including our existing aircraft is the only plan I see working (unless you want Caves again, I do, but they have a stigma I think most would like to avoid).

This is well and good, but If they added Space Combat in another form, or even as described, and also added "space ship vehicle" that wasn't one of our existing aircraft then I see one of two things happening off the top of my head:

1. Either you have a new "vehicle class" for "space ship" only usable in the new area. Limiting and distracting for the classic choices, and unfun in the big picture.

2. You allow the "space ship vehicle class" to be used like any air craft all over the game. Then it needs its own niche, because there will be veteran aircraft pilots with full cert trees wanting to know where they sit in terms of balance compared to this new aircraft. Questions will come up like "Can a classic aircraft go in the new space zone like the new spaceship? If yes then why do I want to invest certs in the OLD aircraft again if the space ship is more versatile? If aircraft can't go in space, thanks for making my class obsolete in new content Devs etc."

TL.DR At the end of the day I think the simple version of my point is this: All new game content needs to work in the majority of current battles in current areas. All new game areas added need to allow all classes and vehicles to play a mostly effective role without excluding anyone or adding area specific classes/vehicles because it is wasteful and distracting. End.

[Stardouser]

Personally, I see space combat as using the same infantry classes as ground combat. The only difference is, there will be a few additional skills/certs/whatever to command capital ships and man capital ship guns, fly bombers and fighters, and breaching pods. Now; as far as fighters and bombers I don't see why those couldn't be worked into the ground battles. (Obviously, someone might say, because PS1 didn't have it). Obviously capital ships have to stay in space, and breaching pods, those are probably useless in ground battles.

I don't see how adding space combat is a "distraction", though. Calling those skills which can't be used on the ground(ie, capital ship skills) a distraction just seems to be a veiled way of saying it should never add space combat. If space combat is a completely disconnected mini-game that means nothing to the fight on the ground I'd understand that viewpoint, but if it can be tied together so that victory in space means something on the ground, that's different.

At the very least, the side that owns the space station overhead is going to be the only side that gets orbital strikes, for example.

[Sifer2]

It would be the best expansion pack they could release. Except its a F2P game so there wont be any expansion packs lol.

I would say assuming they get the base game right though that this could add a lot to the game. Having multiple Planets to fight over, with space battles factoring into it somehow. No drop pods or orbital strikes if you don't control the skies. No resources to make the bigger ships/weapons if you don't control the ground facilities or asteroid mines maybe.

But I think we should wait to see if Planetside 2 can last one year, and do well first. It's already an ambitious enough game as it is.

[Vanir]

Why not make the space part a different game that is connected with what is going on PlanteSide? Kind of what Eve is doing with it's expanding into FPS. 2 games, same universe, what happenes in one game can affect what happens in the other?

[Skitrel]

It would be the best expansion pack they could release. Except its a F2P game so there wont be any expansion packs lol.

I would say assuming they get the base game right though that this could add a lot to the game. Having multiple Planets to fight over, with space battles factoring into it somehow. No drop pods or orbital strikes if you don't control the skies. No resources to make the bigger ships/weapons if you don't control the ground facilities or asteroid mines maybe.

But I think we should wait to see if Planetside 2 can last one year, and do well first. It's already an ambitious enough game as it is.

What are you talking about? F2P games make expansions. They just don't charge for them and have to be more careful about their overall effect on the core game.

[cellinaire]

Naval combat might not be a niche if the continent is designed for it. Indar clearly isn't, but I can see a remake of Hossin where there's a lot of swamp water and what not where tanks are replaced by boats. Another new continent might be a bunch of small islands and you need boats and/or aircraft to move around. In those cases you could ahve a lot of huge naval battles as part of the continent design.

If they're really willing to do that in the future, I bet few of the Post-launch continents will also be designed for the naval battle. Higby seems to love the 'naval battle' idea and mentioned it several times, even in the PCgamer article.

[Stardouser]

For naval combat, and meaning water navies, not space navies, do you think this would be just ships or also carrier launched aircraft?

[Serotriptomine]

Well it would probably be Surface boats, and Aircraft being launched from some sub-type of Surface boats. I'm unsure about "submarine" esk crafts, but it would definitely be "Navy + Airforce" I could see Naval / Air assaults onto the edges of the continent. Naval bombardments and air support for hovercraft dropping troops on beaches.

Just brainstorming.

[JHendy]

Naval combat, like actual ocean-going vessel combat, is pretty dumb, but recreating that kind of gameplay in space makes sense.

You didn't explain that comment in any way and so I'm finding it hard to see your point. You seem to have a bee in your bonnet as regards naval combat :p

The same kind of gameplay in space could only ever end up being more disconnected from the main theme of Planetside 2 - the ground war.

Naval vessels would be capable of interacting with, and participating in the main theme of the game far more often and to a much greater extent than space vessels. Bridge battles spring to mind.

[Shogun]

bridgebattles already have naval combat. it´s only a little onesided.

if we get real naval combat i think tr and nc will have to get ships that can go on land, to counter the vs tanks that can go on the water ;)

but spacebattle has more potential than naval battle.
and it could be more connected to the maingame if done right.

make air and spacebattle seamless. with space only being very low orbit.
aircrafts can transit between the orbital satelites and the ground freely and their wreckages will fall to the ground even from up there, threatening soldiers on the ground.
massive surprise dive-hotdrops or divebombing runs would be a nice connectionpoint of the two "zones"

[Cosmical]

I think space combat would be amazing if implimented like Battlefront. I.e. everyone gets their own customised fighter, and you use it to dog fight, and disable the enemies mothership so it can be boarded. Then once the mothership is either disabled, or destroyed. Troops on the ground lose the ability to drop pod onto certain areas of the map, for a certain amount of time.

This way youre keeping the game focused around FPS, and it has ramifications on the surface of Auraxis, without it spreading into the world of SPACE CONQUEST accross the universe. If i have to start capturing bases from square (hex) one on another planet, i will poo at you all.

[Stormhall]

I think space combat would be amazing if implimented like Battlefront. I.e. everyone gets their own customised fighter, and you use it to dog fight, and disable the enemies mothership so it can be boarded. Then once the mothership is either disabled, or destroyed. Troops on the ground lose the ability to drop pod onto certain areas of the map, for a certain amount of time.

This way youre keeping the game focused around FPS, and it has ramifications on the surface of Auraxis, without it spreading into the world of SPACE CONQUEST accross the universe. If i have to start capturing bases from square (hex) one on another planet, i will poo at you all.

I loved Battlefront 2 so I think that is a great idea an adding orbital stations would also be good.

[TheDrone]

There's no reason why you couldn't have ground combat in space. On the massive hulls of the space ship and fighting inside the space ships.

[headcrab13]

Space combat is a logical future expansion.

I'm not talking about open space battles and a whole universe to explore, but maybe something easier to develop like empire-specific battlecruisers that would patrol Auraxis' orbit (non-interactive models in the skybox) randomly and when they engaged in battle at random intervals, it would enable the option to teleport to them from the sanctuary to defend your side's ship.

An added bonus would be winning the fight and everyone on the planet below watching your enemy's ship explode in space, and maybe allow you some temporary perks aboard your own ship.

[Stardouser]

There's no reason why you couldn't have ground combat in space. On the massive hulls of the space ship and fighting inside the space ships.

Exactly. The only question is going to be the degree to which they are going to model zero-G. I mean, once you break into a starship, you can have normal gravity, but if you are outside in space, that's a question mark.

In fact, infiltrators sneaking into large ships/stations, going to the artificial gravity generator and taking it out as a preparation for an assault would be an interesting tactic. Or maybe you won't do that if your team isn't good at zero G combat. Or maybe you as the defending team will intentionally turn the gravity off to help repulse attackers.

[EASyEightyEight]

Thinking on the subject realistically, Starside Intercept will probably be simply more bases on a continent, only very high in the sky. Ships and their hulls, orbital stations, defense platforms, all of these could act as your standard base or even tower (especially the ships.) The mechanics are there, these installations just aren't situated on the ground, but maybe on the X,Y plane with set Z coordinates.

Like any base, they would have benefits. Ships could act as towers and from that ship allow soldiers and mobile armor such as tanks to drop in anywhere through the Personal Orbital Delivery System. Of course, the tanks would have to be transported to the ship, not constructed upon it. Aircraft however...

Defense platforms, also classified as towers, may improve the defensive measures of bases Planetside, strengthening turrets. Alternatively, players could dedicate to manning orbit-to-ground cannons and pounding the hell out of the enemy.

Orbital Platforms, the only real bases starside, bring a shield down upon the bases the faction controls, denying vehicles but not infantry access to their courtyards Aside from that, that would have fully functional vehicle terminals, unlike the defense platform and frigate, the latter of which would only be capable of constructing air craft.


Though I think it does bear mentioning that things would probably be cooler if all we had to worry about were Orbital platforms and Orbital Defense Cannons while outfits controlled their own starships. Expensive as **** to construct and maintain, and certainly the outfits wouldn't want to lose their warship. I think allowing outfits to construct their own capitol ships and upgrading them from frigates to carriers and battleships would be much appreciated. Though treating all structures starside would offer SOE more control regarding balance.

[Stardouser]

I just had a realization. I was thinking too realistically, that one of the limits to space combat was the fact that low orbit is 100+ miles in the air. But the game doesn't have to be realistic in that regard. It could just be 3 miles up and you're in space! And that would allow player controlled ships in space to provide orbital strikes - meaning, when you call for an orbital strike, it will have to come from live players. Ignoring the zone loading issue for a world so big: The current 3 continents we have now could be a planet, and you fly straight up for 3 miles, and boom, you're in space. From there, it would look like you'd expect, but there unfortunately would be a maximum playable area. Visually it will look like you're orbiting a big planet but you'll be confined to an area commensurate with the size of the continents below. 3 continents 8 X 8 km plus water space between, the area up in space could be 30X30km(just a guess at the total land area below). Yes, I know this might be for 10 years from now but there we go.

Basically, space could function almost like a 4th continent. Except, maintaining space superiority would allow you to be able to support ground maneuvers with orbitral strikes, drop troops from space to pinpoint locations on the ground, etc, whereas without it, you'd have to attack from warpgates.

[Stardouser]

Sorry for the necro but this was linked to me in IRC.

http://youtu.be/rF4diq-KlXI

THIS is what PS2 should be like when space combat is added. Your ships hovering above the planet can bombard the ground.

[KTNApollo]

Fighting for space stations capable of doing HART drops and orbital strikes would be sweet. Could have starfighters and dropships that have to breach the landing bays and whatnot...If they did this (Like Star Wars Battlefront 3 had planned) it would be sooooooooo gooood. But it's a far ways off.

[Gelgoog]

I think the only way you could make space work without depopulating the land combat is to make the two interconnected. Create one large space station. When captured they allow the controlling faction to launch drop pods over the entire planet effectively making the other factions very vulnerable to instant raids at any base. This will be enough of a threat that the other factions will want to keep control of the space station. The trick is, that keeping control of the space station will be difficult, and the more soldiers you send down to the planet in drop pods reduces your ability to defend the space station (as well as defending your own land bases). So controlling the space station can be a tactical advantage as well as a disadvantage.

As for space combat, you could have space fighters, and large galaxy type transports used for boarding the station. The space station could also be bristling with turrets to defend against fighters and transports.

[kaffis]

I've got Shattered Horizon to pew-pew with awesome physics in SPAAAAAAACE.

I'm okay with Planetside focusing on what it's good at: combined arms on a massive scale.

[Stardouser]

I've got Shattered Horizon to pew-pew with awesome physics in SPAAAAAAACE.

I'm okay with Planetside focusing on what it's good at: combined arms on a massive scale.

Combined arms is ok as long as we don't combine it with space arms?

Does shattered horizon have any infantry? Never heard of it.

[VelRa]

Obviously this kind of thing would be amazing to behold. But it would have to do something which CCP is not with Dust 514. One thing that would be nice is character transferability, like Gelgoog said. In Dust and Eve the two games are independent but joined on the level of metadata. With Planetside it could be the ability to take your character to space and back down again.

Stations would work much like bases, with several capturable stations orbiting the planet each with their own advantages and resource bonuses. I would love to see starship battles done with Forgelight, something which Eve's technology cannot begin to approach. Frigates and cruisers escorting a transport ship onto an enemy base platform, etc.

Holy crap this is getting far out there. I can't see this kind of thing being implemented annny time soon...

As to benefits of holding stations, I don't really think continent-wide hotdrops are the smartest idea. The benefit, I suppose, would be similar to the benefits of holding any regular base, namely resources.

[kaffis]

Combined arms is ok as long as we don't combine it with space arms?

Does shattered horizon have any infantry? Never heard of it.
Shattered Horizon is an infantry-only, multiplayer-only game from Futuremark. It's been out for a couple years, now. It's pretty unique.

That said, combined arms is okay so long as the combined part of the combined arms makes sense. I see people talking about capital ships and bombers and whatnot, and have a difficult time figuring out how you make infantry make sense in that context. As such, I'd prefer to just leave it out.

And what I wouldn't want is the Planetside infantry/vehicle/aircav formula IN SPAAAAACE with just zero-G applied. That's a recipe for lameness.

[Stardouser]

Shattered Horizon is an infantry-only, multiplayer-only game from Futuremark. It's been out for a couple years, now. It's pretty unique.

That said, combined arms is okay so long as the combined part of the combined arms makes sense. I see people talking about capital ships and bombers and whatnot, and have a difficult time figuring out how you make infantry make sense in that context. As such, I'd prefer to just leave it out.

And what I wouldn't want is the Planetside infantry/vehicle/aircav formula IN SPAAAAACE with just zero-G applied. That's a recipe for lameness.

Well, in space, obviously the formula would be different. First of all, infantry would physically be unable to go anywhere without riding in an assault ship. And fighter aircraft would be of EXTREME value compared to on the ground, those are two huge changes right there.

Infantry doesn't have to make the same sense that it does on the ground and YET, infantry can be just as required in space as on the ground. Space stations would not be destructible, they'd be permanent assets, and to take them, you MUST use infantry in breeching pods.

Now, if people are going to be upset that they can't just walk out the airlock and jog to the space stations, well, that's just not how it would work but that's no reason not to have this kind of this, especially when there would still be ground battles working the same.

And naturally, unless the devs have some trick up their sleeve, I am talking about something beyond the life cycle of PS2, ie, PS3.

Obviously this kind of thing would be amazing to behold. But it would have to do something which CCP is not with Dust 514. One thing that would be nice is character transferability, like Gelgoog said. In Dust and Eve the two games are independent but joined on the level of metadata. With Planetside it could be the ability to take your character to space and back down again.

Stations would work much like bases, with several capturable stations orbiting the planet each with their own advantages and resource bonuses. I would love to see starship battles done with Forgelight, something which Eve's technology cannot begin to approach. Frigates and cruisers escorting a transport ship onto an enemy base platform, etc.

Holy crap this is getting far out there. I can't see this kind of thing being implemented annny time soon...

As to benefits of holding stations, I don't really think continent-wide hotdrops are the smartest idea. The benefit, I suppose, would be similar to the benefits of holding any regular base, namely resources.

You mean it would have to distinguish itself from Dust 514? That shouldn't be impossible but even if it were, Dust 514 is console only.

I think the ultimate way to do this, even if it's 10 years down the road with 2022 GPU/CPU and internet 2, is to have all the continents of Auraxis be on the planet, and you can literally fly from continent to continent, and not only that, up and out of the atmosphere, and all the way around the planet.

Or, alternative, SOME of the continents on one planet, and others on other planets, and you can fly between them through the use of jump gates/trade acceleration lanes.

[Turdicus]

Hey guys, long time PS lover and forum user, first post.

Naval and space expansions sound fantastic. Actually I'm not worried about the possibility of those in the future, but I am worried about depopulation. It wouldn't do any good to pull players away from continents, so some interesting solutions will have to be thought up.

They could make it so that each continent and space area runs on a cycle, like if there are 3 continents and a space zone only 3 of those can be accessible at any one time. So 2 continents are active, and a space zone, then one continent is locked for whatever reason. Excuses can be made, but by doing this there wont be any nasty depopulation. This kind of thing can be scaled and is very dynamic, and can be used for every expansion to come.

Just a thought

[Stardouser]

Hey guys, long time PS lover and forum user, first post.

Naval and space expansions sound fantastic. Actually I'm not worried about the possibility of those in the future, but I am worried about depopulation. It wouldn't do any good to pull players away from continents, so some interesting solutions will have to be thought up.

They could make it so that each continent and space area runs on a cycle, like if there are 3 continents and a space zone only 3 of those can be accessible at any one time. So 2 continents are active, and a space zone, then one continent is locked for whatever reason. Excuses can be made, but by doing this there wont be any nasty depopulation. This kind of thing can be scaled and is very dynamic, and can be used for every expansion to come.

Just a thought

I would really like to see the devs talk about depopulation. I think it's a non-issue.

Look at it this way:
If we have 5 infantry continents with 2000 players each and we have exactly 10000 regular players(I'm making this easy for discussion's sake). And then you add space, that could hold say, 2000 players. Bear in mind that if you're going to be able to fly from the ground to space, it would be ridiculous if you could not also fly between continents. Therefore, we're talking about ONE server that can hold 10000 players. So, if you add space, and it can hold 2000 players, that's a total of 12,000. Now, obviously, 2000 more regular players are not going to magically appear(or maybe they will, because a lot of people might be interested in space that are not interested in ground combat). So, at least initially, people will shift to play space and they will come from the 10000. So, where you had 10000 for 5 continents before, you've got 8000 for 5 continents now. Not a huge loss, and especially not a huge loss if you consider that Planetside 1 only had what, 450 per continent? Even with 1/5 of the population going to space you'd still have far more than that per continent.

Also, people would be invading space from the continents and in turn, people would be invading the continents from space, too. It all works out into a very dynamic war.

[Stardouser]

double post.

[proxykalevra]

i had a thought during the space to navel expansion conversion of this thread...

maybe the first expansion should be deep sea landmasses each vehicle would still be viable they would just handle differently.. i.e. soldiers running around, weps and lights ranges limited by water. aircraft might be replaced with subs with varying ability to move i.e. some can jump to get around a little but nothing else (tanks?) others are quick and can go just about anywhere(aircraft)

mostly i think this would work because it would be a stepping stone to the vastly different environment of space(astronauts train under water for space) so you can have everyone be forced to move a little slower and be able to jump a good bit higher.

[SurgeonX]

I've been yearning for space combat ever since I first loaded up PS.
For me, it's a natrual evolution.

This is from my PS survey, the one they sent out years ago.
The Star Wars reference is a bit lame maybe, but is useful for context...

A combination of space combat and planetside combat, with shared objectives between the two.
So imagine if you could take the last battle from Return of the Jedi, where a war was being waged on Endor and in space above it, and there are shared objectives between the two. So the battle planetside involves disabling the shield generators to allow the Rebels to attack the Death Star. And only when the generators are down can they proceed with the attack. If you could translate the cool factor and scale of that kind of experience to PS, I could die a happy man.

Space and ground combat would definitely have to be connected IMO, otherwise you've just got two completely separate games vaguely stitched together.

[Sirisian]

I've mentioned this before (probably in another thread), but these kind of ideas are as badly thought out as the navy combat or outfit housing ideas. Basically you want to pull people into an area where most vehicles aren't useful (except air?) fragmenting the balance of vehicle combat. The whole idea of space combat with battle stations really reserves the fighting for infantry unless they are massive stations with indoor areas for tanks and other vehicles.

Also how would players attack a battle station? Would they fly to it? From where? Would their galaxies spawn in space when they choose to go there are or are there unconquerable space stations like on the ground?

I really don't like the idea of separating combat from the main world. Really any addition to the game should just add onto the continents. People have suggested for instance cutting into the ground to build cave networks with caverns and capture points with their own unique feel. I suggested massive floating islands with bridge networks above the continents. These kind of things give the continent a truly 3D feeling by bringing altitude to them while still allowing all the vehicle types to flourish and allow the introduction of new vehicles. Adding a separate space area I think will do the same thing the battle islands and the cave systems did. That is people will be like "why would I play in that area if I can just play in the huge main continents?". I think the developer's goal of 50% infantry and 50% vehicle combat is better carried out by focusing on upgrading the continent gameplay and adding new continents.

That and space combat is notoriously bad. The limited amount of obstacles and the openness of space (even with random asteroids) makes for very poor gameplay.

[Stardouser]

I've mentioned this before (probably in another thread), but these kind of ideas are as badly thought out as the navy combat or outfit housing ideas. Basically you want to pull people into an area where most vehicles aren't useful (except air?) fragmenting the balance of vehicle combat. The whole idea of space combat with battle stations really reserves the fighting for infantry unless they are massive stations with indoor areas for tanks and other vehicles.


Space isn't land. The balance of combat would be different, obviously.

Things will be different, if some people don't like it, there will still be fighting on the land for them.

I get the feeling you're actually talking about why tanks and other ground vehicles won't be usable in space combat, please tell me that's not what you're worried about? Because obviously they won't be usable in space.

And there's nothing wrong with 99% air to air(starfighter to starfighter) combat. Inside space stations it would be 99% infantry only, as well. Higby himself said, variety is good.

And remember, what I'm talking about might be 10 years in the future...so I'm assuming that you will also be able to fly directly from ground to space and back. I'm quite sure that ways can be devised to make this all work.

[Gandhi]

Imagine this x1000

Blue Planet - without post processing - YouTube

Someone needs to make an MMO space combat sim that isn't point&click.

[Sirisian]

I get the feeling you're actually talking about why tanks and other ground vehicles won't be usable in space combat, please tell me that's not what you're worried about? Because obviously they won't be usable in space.

And there's nothing wrong with 99% air to air(starfighter to starfighter) combat. Inside space stations it would be 99% infantry only, as well. Higby himself said, variety is good.
Yeah this doesn't really sound like Planetside at all. Variety involves ground, air, and infantry fighting alongside one another. Space combat can't capture that.

Also I hope you're not trying to also introduce new vehicles that are only useful in that map type. It's as asinine as creating navy vehicles because one of the maps has some water. That is you're introducing developer resources for niche concepts.

[Stardouser]

Yeah this doesn't really sound like Planetside at all. Variety involves ground, air, and infantry fighting alongside one another. Space combat can't capture that.

Also I hope you're not trying to also introduce new vehicles that are only useful in that map type. It's as asinine as creating navy vehicles because one of the maps has some water. That is you're introducing developer resources for niche concepts.

Agree to disagree time, then, but note that it's hardly variety if the same exact combat factors are required to be present in every single area of the game world in order to be "variety". In order to be varied we must have the same mix everywhere? Sounds contradictory.

I also disagree with your description of navy vehicles as niche(if the oceans mean anything, people WILL fight on it), but fortunately, I do have an answer for you on space that doesn't even have anything to do with new vehicles. As far as it looks to me, all of Planetside's air vehicles would work in space. Mosquitoes would be starfighters, Reavers and Liberators would be bombers, Galaxies would be troop ships(with a specialization allowing them to act as breeching pods), etc.

And, I am potentially talking about Planetside 3 here, so if space combat and space to ground/ground to space travel is going to be a key aspect of it, that's hardly a waste of dev resources.

[Serpent]

There will have to be a reason to fight in space. People go to bases because of the Zerging effect, so basically everyone needs to have space bases to fight over if anyone is going to bother using space ships. (The hype of new space ships that are shiny will wear off, people won't spend countless resources making them just to fly around).

Same problem with Navy battles. There needs to be a point.

[Xyntech]

There will have to be a reason to fight in space. People go to bases because of the Zerging effect, so basically everyone needs to have space bases to fight over if anyone is going to bother using space ships. (The hype of new space ships that are shiny will wear off, people won't spend countless resources making them just to fly around).

Same problem with Navy battles. There needs to be a point.

This is the problem I felt with the caves in the original Planetside. New areas don't have to be some sort of weird new gameplay mechanic that only tangentially affected the core aspects of the game.

Add caves, naval combat, space combat, new continents, etc. Just make sure they are just more places to fight the same massive battle for territory that we always fight.

[Serpent]

This is the problem I felt with the caves in the original Planetside. New areas don't have to be some sort of weird new gameplay mechanic that only tangentially affected the core aspects of the game.

Add caves, naval combat, space combat, new continents, etc. Just make sure they are just more places to fight the same massive battle for territory that we always fight.

Agreed... Caves seem very interesting, for instance:

Chance of finding different types of resources, somewhat like capturing a mining laser?

Or people could bring the minerals back to a base for a reward. Could be a massive convoy of people bringing minerals, and they get ambushed! Sounds interesting, No? :D

But Oceans and Space bases would be much more difficult to make unique...

[Xyntech]

But Oceans and Space bases would be much more difficult to make unique...

Noval combat could be easy. Just give the tanks a modification variant that gives them boat hulls instead of treads ;)

Make the ATV into a jet ski.

Turn the aircraft into sea planes, lol

[Stardouser]

Noval combat could be easy. Just give the tanks a modification variant that gives them boat hulls instead of treads ;)

Make the ATV into a jet ski.

Turn the aircraft into sea planes, lol

There's no need to do that, simply make appropriate naval ships. And everyone wants to object saying "oh no, don't spend dev resources on that", well, if the devs have the spare time to work it into the 5 year plan, and as well they should once things calm down after release, who is to say they shouldn't?

[kaffis]

Because it doesn't sound like Planetside.

It sounds like it could be an awesome game, that isn't Planetside.

There's no rule that says that Planetside must be all games ever invented.

[Stardouser]

deleted

[Serpent]

Noval combat could be easy. Just give the tanks a modification variant that gives them boat hulls instead of treads ;)

Make the ATV into a jet ski.

Turn the aircraft into sea planes, lol


Lol I meant the point of the naval/space battles, not how to make them unique. That's obvious :P

Besides, who wouldn't like to see a sub? Liberators with depth charges FTW!

[Xyntech]

Because it doesn't sound like Planetside.

It sounds like it could be an awesome game, that isn't Planetside.

There's no rule that says that Planetside must be all games ever invented.

What's not Planetside about it? Well, aside from not actually being on a planet. Spaceside? lol

Planetside is all about massive combined arms warfare between 3 factions. I can see that core gameplay evolving beyond it's original scope.

[Sledgecrushr]

I am a huge 40k fan, and if we can take the fight into space then I am all for it. Technically if you are a infantry guy deployed from a space vessel then you are a space marine.

[IMMentat]

Space combat was one of the few things that worked well in star wars battlefront games.
It would be interesting to see in PS2.

I would rather the game build #up# than outer-space initially.
Sky islands, pathing through each continent, near the flight ceiling, fractured (like the air fight in avatar)
Airborne bases (helicarriers operating at mid-height) would interest me more in the short-term.

Increase the scope of the fight before splitting people off to fight in another instance (one of the things core combat messed up was premium access caves, no expansion no underground fighting).

[IMMentat]

If they do introduce caves, i seriously hope that they are not instanced.
An actual underground area with physical tunnels (could collapse some, and open others if need-be) leading to it could be an interesting experience.

[Stardouser]

I was watching a video of Shattered Horizon, which actually made me realize that infantry CAN fight in space.

However, even though we can have infantry fighting in space, unlike the ground, starfighters should be far superior to infantry in space. That's just how it has to be.

And tanks still don't make sense in space, or other ground vehicles, and it's pointless to say that we shouldn't have space just because we can't ground vehicles in space.

However, I will say this: I read a book called Starstrike, which is basically about a peaceful but insane/corrupt alien who, unwilling to bloody his own hands, kidnaps some soldiers from Earth and forces them to invade a space station of other aliens. As part of their attack, they had these assault ships with tanks inside them that they used to assault the enemy space station, and, once in, used these specialized tanks inside the station's corridors.

[Xyntech]

I was watching a video of Shattered Horizon, which actually made me realize that infantry CAN fight in space.

However, even though we can have infantry fighting in space, unlike the ground, starfighters should be far superior to infantry in space. That's just how it has to be.

And tanks still don't make sense in space, or other ground vehicles, and it's pointless to say that we shouldn't have space just because we can't ground vehicles in space.

However, I will say this: I read a book called Starstrike, which is basically about a peaceful but insane/corrupt alien who, unwilling to bloody his own hands, kidnaps some soldiers from Earth and forces them to invade a space station of other aliens. As part of their attack, they had these assault ships with tanks inside them that they used to assault the enemy space station, and, once in, used these specialized tanks inside the station's corridors.

shattered horizon is a lot of fun. and yes, space stations and capitol ships would provide a place for more land based vehicles to still be a part of the fight.

just imagine driving your tank around the curved cylindrical floor inside the spinning ring of a space station habitat, firing at enemy tanks who were at a 90 degree angle to you on a far section of the wheel. plenty of fun to be had.

[Stardouser]

shattered horizon is a lot of fun. and yes, space stations and capitol ships would provide a place for more land based vehicles to still be a part of the fight.

just imagine driving your tank around the curved cylindrical floor inside the spinning ring of a space station habitat, firing at enemy tanks who were at a 90 degree angle to you on a far section of the wheel. plenty of fun to be had.

Yes! As I recall, the Babylon 5 station could have allowed tanks :)

[Thomas]

I heard back in PS1 they were meant to add in Orbital stations that you could fight on but instead we got Caves.

I wouldn't make space combat of a kind or naval combat but only as long as it does not detract from the rest of the game.

[IMMentat]

Naval combat could be interesting and it would be connected to the whatever continents they are designing. Just add an oilrig, island, supply dock, mobile sea-harvester or strangely metallic asteroid onto the map edges.

Space would essentially add a 4th continent so if it was ever added it would have to be after the ground pounding got boring and all other terestrial options had been expended.

[Stardouser]

Space would essentially add a 4th continent so if it was ever added it would have to be after the ground pounding got boring and all other terestrial options had been expended.

You'd kinda want to see that happen at some point before the ground combat gets boring, otherwise new content would be too late to save it.

[IMMentat]

TBH if the ground combat ever got boring in PS2 it'll be screwed either way.

[Stardouser]

TBH if the ground combat ever got boring in PS2 it'll be screwed either way.

That's why getting space and naval combat in sooner rather than later is important. When people begin to get bored with one thing, they can do another before it's too late, and do something different every day.

Which is another reason why it's beneficial that the space combat not be a carbon copy of ground copy but in space.

And since everyone always likes to think of the benefit to SOE/the devs, there's also the possibility that people who aren't interested in ground combat might be interested in space/naval combat. If Planetside space combat was good enough it could even get interest from people who won't play Eve because, although they like space, don't like EVE's indirect flying system. That's why I don't play EVE; flying your ship like a 1 unit RTS sucks.

[Zulthus]

Fighting on the ground never gets boring. No worries there. But I think we need space combat anyhow. Wouldn't it be cool if it was transitional from any continent up into space? No loading screen?

[Stardouser]

Fighting on the ground never gets boring. No worries there. But I think we need space combat anyhow. Wouldn't it be cool if it was transitional from any continent up into space? No loading screen?

I just found a video that shows a tech demo of a game that's got a space to planet transition - how ironic that when I came to post it, your post, the last post in the thread, was talking about that!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=h7eREddMjt4#t=341s

[Sledgecrushr]

Yes it would be pretty cool to be able to cert your aircraft for space. The step after this of course is interplanetary warfare.

[capiqu]

I would love to see sea and under water battles like Arma 3 first.

[Dagron]

I just found a video that shows a tech demo of a game that's got a space to planet transition

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=h7eREddMjt4#t=341s

That's awesome!

[MrKWalmsley]

That said, it would basically be the opposite of what EVE is doing. Could feel like copy-catting.

They could say it was inspired by Star Wars Galaxies! That went from a ground based combat MMO to one which included space battles. It really wouldn't be copying though, if that was the requisite for what is copying we can easily say every game released now a-days is just a copy of something else.

[Sempars]

No No No No and No to Space Combat. IF i wanted space combat I play Star wars or play Eve Online. As "Full of Fail" said Core Combat was one of the main killers of PS1. Why repeat history people. Say no to Population splitting!

[MrKWalmsley]

No No No No and No to Space Combat. IF i wanted space combat I play Star wars or play Eve Online. As "Full of Fail" said Core Combat was one of the main killers of PS1. Why repeat history people. Say no to Population splitting!

Star Wars Galaxies no longer exists and EvE Online is hardly FPS style vehicular combat, it's more like World of Warcraft, IN SPAAAAACE!!!!

[Sledgecrushr]

No No No No and No to Space Combat. IF i wanted space combat I play Star wars or play Eve Online. As "Full of Fail" said Core Combat was one of the main killers of PS1. Why repeat history people. Say no to Population splitting!

To me space combat is what you do in between planetary invasions.

[thegreekboy]

-disclaimer, have not read all 7 pages-

How about whenever a new continent/planet is released each faction needs to battle for the ability to land and fight on the ground. For example, two years into development the devs release a planet, and it is originally owned by the TR. The NC and VS need to fight the TR to get through to the planet in space. The defending faction would have numerous slight advantages to make it balanced and it would be a fun couple day long distraction from regular play to mix it up a bit.

[Sledgecrushr]

Yeah that was pretty much what I was thinking only slightly bigger. What if "space" is what connected all of the servers together. So traveling through space you might fight through a lockade, take on a defensive platform and then drop from your spaceship planetside and carry on the fight there. This could both expand the game and unite the playerbase.

[cellinaire]

No No No No and No to Space Combat. IF i wanted space combat I play Star wars or play Eve Online. As "Full of Fail" said Core Combat was one of the main killers of PS1. Why repeat history people. Say no to Population splitting!

Both BFR and Space combat are, as concepts, good. At the end of the world, the quality of these will be based on implementation and planning.


So, you think a sci-fi game shouldn't have lasers, robots, space elements or your personal taste just can't stand the introduction of a whole new dimension in PS2?

[maddoggg]

I would absolutely love space battles :).
But i doubt it will happen in ps2,who knows maybe in ps3?

[Rago]

Yeah we should Play Phobos :P

[Bruttal]

If theres a space addtion I want it to be like another game in itself with its own player base but based off planetside and maybe have some kinda intergration

[Daffan]

Both BFR and Space combat are, as concepts, good. At the end of the world, the quality of these will be based on implementation and planning.


So, you think a sci-fi game shouldn't have lasers, robots, space elements or your personal taste just can't stand the introduction of a whole new dimension in PS2?

Valid answers

Waiting eagerly for return shot :P

[Sempars]

Both BFR and Space combat are, as concepts, good. At the end of the world, the quality of these will be based on implementation and planning.


So, you think a sci-fi game shouldn't have lasers, robots, space elements or your personal taste just can't stand the introduction of a whole new dimension in PS2?

Only way Space Combat would work. Like someone else said, if TR controlled a whole planet. Then say that opened up outer space outpost. IF NC wanted to attack that planet NC would have to take control of the Space outpost first.
But after taking the outpost and invading the planet then space combat would end not keep going.

But if they added it just like Core Combat, game population will split. People will stay playing Space Combat and people will stay playing on the ground. It just wont work.

[Artimus]

Space battles would be fun as long as it was set up like planetside, attack/defend colonies, stations, ect. But like it was said pop. Splitting does not seem to work, personally I think naval combat should come first.. What is the benifit of fighting in space? Arent they lost in deep space if they did have space ports howd they get there?

[roguy]

So, you think a sci-fi game shouldn't have lasers, robots, space elements or your personal taste just can't stand the introduction of a whole new dimension in PS2?

No, like others have said population splitting doesn't work. It's also a waste of development ressources to build a whole new game with different gameplay/rulesets instead of building upon what's already there, THEN trying to sell it to players who were drawn to your game to play an FPS rather than a space combat sim.

Every time this has been tried it it has either completely bombed (Core combat) or are hands-down inferior to competing games that "specialised" at what they're good at (like SWG:JTL vs Freespace 2 or X-Wing Alliance // SWTOR on rails space combat vs Starfox 64....)

[Stardouser]

There is nothing that will require people who want to continue to play FPS on the ground to play anything else. People could argue that having multiple continents with anything different about them at all, is population splitting. Or, people who go behind the lines to attack, or people who set up defenses at different and varying locations instead of all zerging into the same fight at the same time, could be considered population splitting. That argument does nothing but hold back game development.

And I can't imagine who would even think that SW TOR's on rails thing could possibly deserve to be mentioned alongside actual space games.

[roguy]

And I can't imagine who would even think that SW TOR's on rails thing could possibly deserve to be mentioned alongside actual space games.

Yeah. That's the point. Do you honestly expect any potential space combat in PS2 to "deserve to be mentioned alongside" proper space games? And don't just cherry pick the worst example, take Jump to Lightspeed or Star Trek online who probably did the 2 games in 1 MMO thing best. The former was a piece of arcadey xp grinding poo, the latter has such terrible ground combat half their playerbase just want it flat out removed.


If it wasn't a false argument, then people could argue that having multiple continents with anything different about them at all, is population splitting.

People playing on different continents are at least playing the same game, like you know, an FPS. Rather than one side playing an FPS and the other a Space-Sim.

Even Blizzard admitted regretting PVP alongside PVE to World of Warcraft. You just end up splitting the community in two, trying to endlessly solve a balancing nightmare while providing less content to the "core PVE game" because half your dev team has to keep up updates for PVP while PVP stays eternally broken. Everyone get's screwed.

Even Core combat did a good job at diluting PS1s population.

So no it's not unfounded, your turn to bring up counter-examples, in this post I've given 4.

[wraithverge]

I would like to see parallel development of a space game, like dust 514 in reverse of eve. However things of note: I want a space sim fighting game, ala x-wing, wing commander etc, not wow timing and button pushing in space while auto aim does everything.

After all if you can handle 3k people in one game instance per server with a twitch based game, you can rapid develop a space game out of the engine FAST. Once ps2 and Forgelight is out, I would be very surprised if SOE doesn't release a number of huge scale pvp games. Intelligent enemy AI is one of the most complicated things to do in game and one of the few things that would slow this.

[Sledgecrushr]

Yeah. That's the point. Do you honestly expect any potential space combat in PS2 to "deserve to be mentioned alongside" proper space games?



People playing on different continents are at least playing the same game, like you know, an FPS. Rather than one side playing an FPS and the other a Space-Sim.

Even Blizzard admitted regretting PVP alongside PVE to World of Warcraft. You just end up splitting the community in two, trying to endlessly solve a balancing nightmare while providing less content to the "core PVE game" because half your dev team has to keep up updates for PVP while PVP stays eternally broken. Everyone get's screwed.

Even Core combat did a good job at diluting PS1s population.

So no it's not unfounded, your turn to bring up counter-examples

The idea I have been pitching is instead of creating a space game and glomming it onto a server as extra content. You create a space game that combines all of the servers. Instead of splitting the playerbase we would combine it. Instead of conquerable continents we could very well have entire conquerable planets. We could strive for dominance with an entire solar empire.

[Stardouser]

Yeah. That's the point. Do you honestly expect any potential space combat in PS2 to "deserve to be mentioned alongside" proper space games?



People playing on different continents are at least playing the same game, like you know, an FPS. Rather than one side playing an FPS and the other a Space-Sim.

Even Blizzard admitted regretting PVP alongside PVE to World of Warcraft. You just end up splitting the community in two, trying to endlessly solve a balancing nightmare while providing less content to the "core PVE game" because half your dev team has to keep up updates for PVP while PVP stays eternally broken. Everyone get's screwed.

Even Core combat did a good job at diluting PS1s population.

So no it's not unfounded, your turn to bring up counter-examples

Yes, I do expect that space combat can be well done in PS2. Especially since many space games that do exist are single player oriented and don't do PvP well. The thing is, you think it's a problem that some people are fighting in space and some are fighting on the ground. I don't. The argument is covered from all angles - first, it's not a real problem, and secondly, to any extent that it does present minor issues, Planetside 2 should have a much larger playerbase than PS1 did, and accordingly, there will be enough players to populate everything. Who cares if, out of 10000 players on a server, 2000 are in space? You still can't have more than 2000 in your own individual continent at once, and you probably won't be in a battle with all 2000 of them anyway. Think back to PS1, you couldn't even have more than 450 or so and now you can have much more.

This is an MMOFPS, and MMOFPS is the best vector to introduce multi-faceted combat to a game world. There is no other type of game that could possibly incorporate these things. And FPS should not be taken literally, otherwise "shooter" would mean nothing but infantry.

And since there are no real MMOFPS other than PS and WW2OL, which did not have space combat, no true examples can be cited, either for or against, to demonstrate precedent that an MMOFPS can't do space; although I do think that if we took a game like Battlefront which had space combat within the confines of limited map size, and consider how much better that could be done in the larger combat areas that an MMOFPS can provide, that it can be done just fine.

As for PvP in MMORPGs, while I agree that there are lots of problems balancing PvP and PvE, how is that a population splitting issue? I have not played WoW, and don't know how WoW does PvP so maybe there is something different about how WoW is set up. But from what I know of the other MMORPGs that I have played, my expectation of a standard MMORPG that has PvP but is NOT PvP focused, is that they have PvE servers where there is no PvP unless you agree to a duel or go to special or Arena zones, and there are PvP servers where PvP is fully enabled. I don't see how that splits communities. I mean, if a standard MMORPG needed 30 servers to handle its population and 5 of them are PvP enabled, so it's split 25 PvE and 5 PvP, that's still no more split than it would have been?

And I take this issue very seriously because as a 10 year EQ player, I prefer to play on the PvP server. I am aware that balancing issues mean that, for example, a melee focus class gets dominated by caster classes. I know it's difficult to balance both, but I'd rather have somewhat unbalanced PvP than no PvP. You join a guild or run in groups with your own healers and casters, and work as a team and get past that, it's better to play on a PvP server than not - much more exciting. Nothing in this final paragraph here has anything to do with Planetside, I'm just saying since we're talking about it and because I do prefer PvP in MMORPGs.

[Sempars]

And since there are no real MMOFPS other than PS and WW2OL, which did not have space combat, no true examples can be cited, either for or against, to demonstrate precedent that an MMOFPS can't do space; although I do think that if we took a game like Battlefront which had space combat within the confines of limited map size, and consider how much better that could be done in the larger combat areas that an MMOFPS can provide, that it can be done just fine.

As for PvP in MMORPGs, while I agree that there are lots of problems balancing PvP and PvE, how is that a population splitting issue? I have not played WoW, and don't know how WoW does PvP so maybe there is something different about how WoW is set up. But from what I know of the other MMORPGs that I have played, my expectation of a standard MMORPG that has PvP but is NOT PvP focused, is that they have PvE servers where there is no PvP unless you agree to a duel or go to special or Arena zones, and there are PvP servers where PvP is fully enabled. I don't see how that splits communities. I mean, if a standard MMORPG needed 30 servers to handle its population and 5 of them are PvP enabled, so it's split 25 PvE and 5 PvP, that's still no more split than it would have been?


How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units. One to battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

[Sledgecrushr]

How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units. One to battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

The idea I have been pitching is instead of creating a space game and glomming it onto a server as extra content. You create a space game that combines all of the servers. Instead of splitting the playerbase we would combine it. Instead of conquerable continents we could very well have entire conquerable planets. We could strive for dominance with an entire solar empire.

[Stardouser]

How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units one battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

PS1 continents could only hold 150 per empire/450 total. Weren't Core combat areas drawing from the very same 150/450? Of course that would be a problem. But space would be like its very own continent.

[roguy]

Yes, I do expect that space combat can be well done in PS2.

So do I, as long as SOE puts in a 3 year+ development cycle with a dedicated dev team wich simply won't make any money. Where's the sense of trying to sell a space-sim to FPS players playing an FPS game, instead of making it a seperate or tie-in game aimed at space-simmers?

And since there are no real MMOFPS other than PS and WW2OL, which did not have space combat, no true examples can be cited, either for or against, to demonstrate precedent that an MMOFPS can't do space

Dust 514, go and guess why it's a PS3 exclusive (because it doesn't split up the community and take away players from the space game) and go and guess why it's a separate game and not just an Eve Online update (because it needs to be "sold" as a seperate game to justify the expense and because the COD crowd isn't the same as the Microsoft-excel-in-space crowd).

But even then you're avoiding the point entirely. If you make 1 game, you don't split it into multiple rulesets that:

1) split the community (BF3 hardcore/softcore),
2) dilute the game world population (Core combat, at least partially to blame for the server mergings by forcing some people into the retarded caves, or World of Warcraft with their new zones, leaving the old world completely empty),
3) Draw ressources away from what people paid for in the first place (Look up the Eve Online: Incarna scandal),
4) Change core game mechanics in order to attract a completely different playerbase (SWG: NGU update).


Think back to PS1, you couldn't even have more than 450 or so and now you can have much more.


I don't want "much more", i want 2000. Release the space combat patch and I'm either playing with alot less than 2000 or it's server merging time across the board.


I mean, if a standard MMORPG needed 30 servers to handle its population and 5 of them are PvP enabled, so it's split 25 PvE and 5 PvP, that's still no more split than it would have been?


Yeah and let's pretend that that doesn't take away development time from the PVE game. Or let's also pretend that the PVP won't be broken, half-assed and that the balancing considerations won't mess up the PVE.

[Kurtz]

I am pro space battles, but theres a reason why NONE of the Star Wars (FPS) games haven't had space combat and ground combat. The same reason why Dust is separate from Eve. Very very hard to do seamlessly.

I'm against anything that would split population as well. Any space combat would be essentially an air to air server (or zone) and that would draw folks away from the continents.

[Stardouser]

But even then you're avoiding the point entirely. If you make 1 game, you don't split it into multiple rulesets that:

1) split the community (BF3 hardcore/softcore),
2) dilute the game world population (Core combat, at least partially to blame for the server mergings by forcing some people into the retarded caves, or World of Warcraft with their new zones, leaving the old world completely empty),
3) Draw ressources away from what people paid for in the first place (Look up the Eve Online: Incarna scandal),
4) Change core game mechanics in order to attract a completely different playerbase (SWG: NGU update).

I don't want "much more", i want 2000. Release the space combat patch and I'm either playing with alot less than 2000 or it's server merging time across the board.


I'm not even going to address development time or costs, because we can't possibly know that unless we've got financials and other internal data on the game, so it's reaching to even go there.

I had a longer answer but then I realized something because I started to add an additional argument, so I deleted it all(I will say that BF3 is not a good argument, because hardcore and normal core servers do not prevent any individual 64 player server from being populated). I thought back to your argument "at least people on other continents are still playing an FPS". Now, in a pure sense of people playing something other than an FPS in other areas, that does not bother me. On that point, we simply have to agree to disagree, because neither of us will change our minds.

But I thought, well, if space combat is not relevant/attached/meaningful to the ground game, and it's just people fighting over something that doesn't mean anything, then I don't want it either. If it's not going mean something to the metagame, then it may as well be a separate game. But if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line. If having space combat means servers have to be merged from 20 to 16, then that's fine. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. PS2 will have more than enough population to keep you supplied with a healthy population continent. How can it be relevant to the metagame? I'm sure there are ways. That's for SOE to dream up.

As for your statement that you want the full 2000 though, that's going to be interesting. At first when the game releases, servers will no doubt be pretty packed. But then when they start releasing more continents in the 5 year plan, one of two things will happen:
A. They merge servers in order to keep all continents populated the same.
B. They do not merge servers, and since we now have more continents for the same amount of people, it will be possible to have a server whose population has not dropped, yet we have continents with no fighting at all, or the population is spread out across continents.

Even if there is never any space combat, when they add new continents, this issue WILL come up. Either there will be server merges or there will be unpopulated continents or populations spread out among continents. It will happen.

However, as for your World of Warcraft comment about old world zones being empty, that's what happens when you add new content in an MMORPG. MMORPGs are usually level based, and old world zones are often lower level, and people become higher level and move on. That can't be translated to an MMOFPS, Planetside 2 is not going to be a game where you reach level 50 and no longer have a need to go to level 20 zones.

[Slide Surveyor]

Save it for planetside 3....

[roguy]

I'm not even going to address development time or costs, because we can't possibly know that unless we've got financials and other internal data on the game, so it's reaching to even go there.

No it isn't, assuming that it takes at least an equal amount of effort, time, skill and money to stay competitive is purely logical. Either SOE has twice the ressources compared to a dedicated space sim team or it's going to be sub par. Ressources that would be better spent on the core game that for everyone who plays PS2, actually want to play, without having to create a whole new game from scratch.

And again, it doesn't make any marketing sense to sell a space game to FPSers, as much as bundling knitting accessories with an edition of FHM.


(I will say that BF3 is not a good argument, because hardcore and normal core servers do not prevent any individual 64 player server from being populated).


And are the weapons/vehicles/maps be balanced for both modes? Can they ever be balanced for both modes? No and no.


But if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line.


And that brings us back to Core Combat, where people have to play something they don't enjoy to win. Or space sections in SWTOR because it's more efficient to level.


If having space combat means servers have to be merged from 20 to 16, then that's fine. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. PS2 will have more than enough population to keep you supplied with a healthy population continent. How can it be relevant to the metagame? I'm sure there are ways. That's for SOE to dream up.


And essentially you'd force players who never asked for this feature, who didn't join the game for this feature and who probably arn't interested in this feature (they'd be playing Black Prophecy instead anyway...) to lose their servers? Losing Werner in PS1 absolutely sucks, I don't even see why they'd do it intentionnally for PS2.

[Stardouser]

1. No it isn't, assuming that it takes at least an equal amount of effort, time, skill and money to stay competitive is purely logical. Either SOE has twice the ressources compared to a dedicated space sim team or it's going to be sub par. Ressources that would be better spent on the core game that for everyone who plays PS2, actually want to play, without having to create a whole new game from scratch.

2. And again, it doesn't make any marketing sense to sell a space game to FPSers, as much as bundling knitting accessories with an edition of FHM.

3. And are the weapons/vehicles/maps be balanced for both modes? Can they ever be balanced for both modes? No and no.

4. And that brings us back to Core Combat, where people have to play something they don't enjoy to win. Or space sections in SWTOR because it's more efficient to level.

5. And essentially you'd force players who never asked for this feature, who didn't join the game for this feature and who probably arn't interested in this feature (they'd be playing Black Prophecy instead anyway...) to lose their servers? Losing Werner in PS1 absolutely sucks, I don't even see why they'd do it intentionnally for PS2.
1. SOE has already talked about adding space later on, so I'm sure they've run the numbers. How can anyone argue against it without access to info on how much it actually costs? A lot of the money on a game is designing the engine. The engine is already done. And not everything has to be redone, they could even reuse Reavers/et al as starfighters. Not that I would know but I heavily suspect that adding something like this is not starting over from day 1 where it will cost the same amount of money all over again. And, in space, there's no landmasses to design by hand, except for the space station anyway. My understanding is that designing the continents is a sizable cost.

2. It's not a space sim any more than the presence of Reavers/Galaxies makes it a flight sim. I wish I could remember this far back, but I can't, but I suspect that back in the 90s when companies were just starting to toy with the idea of putting infantry, tanks and aircraft together, people probably had the same objection - after all, who would want to force aircraft and tanks on FPS players? MMOFPS is THE genre to combine planetary and extraplanetary combat. And frankly, considering the scale that MMOFPS represents, it seems illogical to try and boil it down to an infantry shooter anyway.

3. BF3's balance has nothing to do with population splitting. Servers in both modes get populated and that's what matters.

4. For one thing, it actually WAS necessary to fight in core combat to unlock things. There should be no sections of the game where you must go there in order to unlock something that you can use elsewhere. This is not an MMORPG where we have quests.

5. As I established, when they add new continents, there will either be server mergers, or players will be spread across more land. One or the other will happen regardless of space combat or not.

[DirtyBird]

They wont make the Core Combat mistake again.
They'll make other mistakes but not the Core Combat one.

[Xyntech]

As Stardouser mentioned, players will get spread out with new continents the same as with any new areas. We already know that the game will launch with 3 continents and that more will be added after launch, so let's just take this as for granted. Either new players will come in and fill the space, or servers will merge, but either way the new contestable areas will get appropriately populated.

Personally, I'd like to see space combat that felt more like an extension of the ground combat in a lot of ways. Make space modification options for the vehicles and classes, where they function very similar to their terrestrial counterparts in a lot of ways, but with some added spaciness.

Aircraft become full on space ships, able to freely fly around the space "continents (zones)."

Land vehicles become the equivalent of Lunar Rovers, with modifications to allow them to function in low gravity environments or even to stick to surfaces as crawlers, used to fight over larger rocks and asteroids and smaller moons. Maybe even inside space station environments.

All infantry classes get modification options for magnetic boots, maneuvering thrusters, etc, to play infantry combat in space and around asteroids and space stations in a manner similar to Shattered Horizon, while still retaining a lot of the same elements that make classes unique from each other in ground combat.

The main point would be to not be throwing out everything from the one style of gameplay just to add a new style of fighting. They could even make the space variants of vehicles and infantry look significantly different, so long as you still got to use a lot of the same unlocks in space as you earned for their ground base counterparts. The same goes for naval combat, where you could have unlocks for a tank simultaneously unlock the same thing for a counterpart boat. They can still play significantly differently depending on the environment, but you don't have to go unlocking entirely different cert trees for every style of environment that they add. Only one or two extra cert trees per item to help specialize in that new environment.

[roguy]

1. SOE has already talked about adding space later on, so I'm sure they've run the numbers. How can anyone argue against it without access to info on how much it actually costs?


Like i already said 3 times now, either they put in as much effort as a dedicated space game or it'll suck. I've listed like 10 examples now how trying to shoe-horn 2 games into one always sucks, so reread my previous posts. Even RAGE's car deathmatch multiplayer sucked.


A lot of the money on a game is designing the engine. The engine is already done. And not everything has to be redone, they could even reuse Reavers/et al as starfighters. Not that I would know but I heavily suspect that adding something like this is not starting over from day 1 where it will cost the same amount of money all over again. And, in space, there's no landmasses to design by hand, except for the space station anyway. My understanding is that designing the continents is a sizable cost.


So pretty much as much money that it took Black Prophecy then, since they didn't design their engine from scratch either. It's still incredibly wasteful when you could develop more ground vehicles, base layouts and weapons wich DON'T require massive gameplay/balancing/engine changes, money and time.


2. It's not a space sim any more than the presence of Reavers/Galaxies makes it a flight sim. I wish I could remember this far back, but I can't, but I suspect that back in the 90s when companies were just starting to toy with the idea of putting infantry, tanks and aircraft together, people probably had the same objection - after all, who would want to force aircraft and tanks on FPS players?


Tanks and planes play alongside infantry, therefore they play the same game. Spaceships don't, get it? So why not get a bejeweled side game too? Planetside was an infantry game with vehicles, you want to play something that isn't planetside (Orbitside perhaps? Solarsystemside?).


3. BF3's balance has nothing to do with population splitting. Servers in both modes get populated and that's what matters.


Tried playing 64 player Operation Metro on Hardcore? Extreme example but I cba to go into details with weapons and overall map balancing if you're blind.


4. For one thing, it actually WAS necessary to fight in core combat to unlock things. There should be no sections of the game where you must go there in order to unlock something that you can use elsewhere.


"if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line."
Contradiction.

[Mirror]

Just now this sort of question will get an answer similar to the question about naval warfare, "Yeah, it's certainly something we may consider in the future" or in other words, "LAWL, what a dumb question".

The devs have a 3 year plan that takes effect from release. If the idea you want is not on that plan then don't expect it.

[SixShooter]

http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg608/666SHOOTER/220px-Death_star1.png

If this were the space station we were fighting over I would be interested...

[VaderShake]

http://i1246.photobucket.com/albums/gg608/666SHOOTER/220px-Death_star1.png

If this were the space station we were fighting over I would be interested...

Try First Strike Mod for Battlefield 2142

http://www.fsmod.com/

Death Start Battle Video: First Strike Batllefield 2142 star wars mod Deathstar - YouTube

[cellinaire]

No, like others have said population splitting doesn't work. It's also a waste of development ressources to build a whole new game with different gameplay/rulesets instead of building upon what's already there, THEN trying to sell it to players who were drawn to your game to play an FPS rather than a space combat sim.

Every time this has been tried it it has either completely bombed (Core combat) or are hands-down inferior to competing games that "specialised" at what they're good at (like SWG:JTL vs Freespace 2 or X-Wing Alliance // SWTOR on rails space combat vs Starfox 64....)

Pop splitting is a valid concern, so I understand. (but, while f2p can't be the magic stick for resolving any issue they might bump into, I think it can diminish the level of threat pop splitting has on the playerbase and the game itself.)

And as for the second issue... well.. 'bombed or inferior' has been proven right in most cases, but there are possibilities that it can be supplementary, reciprocative, or mutually beneficial. Should they not waste their precious time in developing any fluff items or side feature/ side activities in the game?

So, by your logic, Are games like FreeRealms or CWA complete garbage because these kind of games just tries to be the Jack of all trades? Did the introduction of JTL ruin SWG like CU or NGE? I saw it as 'diversity' of things to do. (I knew it was inferior, but I didn't expect it to be exactly like 'ELITE' or 'Wing Commander' or something like that.)

[Sledgecrushr]

If space combat ends up being limited to jetting around in a spacey arena, with no real ties to auraxis then it shouldnt be done at all. If the idea of space combat is to be like ToR then no again. But if space combat is homogenous with the rest of ps2, if it accentuates the ground combat and creates new strategies and depth then yes space combat should be included.

The idea of executing a mass drop pod infantry assault from an outfit owned space frigate has me all tingly inside...
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_9dReqfKOOw0/TO5hcqPCOaI/AAAAAAAAAIs/W8yGH9u_gNk/s1600/Drop+Pod.jpg

[Stardouser]

If space combat ends up being limited to jetting around in a spacey arena, with no real ties to auraxis then it shouldnt be done at all. If the idea of space combat is to be like ToR then no again. But if space combat is homogenous with the rest of ps2, if it accentuates the ground combat and creates new strategies and depth then yes space combat should be included.

Right. I don't want it either if it's basically just a separate game not tied to the rest.

Here is an EXAMPLE(meaning, I'm sure SOE can dream up a better way) of how it could be tied in:

Once we actually get to where we have different planets, footholds could be removed. Then, there would still be warpgates, but they could be camped, but you would also have the option of physically attacking through space and then you can transition from space to land just like the video I linked before(yes, the tech required for that might mean waiting for PS3 or PS4).

Also, only the faction that controls the space station above the planet could get orbital strikes or drop pod squad spawning.

The above, as I said, is just an example of how it could be tied in.