Community Interview with Jon Weathers

[Hamma]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-community-interview-with-jon-weathers-2781.htm

Community Interview with Jon Weathers - YouTube

[PlaceboCyanide]

was itchin for a fix, thanks :love:

[Immigrant]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/news-community-interview-with-jon-weathers-2781.htm

Thanks Hamma!

[Johari]

AGN strikes again with a very informative video interview. Thanks Hamma and Jenny.

Just past 7 minutes in Jon states that you collect resources from the territory that you own on that continent. Would that decrease the incentive to fight on another continent that your empire currently has less land on? Why fight on Esamir w/ its 15% captured rate when I could fight on Indar with its 45% capture rate?

[Bartimaeuse]

THANKS!

[Zekeen]

Can I get this in hypodermic needle form? And a nice taught rope? Thanks.

OOoooooooooohhhhhhhh yeah... that's the stuff.

Edit: After seeing a bit of the video, I have to say Hamma, I freaking LOVE how you guys made the camera seem like playing PS, very hilarious, very very cool. Good work.

[WildEagle]

Thank You Hamma God 8')

[Hamma]

Thanks! Hope you guys enjoy - I think it came out pretty good. We had some strange camera issues here and there :lol:

[Bags]

Gonna be hard to study for my finals with all this vids~

[Jennyboo]

That was me playing Planetside 2 :)

[WildEagle]

That was me playing Planetside 2 :)

Were you standing on part of the base in the beginning in the area where you first died or was that some sort of tower?

[TheRagingGerbil]

Great little details there, thanks Hamma!

[Stardouser]

ROBUST VOIP: Thanks. Step 1 to crushing DICE is complete.

[Bags]

10:40, a stationary enemy (Light assault) tanks like 10 bullets from a LA assault rifle.

[Hamma]

Just FYI the TTK is not final and there were probably some bugs in the background during the interview.

[ExplodingSilver]

I am impressed with the openness of the dev team and giving real info out, when the follow up interview with Matt going to be released ?

[Anderz]

ROBUST VOIP: Thanks. Step 1 to crushing DICE is complete.

That's what I was thinking. Everything DICE did wrong with BF3 in terms of team tools, SOE are doing right. Well, if this interview is anything to go by.

Thanks Hamma!

[Hamma]

Oh and also the aimpoint was slightly off when firing so you would tend to miss when you think you should be hitting ;)

Next interview will be tomorrow afternoon or evening.

[CommandoCarl]

:( im at work and i cant get sound!

[Miir]

Great info. Thanks Hamma/Jennyboo.

[Kaw]

10:40, a stationary enemy (Light assault) tanks like 10 bullets from a LA assault rifle.

And promptly kills his attacker in half a second.

Thanks for the awesome interview. I can't wait to see the next one.

[Hyiero]

at 12:25 was that max suit capping a point?? Dunno if I like that if he was...

[Meecrob]

Awesome job! Good to hear platoons are "definitly probably" in :p

[Warborn]

AGN strikes again with a very informative video interview. Thanks Hamma and Jenny.

Just past 7 minutes in Jon states that you collect resources from the territory that you own on that continent. Would that decrease the incentive to fight on another continent that your empire currently has less land on? Why fight on Esamir w/ its 15% captured rate when I could fight on Indar with its 45% capture rate?

Continent population caps.

[Higby]

10:40, a stationary enemy (Light assault) tanks like 10 bullets from a LA assault rifle.

They were just running around on the dev server off playtest times, some people have invuln on, they're testing animations, sound effects, etc. That server isn't remotely a valid gameplay example.

[Bags]

They were just running around on the dev server off playtest times, some people have invuln on, they're testing animations, sound effects, etc. That server isn't remotely a valid gameplay example.

Aww, got my hopes up.

[waldizzo]

Nice interview. There were many reassuring things revealed such as platoons and way points.

Not sure how I feel about the "Entire Foothold VOIP" channel that was mentioned. Hopefully they let us pick and choose what VOIP channels we want to hear, if at all.

[Shogun]

thanks hamma and jenny! great interview and awesome intro ;)

AND best music choice ever ;) felt so like reallife planetside harting to soe!

[Stardouser]

AGN strikes again with a very informative video interview. Thanks Hamma and Jenny.

Just past 7 minutes in Jon states that you collect resources from the territory that you own on that continent. Would that decrease the incentive to fight on another continent that your empire currently has less land on? Why fight on Esamir w/ its 15% captured rate when I could fight on Indar with its 45% capture rate?

Actually, I suspect people will want to fight on the continent where you own the least land. I keep hearing people talking about you get resources for capturing land, and so, it might be easier to sneak around the enemy and capture more land when you only own 15%, and yet if you own 55%, it will be more difficult because the enemy is dug in. Just a theory.

[Mechzz]

They were just running around on the dev server off playtest times, some people have invuln on, they're testing animations, sound effects, etc. That server isn't remotely a valid gameplay example.

So how much invuln cost in the cash shop? (j/k)

[Bags]

Nice interview. There were many reassuring things revealed such as platoons and way points.

Not sure how I feel about the "Entire Foothold VOIP" channel that was mentioned. Hopefully they let us pick and choose what VOIP channels we want to hear, if at all.

I'm sure with the game being F2P things like that would be off by default, or easy to mute.

[Mechzz]

I'm sure with the game being F2P things like that would be off by default, or easy to mute.

yeah, he said VOIP would have a whole page to itself in the UI, so I would be confident all those on/off options will be there.

[Stardouser]

Set waypoints? Assuming that means you can set waypoints other than capture points only(ie, freestyle to anywhere you want), that's victory #2 over DICE.

[Turdicus]

My favorite part was when Jenny got demolished by the MAX suit. That tickled

[Mechzz]

Set waypoints? Assuming that means you can set waypoints other than capture points only(ie, freestyle to anywhere you want), that's victory #2 over DICE.

It was that way in PS1, so we're hoping for it to stay the same.

[Atheosim]

My favorite part was when Jenny got demolished by the MAX suit. That tickled

Yeah, many flashbacks of being a lone agile running face first into a scatter cannon

[Jennyboo]

at 12:25 was that max suit capping a point?? Dunno if I like that if he was...

No that was a Maxs tking me in a cap point area ;)

[Atlas]

Some good info there :).

The thing that stuck with me most was (i realise this can all change at the stage the game is in), the SOE chap said that squad sizes are currently 10 max...A Galaxy can hold 12 (Sunderer can take 11 + a driver) on the wiki, seeing as Gals are the respawn points once deployed, would it not be a sensible idea to make the squad size the same as a Gals capacity?

Or is that a little too numerically OCD :D? Or are the capacities of the Sundy/Gal different than on the wiki?

[CrystalViolet]

The Platoon system integrated with the VOIP stuff is really exciting. It's one of the things I asked for back in the days of the Planetside Next survey. Ideally I'd like to see this done using a an automatic bracket system.

[Bags]

Set waypoints? Assuming that means you can set waypoints other than capture points only(ie, freestyle to anywhere you want), that's victory #2 over DICE.

Yeah in PS1 each squad lead could put 3 WP wherever they wanted to.

[Hamma]

They were just running around on the dev server off playtest times, some people have invuln on, they're testing animations, sound effects, etc. That server isn't remotely a valid gameplay example.

Yea there were dev hax galore on that server!

[Mastachief]

Great interview, once more Hamma and Jennyboo providing awesomeness for the community.

[KTNApollo]

Some good info there :).

The thing that stuck with me most was (i realise this can all change at the stage the game is in), the SOE chap said that squad sizes are currently 10 max...A Galaxy can hold 12 (Sunderer can take 11 + a driver) on the wiki, seeing as Gals are the respawn points once deployed, would it not be a sensible idea to make the squad size the same as a Gals capacity?

Or is that a little too numerically OCD :D? Or are the capacities of the Sundy/Gal different than on the wiki?

2 of the Galaxy/Sunderer spots would be specifically for MAXs, right? So those spots may be vacant if nobody in the squad is using a MAX.

[Baron]

Set waypoints? Assuming that means you can set waypoints other than capture points only(ie, freestyle to anywhere you want), that's victory #2 over DICE.

In PS1 you could set waypoints where ever you wanted...hopefully we will have similar freedom.

[p0intman]

first point, if resources aren't transferrable to other players, you can use them to buy vehicles with one account that then give them to another account which makes the restriction moot to begin with.

See how easily exploitable your design is?

[waldizzo]

first point, if resources aren't transferrable to other players, you can use them to buy vehicles with one account that then give them to another account which makes the restriction moot to begin with.

See how easily exploitable your design is?

Better than just giving them the resources. If people want to pay gold farmers to spawn tanks for them, I say let them.

[p0intman]

Better than just giving them the resources. If people want to pay gold farmers to spawn tanks for them, I say let them.

Not even gold farmers. I can use a second account to do that with, thus vastly inflating what I can do. Gold farmers aren't even required, lol.

[KTNApollo]

first point, if resources aren't transferrable to other players, you can use them to buy vehicles with one account that then give them to another account which makes the restriction moot to begin with.

See how easily exploitable your design is?

I doubt you can buy vehicles for other players because your vehicle is upgraded/sidegraded with weapons you purchased. The ability to let someone else have all of your sidegrades would be not very smart design-wise.

[Stardouser]

Not even gold farmers. I can use a second account to do that with, thus vastly inflating what I can do. Gold farmers aren't even required, lol.

Can you play two accounts at the same time(I mean do you have the ability to pay attention to two shooter accounts at once), or are you assuming that you'll be able to earn resources on an account that's not actually doing anything?

[p0intman]

Can you play two accounts at the same time(I mean do you have the ability to pay attention to two shooter accounts at once), or are you assuming that you'll be able to earn resources on an account that's not actually doing anything?
Assumption is that an account can simply earn resources by being on cont/region.
I doubt you can buy vehicles for other players because your vehicle is upgraded/sidegraded with weapons you purchased. The ability to let someone else have all of your sidegrades would be not very smart design-wise.

So thats making an assumption that vehicles will be locked to specific players that buy them. That won't work for very long, if its anything like PS1 with multiple people being able to drive/fly squad vehicles as people log in/off.

[waldizzo]

Not even gold farmers. I can use a second account to do that with, thus vastly inflating what I can do. Gold farmers aren't even required, lol.

You still had to spend the time to earn those resources.

[p0intman]

You still had to spend the time to earn those resources.
Not with an account that does nothing but sit on cont in a corner somewhere, probably cloaked.

[Bags]

Yeah, from the sound of it so far you just need to be in a squad/on the cont/in the hex at most to earn resources.

[waldizzo]

We are assuming a lot of things. Like with all the other speculation on these boards, we'll have to wait until beta to see how it will work in reality.

[xXGumpXX]

Did i just hear right or was my mind playing tricks with me , now in ps2 there will be automated missions that squads can do to complete an objective , i thought planetside was all about pvp or are they now introducing a campaign into a pvp game , because ifso i don't like the sound of it , thanks but no thanks

[waldizzo]

The mission system has been something that they've been talking about for quite a while now. I think I read that it's replacing the Command Rank chat channels that were useful at first but then turned into garbage as everyone got CR5.

[Stardouser]

To be honest, what worries me more is that people with alternate accounts will sit there taking up a player slot which could have been occupied by someone actually fighting. If resources were tradeable, this would probably occur even more.

[Bags]

We are assuming a lot of things. Like with all the other speculation on these boards, we'll have to wait until beta to see how it will work in reality.

I don't really see how they can get around that.

What, bases resources gained off of damage done? Supporting done? Seems clunky.

[Bags]

Did i just hear right or was my mind playing tricks with me , now in ps2 there will be automated missions that squads can do to complete an objective , i thought planetside was all about pvp or are they now introducing a campaign into a pvp game , because ifso i don't like the sound of it , thanks but no thanks

Oh jeeze, when a base is attacked there's going to be an automatic mission suggesting you go defend it.

Fucking hell, what's next, farming dragons for loot?

[Mechzz]

Did i just hear right or was my mind playing tricks with me , now in ps2 there will be automated missions that squads can do to complete an objective , i thought planetside was all about pvp or are they now introducing a campaign into a pvp game , because ifso i don't like the sound of it , thanks but no thanks

They've said from early on that it will be like this (auto-generated missions), at least when the game goes live. Once players level up they should be able to cert into the mission system. Sounds like we'll be having our hands held in the early days, but that won't stop the outfits self-organising I would imagine.

[Stardouser]

Oh jeeze, when a base is attacked there's going to be an automatic mission suggesting you go defend it.

Fucking hell, what's next, farming dragons for loot?

I always wanted to drive tanks in the Karanas in Everquest, or down the hallways of Muramite Proving Grounds :)

[Bags]

I always wanted to drive tanks in the Karanas in Everquest, or down the hallways of Muramite Proving Grounds :)

WoW Toyota Commercial - YouTube

[QuantumMechanic]

I don't think they're going to allow your alt character to hide cloaked somewhere and just collect resources.

They haven't mentioned how long apart these periods are that you get resources (no doubt it will change during testing anyways), but most certainly your idle character will be kicked due to inactivity after 5 minutes or so. Which will probably happen before you get your serving of free resources. And if you decide to move your character 1 meter every 4 minutes... well then you are awfully desperate. And a dodgy rat.

[Timealude]

the only thing more awesome then that interview would have been hamma and jennyboo using a drop pod from the plane to land ate SOE's studio.

[Athanasios]

Nice interview, i assume more coming up in the next days?

[headcrab13]

Great vid Hamma/Jennyboo! I really liked having the running gameplay feed during the interview.

Definitely can't wait until tomorrow for more interviewage!

[Kurtz]

Hamma, thanks for the interview.


I think even T-Ray would agree with me when I say if we sacrificed ONE net connection to make room for VOIP than it was ONE too many.

Lots of you are screaming about the "dumbing down" of planetside but yet you are jumping for joy that VOIP is added to the game.

What random newb do you really need to talk to?

I'm saying that VOIP isn't necessary and that you should be in an outfit with TS3 or Ventrilo. This will keep VOIP out of the game and make room for more necessary strain on the net code...IE MORE PLAYERS.

[Hamma]

Did i just hear right or was my mind playing tricks with me , now in ps2 there will be automated missions that squads can do to complete an objective , i thought planetside was all about pvp or are they now introducing a campaign into a pvp game , because ifso i don't like the sound of it , thanks but no thanks
There will be automated missions in addition to player generated missions.

the only thing more awesome then that interview would have been hamma and jennyboo using a drop pod from the plane to land ate SOE's studio.
Couldn't get it on video :(

Nice interview, i assume more coming up in the next days?
Yep. :)

[KTNApollo]

Oh jeeze, when a base is attacked there's going to be an automatic mission suggesting you go defend it.

Fucking hell, what's next, farming dragons for loot?

I hope so. Raiding was my favorite thing to do in WoW.

[DviddLeff]

Great work guys, loved the intro!

[Higby]

Hamma, thanks for the interview.


I think even T-Ray would agree with me when I say if we sacrificed ONE net connection to make room for VOIP than it was ONE too many.

Lots of you are screaming about the "dumbing down" of planetside but yet you are jumping for joy that VOIP is added to the game.

What random newb do you really need to talk to?

I'm saying that VOIP isn't necessary and that you should be in an outfit with TS3 or Ventrilo. This will keep VOIP out of the game and make room for more necessary strain on the net code...IE MORE PLAYERS.

Connections to a VOIP server have no adverse effect on your connection to the "game" server except for potentially on your end if your connection was unable to handle having both open. The game server isn't processing voice at all.

As for why you'd want to talk to a random player, maybe to help them learn the game? Maybe because you want ammo, or you saw an enemy squad around the corner and want to warn them? Maybe to coordinate fire on an enemy tank? Maybe because they're going the wrong way? There are lots of reasons.

Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

If all you want to do is interact with the friends you already came into the game with and the entire rest of the playerbase is just background noise to you, that's fine, you can turn it off, but I think you'd be missing out on one of the more unique aspects of Planetside.

[Atheosim]

Uh, I'm assuming there will be a window you can open to look at available missions. It's not imperative to anything that you ever open that window once.

[Hyiero]

No that was a Maxs tking me in a cap point area ;)

Awesome then that's what I like to hear ;)

[ringring]

Thanks Hamma/Jennyboo and not forgetting Jon.

The takeaways for me:

we saw the DC Max!
there's such a lot still to be done that can't be done without larger scale testing
VOIP sounds better or at least the plans for VOIP sound better than I imagined. But remember it's not just who you want to talk to it is who you don't want to talk to and that you may need to keep out folk such as: the angst ridden teenager, the guy with verbal diarrhea, the guy who keeps on contradicting the squad leader and anyone generally annoying - I assume there will be tools to manage who can join your squad which will help
I am less sure about the mission system, for me it shouldn't be complicated as it sounds like it will.
nice to hear a realisation that platoons are necessary (it's probably a higher tactial organisation level will be needed
10 man squads are fine, they don't have to align with the capacity of a gal, from experience having exactly 10 people online and all in the same squad is rare you're more likely to have 2 squads of 8 and 2.


A bit more on the mission example that Jon gave:
scenario: VS have attacked one of your bases and an automatic mission is created.

Question: At what point is the mission created? When a capture commences or when it completes (can captures on all capture points in a base be startd simultaneously?). Hopefully it is not simply when a few VS arrive in the vicinity of the base otherwise that would give their attack away before it got properly started.

Is This Too Handholding? I think probably. It's kind of having the AI man tapping you on the shoulder to say 'did you know you're being attacked' while in PS it would be upto the CR5's and senior players in the outfit to monitor their own bases and form a response. On the other hand having a mission created and awarding XP on a successful completion may not be bad, kind of like resecure XP in PS1 terms but maybe it should be done manually.

Personally, I'd prefer the motivation, where possible to generated by players and not by Mr AI.

I think my problem is I don't understand the purpose of the mission system if it is for more than giving new people something to do before they understand the game properly.


However all in all I'm happy.

[Hyiero]

Connections to a VOIP server have no adverse effect on your connection to the "game" server except for potentially on your end if your connection was unable to handle having both open. The game server isn't processing voice at all.

As for why you'd want to talk to a random player, maybe to help them learn the game? Maybe because you want ammo, or you saw an enemy squad around the corner and want to warn them? Maybe to coordinate fire on an enemy tank? Maybe because they're going the wrong way? There are lots of reasons.

Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

If all you want to do is interact with the friends you already came into the game with and the entire rest of the playerbase is just background noise to you, that's fine, you can turn it off, but I think you'd be missing out on one of the more unique aspects of Planetside.

Someone please get this man a cookie...what ever kind he wants...man is a damn genius in my book

[Stardouser]

Connections to a VOIP server have no adverse effect on your connection to the "game" server except for potentially on your end if your connection was unable to handle having both open. The game server isn't processing voice at all.

As for why you'd want to talk to a random player, maybe to help them learn the game? Maybe because you want ammo, or you saw an enemy squad around the corner and want to warn them? Maybe to coordinate fire on an enemy tank? Maybe because they're going the wrong way? There are lots of reasons.

Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

If all you want to do is interact with the friends you already came into the game with and the entire rest of the playerbase is just background noise to you, that's fine, you can turn it off, but I think you'd be missing out on one of the more unique aspects of Planetside.

Also, with the autojoin squad feature mentioned in the video, if you end up with random people, they may not get "lost" but it's still nice to be able to say something as simple as "look out behind you".

[Dreamcast]

Connections to a VOIP server have no adverse effect on your connection to the "game" server except for potentially on your end if your connection was unable to handle having both open. The game server isn't processing voice at all.

As for why you'd want to talk to a random player, maybe to help them learn the game? Maybe because you want ammo, or you saw an enemy squad around the corner and want to warn them? Maybe to coordinate fire on an enemy tank? Maybe because they're going the wrong way? There are lots of reasons.

Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

If all you want to do is interact with the friends you already came into the game with and the entire rest of the playerbase is just background noise to you, that's fine, you can turn it off, but I think you'd be missing out on one of the more unique aspects of Planetside.

Local Voip sounds awesome.....I would love to hear nearby enemies and talk to randoms..It will make people immerse more into the game.

Don't listen to these Planetside 2 Elitist who thinks every new player is gonna ruin the game.

[Atheosim]

Someone please get this man a cookie...what ever kind he wants...man is a damn genius in my book

Yep, yet another excellent post by Commander Higglebottoms. :cool:

[IMMentat]

Good work Hamma, a good mix of useful and new info there.
Continental resources could go either way, we'll see in Beta I expect.

#edit#
Some nice feedback on voip, personally my use will be dependant on how mature the average user proves to be (I have no problem muting individuals as long as they are the exception).
If my experience of playing public multiplayer games on the Xbox 360 proves anything its that:-
Push to talk should ALWAYS be the default setting . Also, keep the voice controls easy to access as adjusting volumes and muting players should take only a few key/mouse presses.

Babies crying, random coughing/spluttering/nose blowing, swearing, shouting, loud/annoying music and tv are just a sample of the unintended stuff I have heard over public party voicecomms. I only bought the xbox in january of this year. . . .

[Hamma]

By the way those of you wondering more about the mission system, Higby and I talked about it more in our interview with him which you guys will be seeing next.

[Dreamcast]

By the way those of you wondering more about the mission system, Higby and I talked about it more in our interview with him which you guys will be seeing next.

Like right now, next?

[Hyiero]

Can't wait for tomorrow's video! Thanks a lot for doing these!

[DviddLeff]

VOIP sounds great, been playing Day Z and the VOIP feature in that looks awesome, even though I tend to avoid player interaction with anyone not on my TS for fear of betrayal!

[SniperSteve]

Great interview! :)


Thanks Hamma and Jennyboo, and of course, Jon!

Yeah - and regarding VoIP, hopefully there will be a system in place where if someone gets enough mutes on them within a few minutes it auto-mutes that person for a while. Basically have a community driven approach to solving the issue of annoying people. Because if 10 people take action against a person, they are obviously doing something mute-worthy.

[Kurtz]

Connections to a VOIP server have no adverse effect on your connection to the "game" server except for potentially on your end if your connection was unable to handle having both open. The game server isn't processing voice at all.

As for why you'd want to talk to a random player, maybe to help them learn the game? Maybe because you want ammo, or you saw an enemy squad around the corner and want to warn them? Maybe to coordinate fire on an enemy tank? Maybe because they're going the wrong way? There are lots of reasons.

Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

If all you want to do is interact with the friends you already came into the game with and the entire rest of the playerbase is just background noise to you, that's fine, you can turn it off, but I think you'd be missing out on one of the more unique aspects of Planetside.

Hey Higby thanks for replying and clearing that up for me. I've never coded a VOIP in one of my games and always assumed you would need more data in a packet to the server if you wanted to do voip.

That said, I spent the first year of my MMOFPS playing WW2online without voip and when I got on a TS it was a completely different world.

By the time I got to Planetside, I had my outfit set up channels for AIR, INFY and ARMOR with a command channel just for leaders. We had set up whispers to the leader of each division so only he could hear and would repeat the orders to the folks in his channel.

So, you could see why I would find VOIP in the game somewhat redundant as most large outfits will be better suited using their own VOIP systems.

But hey if it doesn't effect my ping, or how many players you can fit on a server then knock yourselves out. APB's ability to hear nearby enemies is a nice feature.

[kaffis]

Very nice video.

I'm rather disappointed at the answer on platoons.

I'm really concerned that caving on platoons appears to demonstrate a lack of confidence in the mission system, and including platoons will ultimately hinder the accessibility of the game in the sense that they keep wanting to talk about getting new players into the action and feeling like they're contributing quickly and lowering the steep learning curve/intimidation factor that MMOs can have towards people not accustomed to them.

[Bags]

I don't understand how platoons add to the learning curve and make the game less accessible...

[JPalmer]

They've said from early on that it will be like this (auto-generated missions), at least when the game goes live. Once players level up they should be able to cert into the mission system. Sounds like we'll be having our hands held in the early days, but that won't stop the outfits self-organising I would imagine.

I remember someone saying you can just say "fuck off" to the missions and do as you please. The mission system is there so the entire server isn't in one location.

[Mastachief]

being a persistent mmofps i would hope the addition of platoons is a given (lets not take a step back from the original) it will not detract from the mission system only serve to enhance players experience.

Also to note the feature would be nice for those outfits that choose to ignore the mission system.

[DirtyBird]

Thanks to Hamma and Jon for the interview.

on VOIP:
Planetside is a complex game that focuses almost entire on massive player coordination and cooperation, having experienced players who can say "Hey come over here the command room is this way" to someone whos lost without having to jump through hoops to do so goes a long way towards getting the player community more closely knit and ultimately make the game work as well as possible.

Some of this might happen but I dont foresee a great deal of it taking place.
If you are in a squad of random players and someone says "Hey come over here the command room is this way", the first hoop you have to jump thru is who the hell just said that and who the hell are they talking to?
Identifying voices can be hard enough when you know the people.
Not to mention players with obscure names that you cant pronounce.

I like the idea of trying to make the community more closely knit but imo this wont do much.

Anyway, not much use for those playing at a great distance from the servers, the delay is usually sub par but I look forward to testing it out and being proven wrong!

Thanks again for the interview.

[Higby]

Hey Higby thanks for replying and clearing that up for me. I've never coded a VOIP in one of my games and always assumed you would need more data in a packet to the server if you wanted to do voip.

That said, I spent the first year of my MMOFPS playing WW2online without voip and when I got on a TS it was a completely different world.

By the time I got to Planetside, I had my outfit set up channels for AIR, INFY and ARMOR with a command channel just for leaders. We had set up whispers to the leader of each division so only he could hear and would repeat the orders to the folks in his channel.

So, you could see why I would find VOIP in the game somewhat redundant as most large outfits will be better suited using their own VOIP systems.

But hey if it doesn't effect my ping, or how many players you can fit on a server then knock yourselves out. APB's ability to hear nearby enemies is a nice feature.

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.

[CuddlyChud]

Its weird that in Planetside the most vocal people consider in-game VOIP to be a bad thing or a waste of resources, but for BF3 people the lack of it in BF3 is like the biggest flaw.

Also, I remember in the early days of PS a lot of people wanted to use the built in VoIP, but it just lagged the game too hard to be useful. Plus it had terrible voice quality.

[Dreamcast]

Thanks to Hamma and Jon for the interview.

on VOIP:


Some of this might happen but I dont foresee a great deal of it taking place.
If you are in a squad of random players and someone says "Hey come over here the command room is this way", the first hoop you have to jump thru is who the hell just said that and who the hell are they talking to?
Identifying voices can be hard enough when you know the people.
Not to mention players with obscure names that you cant pronounce.

I like the idea of trying to make the community more closely knit but imo this wont do much.

Anyway, not much use for those playing at a great distance from the servers, the delay is usually sub par but I look forward to testing it out and being proven wrong!

Thanks again for the interview.

Im pretty sure his name will light up knowing who is talking to you

[SKYeXile]

everybody see's the problem with people getting the resources for only the continent they're on right?

[Kurtz]

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.
That (and replying to threads like these) are why you're the best ;)

[GunslingerX]

everybody see's the problem with people getting the resources for only the continent they're on right?

Everyone trying to get on the most profitable continent?

[xXGumpXX]

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.

the feature would be good but not that good as most gamers us Teamspeak or ventrilo to communicate , i would rather use TS than an in-game voip myself !

[GunslingerX]

the feature would be good but not that good as most gamers us Teamspeak or ventrilo to communicate , i would rather use TS than an in-game voip myself !

I'd say that's the case only because games have failed at creating a proper in game VOIP. The pros Higby has argued far outweigh any of the cons(cant think of any actually).

[Stardouser]

Everyone trying to get on the most profitable continent?

I would like to see Higbee tackle this question. If resources are earned based on land your empire owns on your current continent, will people be scrambling to abandon the continent on which your empire holds the least land?

[SKYeXile]

I would like to see Higbee tackle this question. If resources are earned based on land your empire owns on your current continent, will people be scrambling to abandon the continent on which your empire holds the least land?

yup prettymuch, there is something to be said that if you have less people on another cont tose resources would be divied by less people and thus you should in theory get more, but nothing divided be shit all people is still nothing. I would also like to know how resources are divided, surly not just "evenly" by the amount of people on content, bots and AFKers would have a feild day, it should be based of your contribution. earn 3% of the XP generated for your empire generated in the last tick? grats, you get 3% of the empires resource income.

[KTNApollo]

Everyone trying to get on the most profitable continent?

everybody see's the problem with people getting the resources for only the continent they're on right?

This...People will forsake the other continents in favor of the one that they own the most of.

[Dreamcast]

This...People will forsake the other continents in favor of the one that they own the most of.

I don't quite understand but....I get resources when Im on a certain Continent logged in to a game right?...so when I log off I get no resources?


Also the team gets an equal number of resources?....So I can just be in a continent doing nothing in the background meanwhile my buddies r getting me resources?

[SKYeXile]

I don't quite understand but....I get resources when Im on a certain content log in to a game right?...so when I log off I get no resources?


Also the team gets an equal number of resources?....So I can just be in a continent doing nothing in the background meanwhile my buddies r getting me resources?

thats what we dont know, and iv been dying to know, iv made several threads bringing this up but nobody else seems to care :/

Yea we dont know much about gaining offline resources, you will gain cert points offline if you're subbed i think though...or was that you always gain cert points but resources if you're offline? i doubt it since players ingame are only getting resourced based off the content they're on.

[Stardouser]

Just a guess, there must be two parts to resource gaining: One that's based on land ownership, which can be reduced based on owning little land, but a second supplemental bonus component based on capturing land and perhaps even per kill...

[PantherModern]

Best part of the video:
"We are just waiting for data and larger scale play tests at this point."
\o/

Planetside 2 is definitely probably going to be the best game ever. Keep up the great work everyone!

[SKYeXile]

Just a guess, there must be two parts to resource gaining: One that's based on land ownership, which can be reduced based on owning little land, but a second supplemental bonus component based on capturing land and perhaps even per kill...

there should never be a bonus, not a large one anyway for capturing land, its to open to exploits, there should only be resources for holding land.

In warhammer, they gave you renown for capturing an objective, this FAR outweighed the renown you could get from kills, i would only get 1-2 renown for most kills, capturing an objective i think was 250? either way, it was FAR more efficient to just run around, avoid combat and just trade BO's with the enemy than attempt to fight them. people could potentialy sit at a location and switch an objective back and fowards gain 100XP+ resources each time, if they're bad, this is far better XP than killing people...and mark my words, if there is an exploit like this to gain resources or XP fast, people will do it...there are servers in BF3 setup just for farming XP, theres no reason people wont find a nice quiet location on the map and try to pull the same shit.

[Papscal]

Great work Hamma i must say. First interview in a very long time with questions that actually asked the about what we really want to know. And its awesome that Weathers was so responsive to them, very little dodging the question which i expected alot of. More like this please.

PS, Patriots hat...really? :D

[KTNApollo]

there should never be a bonus, not a large one anyway for capturing land, its to open to exploits, there should only be resources for holding land.

In warhammer, they gave you renown for capturing an objective, this FAR outweighed the renown you could get from kills, i would only get 1-2 renown for most kills, capturing an objective i think was 250? either way, it was FAR more efficient to just run around, avoid combat and just trade BO's with the enemy than attempt to fight them. people could potential sit at a location and switch an objective back and fowards gain 100XP+ resources each time, if theylre bad this is far better XP than killing people...and make my words, if there is an eploit like this to gain resources or XP fast, people will do it...there are servers in BF3 jsut setup for farming XP, theres no reason people wont find a nice quiet location on the map and try to pull the same shit.

This. In SW:TOR the factions would trade capture points to farm PvP commendations on Ilum. The reward should be for holding land over time rather than just capping.

[Stardouser]

I understand what you're saying about the exploit possibility, but two things:
1. Isn't there supposed to be a maximum resource pool per person?
2. Unlike SW TOR which is an MMORPG where these exploiters might have only come to Ilum to do that, and not to actually engage in real PvP, would people really collaborate to let their enemy mutually build up some resource points?

[SKYeXile]

I understand what you're saying about the exploit possibility, but two things:
1. Isn't there supposed to be a maximum resource pool per person?
2. Unlike SW TOR which is an MMORPG where these exploiters might have only come to Ilum to do that, and not to actually engage in real PvP, would people really collaborate to let their enemy mutually build up some resource points?

enemy? you mean my free account on my other computer next to me.

[SgtMAD]

I'm telling you right now, the casual player isn't going to be able to rack up enough resources and when they all get on the forums and start complaining about not being able to pull vehs and how unfair it all is, the resources system will be gone.


and i hope Mr. Weathers recovers from whatever they are using medical pot to treat(or maybe not LOL), that dude was friggin baked.

[Stardouser]

enemy? you mean my free account on my other computer next to me.

Oh, right, yes...

[SurgeonX]

the feature would be good but not that good as most gamers us Teamspeak or ventrilo to communicate , i would rather use TS than an in-game voip myself !



I'd say that's the case only because games have failed at creating a proper in game VOIP. The pros Higby has argued far outweigh any of the cons(cant think of any actually).

Yep, totally agree.
If the in-game VOIP is embedded into the game correctly, and you can interact with players vocally and control that via the UI, then I can't see why you would still use Vent or TS.

I think a lot of the resitance to in-game VOIP is that it has never been done really well before, so people can't envisage how great it could be, and how it can be better than third party voice.

[KTNApollo]

I'm telling you right now, the casual player isn't going to be able to rack up enough resources and when they all get on the forums and start complaining about not being able to pull vehs and how unfair it all is, the resources system will be gone.

Devs don't give in that easily (even if people think they do).

[SurgeonX]

Great work Hamma i must say. First interview in a very long time with questions that actually asked the about what we really want to know. And its awesome that Weathers was so responsive to them, very little dodging the question which i expected alot of. More like this please.


Just to echo this too.
Great interview.

[LegioX]

Really surprised by the dedication and overall communication between the players/devs are with this game. Maybe i have seen so much crap over my years of gaming ie: bad developer communication, that i have been getting use to it?

[sylphaen]

Good interview ! I loved how hard both Hamma and Jon were trying to avoid saying the word beta.
:D

I love the contextual VOIP concept. Jon, please, if you read this, look if it's possible to make VOIP activate when entering/exiting vehicles. Dynamic chat channels for vehicle crews was the hardest behavior to set-up over teamspeak/ventrilo. When the fights get heavy and everyone start gunning for the first vehicles that respawn instead of their assigned teammate, there is no time to fight with the VOIP UI.

Another idea for platoon leaders: on the map menu, allow interaction with the map by selecting platoon players with the mouse and do stuff like VOIP chat with selected players.

Drag'n drop, ctrl, alt, keyboard shortcuts, etc... The easier it is to interact with the map, the more enjoyable and fluid the command experience will be.

About waypoints, allowing to add timers/countdowns would be nice to improve coordination too.

[DirtyBird]

Im pretty sure his name will light up knowing who is talking to you
Well I expect it probably will but its yet to be seen.
Your channel would want to be prominent on your screen to get your attention during a battle. Maybe they'll even have the actual player name above the players head flash, as well as an indicator on the mini map.

In PS1 we would use TS or maybe it was Roger Wilco back then.
During major events we'd split the squads into their own channels and have hot keys so squad leaders could talk to each other. Nothing worse than umpteen squads with different directives all giving instructions over the same channel.

So I see the need for decent communications and most outfits will already provide it and probably find it hard to wean themselves off it.
You are not likely to ditch your current comms unless there is greater benefit from the one provided in game.

For those not having an outfit or just casual it will certainly beat typing everything.

[SgtMAD]

Devs don't give in that easily (even if people think they do).

SOE is famous for caving in,I watched them do it over and over again in PS

[Bags]

Yeah, but they fired a lot of the original PS1 devs didn't they?

[SniperSteve]

Higby - if you can make in-game VoIP so good that there is no need for a private TeamSpeak server, then you are golden. I really think if you are going to do VoIP it needs to be all the way. Make it a no-brainier from the smallest clans to the biggest gaming organizations.

[Red Beard]

Good interview ! I loved how hard both Hamma and Jon were trying to avoid saying the word beta.
:D

I love the contextual VOIP concept. Jon, please, if you read this, look if it's possible to make VOIP activate when entering/exiting vehicles. Dynamic chat channels for vehicle crews was the hardest behavior to set-up over teamspeak/ventrilo. When the fights get heavy and everyone start gunning for the first vehicles that respawn instead of their assigned teammate, there is no time to fight with the VOIP UI.

Another idea for platoon leaders: on the map menu, allow interaction with the map by selecting platoon players with the mouse and do stuff like VOIP chat with selected players.

Drag'n drop, ctrl, alt, keyboard shortcuts, etc... The easier it is to interact with the map, the more enjoyable and fluid the command experience will be.

About waypoints, allowing to add timers/countdowns would be nice to improve coordination too.

Good stuff right here.

EDIT:

I firmly believe that creating a seamless and intuitive VOIP and mission system will be the difference between Planetside 2 being a great game, and Planetside 2 being one of the greatest games ever made.

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.

And when a guy has vision like this, and is using words like, 'ubiquitous', I believe we have the right man for the job! :D

[Ieyasu]

haha great video Hamma! I was totally hoping you would record a shot walking up to the building and you did!

[kaffis]

I don't understand how platoons add to the learning curve and make the game less accessible...
being a persistent mmofps i would hope the addition of platoons is a given (lets not take a step back from the original) it will not detract from the mission system only serve to enhance players experience.

Also to note the feature would be nice for those outfits that choose to ignore the mission system.
I'll just respond to both.

The way I see it is pretty simple. If the mission system works and works well, the mission system is how you coordinate multiple squads. This is a net positive over platoons, because there isn't a 3-squad limit -- if the mission system allows people to identify useful targets and/or activities and create a mission for it, as well as see missions already in existence... there's no limit to the number of squads that can be coordinated by comparing needed goals to goals that already are represented on the mission board (and, one hopes, "claimed" or "accepted" by squads that are visible to the commanders, too!).

So if you really have faith in your mission system, you don't *need* platoons. (And, Mastachief, if you can accept that argument, surely you can see why I included your quote, here, as if platoons aren't needed, then replacing them with something more powerful and more open isn't a "step back" from Planetside 1?)

So, why are they bad? Or, at least, a barrier to entry into the game and for some playstyles?

It's pretty simple. If you have two groups and they're operating on two different scales of organizational levels, one is going to be far more effective than the other, yes? (And if your answer is "No" -- at least, in light of other environmental or design systems in place in PS2 -- then there's no reason to complain at omitting platoons, right?)

Thus, it follows, that a new player, with no friends and no outfit, hits "autojoin squad" when he enters into the game, and is thrown together with a bunch of other outfitless, friendless players. This isn't a bad thing. In fact, it's really good from a social community perspective -- he meets new people and can form friendships. Perhaps an outfit will one day rise out of this squad.

However, it's just one squad. The guy in the mega-outfit joins a squad, and it's already platooned up. Now you've got 30 guys coordinating with the same tools and ease as the 10 guys who aren't playing wrong. The 10 guys have a much harder time, or discover that no matter what objective they go after, they're either beaten to the punch by the more effective group, or they're repelled by the more effective enemy group. It won't take much of this for them to decide that MMOs suck and this isn't the game for them.

FURTHERMORE, platoons greatly favor outfits large enough to regularly field full platoon(s), to the exclusion of smaller groups of friends from Real Life or clans from other games who want to play together. You may say "just roll them into a "real" outfit that's bigger," but ultimately, anytime you merge groups larger than 2-3 players into large groups, you create the potential for political messes, especially when they don't have a lot of shared history already. So, again, you run the risk of that smaller group not sticking around long enough to naturally form alliances, and larger outfits not wanting to just absorb them wholesale because what happens when one of the guys gets kicked for insulting the outfit leader, and then the rest of his friends make a stink?

These are just the more prominent reasons that I believe, in the presence of a fully functional and worthwhile mission system, including platoons is more headaches than it offers in benefit, and overly promotes some organizational playstyles at the risk of alienating new players and smaller outfits.



Finally, Higby, I'm 1000% behind your team's efforts to make a VOIP solution that integrates well and has the feature-set to legitimately replace 3rd party solutions for everybody. Having everybody in the same voice space does wonders for community, organization, and inclusion of new players and cross-organizational cooperation.

Make the VOIP solution so awesome, easy to use and manage, well integrated into the game, and useful that the people who stubbornly stick to their 3rd party servers are the ones at the disadvantage by isolating themselves and having to futz with their clunky out-of-game interface!

[Graywolves]

Only real problem with in-game VOIP is the high-pitched kids, the cursing ragers, the poor quality mics, the underwater mics, etc.

My personal use of in-game VOIP channels is how quickly I can mute those that I wish to. (instantly is barely quick enough)

[Stardouser]

Since battles are hundreds of players per side, what if there were a macro-scale mission that utilized 9 squads, and you wanted to send one platoon to do one part of it, another for another part, and so forth?

[Serpent]

Ugh... I agree, but fortunately there will be some sort of mute/ignore, etc, sort of button.

Aaaaaaaand... For god's sake the amount of horrible blasting music that some people is fun to blast through their headphones (dies)...

[bpostal]

Great interview, I got rather distracted around 11:13 as there were some damn dirty VS hanging about.

Edit: 11:33 is my fav part of the interview.

[kaffis]

Only real problem with in-game VOIP is the high-pitched kids, the cursing ragers, the poor quality mics, the underwater mics, etc.

My personal use of in-game VOIP channels is how quickly I can mute those that I wish to. (instantly is barely quick enough)
Hmm. "Auto-mute" pitch filter? Give us a slider for voice pitch -- anything > 600 Hz is automatically muted? :rofl:

[Malorn]

Great interview, and thank you Hamma & Jon for doing it!

On the VOIP thing, I don't think you'll ever get away from private servers, simply because people sometimes need to be online and talking outside of the game, particularly outfit leaders need to be accessible, and if we are relying 100% on in-game VOIP then we can't do that.

In this day and age I think it is simply expected that any serious outfit will have a private server for communication.

I think if the game handles the squad communication and the squad-leader communication within a platoon then they have made life easier for larger outfits. However I don't think a game could ever replace the need for an outfit voice comms server. Any real outfit is going to have that anyway, and I don't think a game can ever fully replace it since it has more uptime and flexibility than the game, and allows communication with players not in game.

However, I think the 30 player limit might be enough impairment to also still require private voice comms. Once an outfit requires multiple platoons then you have to deal with cross-platoon communication which the game won't support. Idea: Don't limit Platoons to 3 squads - limit it to something unrealistic for any outfit to manage, like 10 squads or 20 squads. Even 5 would be better. The higher the number of squads the less we have to worry about cross-platoon communication. It was a pain in PS1 for larger outfits to have that artificial limitation, I can only imagine it will be just as irritating in PS2.

For smaller outfits and for casuals it sounds peachy, but I have a hard time believing any serious large outfit would move away from the tried-and-true private server. The Enclave has used one for years in many games and knows how to organize it to work. I don't see the game ever replacing that.

[Hamma]

haha great video Hamma! I was totally hoping you would record a shot walking up to the building and you did!

I aim to please! :D

[SgtMAD]

I'll just respond to both.

The way I see it is pretty simple. If the mission system works and works well, the mission system is how you coordinate multiple squads. This is a net positive over platoons, because there isn't a 3-squad limit -- if the mission system allows people to identify useful targets and/or activities and create a mission for it, as well as see missions already in existence... there's no limit to the number of squads that can be coordinated by comparing needed goals to goals that already are represented on the mission board (and, one hopes, "claimed" or "accepted" by squads that are visible to the commanders, too!).

So if you really have faith in your mission system, you don't *need* platoons. (And, Mastachief, if you can accept that argument, surely you can see why I included your quote, here, as if platoons aren't needed, then replacing them with something more powerful and more open isn't a "step back" from Planetside 1?)

So, why are they bad? Or, at least, a barrier to entry into the game and for some playstyles?

It's pretty simple. If you have two groups and they're operating on two different scales of organizational levels, one is going to be far more effective than the other, yes? (And if your answer is "No" -- at least, in light of other environmental or design systems in place in PS2 -- then there's no reason to complain at omitting platoons, right?)

Thus, it follows, that a new player, with no friends and no outfit, hits "autojoin squad" when he enters into the game, and is thrown together with a bunch of other outfitless, friendless players. This isn't a bad thing. In fact, it's really good from a social community perspective -- he meets new people and can form friendships. Perhaps an outfit will one day rise out of this squad.

However, it's just one squad. The guy in the mega-outfit joins a squad, and it's already platooned up. Now you've got 30 guys coordinating with the same tools and ease as the 10 guys who aren't playing wrong. The 10 guys have a much harder time, or discover that no matter what objective they go after, they're either beaten to the punch by the more effective group, or they're repelled by the more effective enemy group. It won't take much of this for them to decide that MMOs suck and this isn't the game for them.

FURTHERMORE, platoons greatly favor outfits large enough to regularly field full platoon(s), to the exclusion of smaller groups of friends from Real Life or clans from other games who want to play together. You may say "just roll them into a "real" outfit that's bigger," but ultimately, anytime you merge groups larger than 2-3 players into large groups, you create the potential for political messes, especially when they don't have a lot of shared history already. So, again, you run the risk of that smaller group not sticking around long enough to naturally form alliances, and larger outfits not wanting to just absorb them wholesale because what happens when one of the guys gets kicked for insulting the outfit leader, and then the rest of his friends make a stink?

These are just the more prominent reasons that I believe, in the presence of a fully functional and worthwhile mission system, including platoons is more headaches than it offers in benefit, and overly promotes some organizational playstyles at the risk of alienating new players and smaller outfits.



Finally, Higby, I'm 1000% behind your team's efforts to make a VOIP solution that integrates well and has the feature-set to legitimately replace 3rd party solutions for everybody. Having everybody in the same voice space does wonders for community, organization, and inclusion of new players and cross-organizational cooperation.

Make the VOIP solution so awesome, easy to use and manage, well integrated into the game, and useful that the people who stubbornly stick to their 3rd party servers are the ones at the disadvantage by isolating themselves and having to futz with their clunky out-of-game interface!

I could tear this wall of text apart but why bother,I don't think this poster has any experience running an outfit.

I have run a couple outfits,famous outfits in PS, and we never had any of the problems this guy is talking about,his ideas about platoons have been proven wrong by so many different sized outfits in PS.

you want to nerf platoons so the smaller outfits and new players like the game better?

are you fucking kidding me? we want bigger groups , we don't want to see that playstyle dumbed down, we want it enhanced.

the idea that we can't have platoons because some ppl don't want to join an outfit and play like that is mindboggling.

your faith in the mission system is your choice, I was a cr5 on Markov that did alot of zerg herding and if you want to spend all that time typing up missions then go right ahead, I would rather not make my whole damn outfit sit at the rally point while i finish typing that one,last mission,I will stick with our mumble server and skip the typing

the problem about friends is ridiculous,they either stay or they don't,if they want to start up drama then they are gone, its a damn simple solution that I have used a ton of times,you would be surprised how many ppl will sell out that friend when it comes to backing them up when the friend has been an asshole,I have seen it so many times.

you don't talk about politics, its the quickest way to have ppl start fighting,you make sure everyone leaves the ego at the door,you save that shit for the forums,we are here to kill shit, not listen to some crackpot theory on Vent

so to sum all this up "The way you see it" is wrong and anyone that ever led more than 10 guys into a fight knows that.

[Malorn]

Agreed. Platoons are vital to success. Those who haven't run with large outfits or managed them don't really understand the gravity of the task.

[xSquirtle]

First thing I'm going to do, is scream really loudly to the person next to me while I play. That way they know what I need when I need it. I'm sure others will enjoy a portable in game radio that I'll bring as well.

[Malorn]

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.

Matt, I do believe there is a happy medium where in-game voice can be utilized by larger outfits.

Voice for a large outfit is usually multi-tiered to be effective. You have squad-level communications, because squads need to talk but the entire outfit doesn't need to hear details of what another squad is doing. Then you have the squad-leader tier where they coordinate with each other on where to ship the troops. Then you have the outfit-wide communication and announcements by the management who give broad instructions, like "recall to sanc to form up" or briefings. You also have just general chat that isn't organized where people shoot the shit when ops aren't going on.

The problems with squad communication are usually that you have to move people around into the right squads out-of-game in order to make the in-game squads function, and you have to set up multiple binds to allow squad-level communication using tools like Channel Commander from TS. If the in-game system is good enough to automatically handle the squad-level chat so outifts don't have to manage that part of the system then I think you will see outfits adopting it.

It's also beneficial for them to adopt it because it makes recruitment easier when a new recruit or pickup can just join in and automatically be plugged into the communication system. So that lowers barriers and can facilitate recruitment. That's all gravy.

If you nail that part of the system and make the intra-squad and intra-platoon communication system simple and natural and make it easy for squad leaders to talk and communicate then it becomes a beneficial tool. outside comms are still needed for things like general shoot-the-shit channels or for outfit-wide announcements, thought he latter could also be partially incorporated.

Ideally I see the perfect situation is where the game comms handle squad and platoon communication while the out-of-game comms handle outfit-wide communication. That makes it trivial for outfit leaders to utilize and manage people as they come and go and easily incorporate new players and recruits while still retaining all the power of a private communication server.

[Talented Maori]

What I got from that interview is that they need us to beta test for them so they can gain more info...., hey, I suppose I can help, if I have too :D

MAG on PS3 had good examples of leadership levels and different chat channels, worked really well for co-ordination of large groups. It also had defined squads (8 peeps), platoons (4xsquads [32peeps]) and companies (4x platoons [128peeps]) and with the chat channels being tiered it allowed for 'clean' communication between the leadership positions.

Jst my 2cents :D

[SKYeXile]

*stuff*

Iv been in alot of outfits, im currently in multiple ones for all different games, i agree with that some people just don't get along, infact in the larger ones they usually wont know eachother or dislike eachother, but they stay together for the epics or to win, whatever.

I lead the best order guild on my server for WAR, we did it with only 24 online people, the next games we played we wernt such a force because i had no desire in recruiting again and running an outfit of that size, we endd up allying with one of our enemys who we always respected in WAR and you;re right there were different social sects, but none of our guilds wanted to really recruit and run raids like that, for our lack of commitment and dedication we were less successful. I'm not going to complain about it though, i knew in advance how my choices would playout.

If you dont want to put in the effort and roll with an effective force in PS2 then you wont be a factor. we shouldnt limit platoons or squad functionality for because some casuals cant or dont want to get their shit together.

Also, for years FC ran undermanned, it didn't stop us, play better, pick your fight.s there always something to do for a small group in planetside, you may not be able to play that more tactical roll, but you can sure as hell still play the game and you wont be forced out be larger outfits. This isnt an MMO where as 6 guys and you face off against 24 people you get your face mopped up without killing anybody, this is planetisde, you fire at the fuckers and take as many bitches as you can down before they swarm you or if you're good or they're perhaps bad enough, you can fend them off.

[MgFalcon]

This by far was one of my favorite interviews, we finally got a great deal of information in regards to Command and the mission system.

Also... FUCK YEAH!!! - PLATOONS ARE IN!!!! (maybe, definitely) :lol:

[kaffis]

You know, whatever. Sure, I've never run an outfit of a hundred guys. But I ran an outfit with thirty or so in the first year of Planetside, and so, yeah -- I'm speaking from the other end of the spectrum.

I know when you get 15 guys on an evening, your outfit as at a serious efficacy disadvantage compared to the ones that roll multiple full platoons. And it was a constant source of tension in our outfit -- some of the guys got really frustrated at that and left, leaving others in the difficult choice of choosing which friends to "follow", etc. Several quit playing as that attrition broke up our group.

So, yeah, I think I can say it's a potential problem. It's perfectly fair for you to write those like us off as unimportant, but it's valid feedback that I hope Sony is willing to consider -- not everybody gravitates to the large outfit game (and I'm not going to stoop to your level and start calling you zergfits since you called us casuals).

Furthermore, I don't want large outfits being their insular selves because they've got ready platoon organization undermining the usefulness of the mission system.

If the large outfits aren't issuing missions (because they're using platoon organization, instead), then the commanders of smaller forces don't have the information to utilize the mission system well to *synergize* with the large outfits' operations.

I get that the large outfits want to be the gatekeepers of all Empire strategy -- but that's only fun for large outfits. And it doesn't have to be that way. The mission system is promising to be a gold mine of strategically valuable information, readily available and shared amongst organizations of all structures and sizes.

Also, whoever it was that said "I don't want to be typing up missions when I could just issue orders through Teamspeak" or whatever it was is an idiot. There's literally no way the Planetside devs will release a mission system that requires "typing out missions".

[SgtMAD]

go check it out,its in the cert tree for commanders,the ability for player generated missions

and in PS Ht ran a full platoon almost 24/7,we weren't zerging around,we were hotdropping on anything we could think of,hardly a zergfit

[Graywolves]

You know, whatever. Sure, I've never run an outfit of a hundred guys. But I ran an outfit with thirty or so in the first year of Planetside, and so, yeah -- I'm speaking from the other end of the spectrum.

I know when you get 15 guys on an evening, your outfit as at a serious efficacy disadvantage compared to the ones that roll multiple full platoons. And it was a constant source of tension in our outfit -- some of the guys got really frustrated at that and left, leaving others in the difficult choice of choosing which friends to "follow", etc. Several quit playing as that attrition broke up our group.

So, yeah, I think I can say it's a potential problem. It's perfectly fair for you to write those like us off as unimportant, but it's valid feedback that I hope Sony is willing to consider -- not everybody gravitates to the large outfit game (and I'm not going to stoop to your level and start calling you zergfits since you called us casuals).

Furthermore, I don't want large outfits being their insular selves because they've got ready platoon organization undermining the usefulness of the mission system.

If the large outfits aren't issuing missions (because they're using platoon organization, instead), then the commanders of smaller forces don't have the information to utilize the mission system well to *synergize* with the large outfits' operations.

I get that the large outfits want to be the gatekeepers of all Empire strategy -- but that's only fun for large outfits. And it doesn't have to be that way. The mission system is promising to be a gold mine of strategically valuable information, readily available and shared amongst organizations of all structures and sizes.

Also, whoever it was that said "I don't want to be typing up missions when I could just issue orders through Teamspeak" or whatever it was is an idiot. There's literally no way the Planetside devs will release a mission system that requires "typing out missions".


People are still going to leave because of numbers if they are annoyed at running with a group that has low numbers. It could be because your squad is not 30 people or because you don't have a full platoon.

Having more tools for organization to make commanding large groups of people more convenient isn't going to undermine public missions/commands.

The possible flaws many of us see in the mission system is possible exploits or limited purpose beyond aiming the zerg. But that's an entirely different topic than Outfit/Platoon organization. One isn't going to effect the other in usefulness.

[kaffis]

If all you're expecting out of the mission system is something to "aim the zerg," then it's pretty clear why you don't think platoons will undermine it.

I anticipate the developers setting the bar higher than that, though. The mission system has the potential to be a tool for squad commanders to coordinate -- to see what others are already doing, and identify areas they can either help that effort, or see that it's well in hand and place their own efforts in another useful spot.

That gets undermined when the information isn't complete because platoons or outfits are eschewing it in favor of their own operational communications.

By walling their own plans off from the mission system, such commanders using other channels to coordinate *lessen the ability of others to synergize with their plans.* I don't see how I can help make that any more clear.

If you set out from the start to ignore the mission system, then, yes, it will be nothing but a tool to aim the zerg. And that's a failure. Let's not build tools to make it easier to ignore the mission system from the outset.

If nothing else, I'd hope we can have beta start without platoons, then use directed feedback and testing to make the mission system awesome. Then, once the mission system is complete and well-designed, the need for platoon communications could be evaluated; if there's little to no need, then don't bother implementing it and *potentially* upsetting the value of the mission system. If it is still needed *despite* the mission system, it can be added easily in late beta.

How is that a bad proposal?

[SKYeXile]

yea i dont think there will be typing out missions that would be crazy, it will be as simple has hit afew tick boxes and clicking a location imo, shouldn't take too long, they will all be variable things we can change etc. imo i think it will function much like a voice macro in PS1.

[kaffis]

yea i dont think there will be typing out missions that would be crazy, it will be as simple has hit afew tick boxes and clicking a location imo, shouldn't take too long, they will all be variable things we can change etc. imo i think it will function much like a voice macro in PS1.
Yeah. Tick boxes or dropdowns. You make a good point, hotkeys like old voice macros could be pretty slick.

But in any event, it pretty much has to be that way for any rewards to be granted or the game to even recognize mission completion.

[SKYeXile]

Yeah. Tick boxes or dropdowns. You make a good point, hotkeys like old voice macros could be pretty slick.

But in any event, it pretty much has to be that way for any rewards to be granted or the game to even recognize mission completion.

ya i think it would give some options like

Command:
attack
defend
kill

where:
at hex
objective (eg inkanam node 4 etc)
grid
at waypoint
in vercinity of waypoint

for:
time
for xx kills
etc

then i dunno about rewards(if anyway), that maybe customisable but open to exploits potentially.

[Grognard]

Voice adds so much to the gameplay experience, but it's mostly the people who really love the game who get into using voice. Imagine if it was easy and ubiquitous, how much better of an experience the game would be for everyone. Obviously you have to be able to create custom channels, moderate them, turn off default ones and have quick ways to deal with people spamming you (friendly fire?) over it. I'd really love to make in-game VOIP in Planetside 2 robust and cool enough that you'll want to use it, and your clan will want to use it, so that way you're part of the same ecosystem as the guy whos trying the game for the first time and you can communicate with him easily and seamlessly. There are a lot of hurdles to jump over to make it happen, though.

Personally, for me, I think its very important to level the playing field. Outfits have always had the "voice-advantage" over squads/platoons that didnt. Now, that advantage is less, or gone, and I for one am gleaming with joy :rofl::D

[LtCarman]

That was a pretty solid interview...nice job Hamma and Jon! Just makes me even more excited about PS2. And I'm glad that we're finally going to see a well integrated VoIP system.

The only thing that's worrying me at this point is the auto-join squad system. It is definitely good to have the option there, but I hope that we can still form and join specific squads of our choosing. Now normally, I wouldn't be concerned about this, but it just brings back awful memories of BF3's beta where that was the only thing you could do. There was no option to manually join or create a squad.

[Bags]

If you can't make squads how could the auto-squad joiner put you in one?

[LtCarman]

If you can't make squads how could the auto-squad joiner put you in one?

The way the BF3 beta did it, when you couldn't join any more open squads, you automatically formed a new squad.

[Bags]

The way the BF3 beta did it, when you couldn't join any more open squads, you automatically formed a new squad.

I highly doubt this will happen. Auto-join is for those people who apparently exist that can't be assed to make their own squad or understand how to join one manually. The rest of us should be able to make our own squads.

[Graywolves]

I really can't see Platoons undermining Missions. You're going to want to place missions and use them so that your group actually gets rewarded for accomplishing the objective. This could actually harm coordinated group play from a leader's perspective as you might find a more valuable tactical target. But half your platoon has invested this time in the "Defend the outhouse" mission and it has 1-2 minutes left.

Now your team is divided in trying to win or do more than grunting vs gaining rewards.

Personally I don't think myself or my group would be effected by this too much as we would recruit players who prioritize fun and winning over farming.




As far as losing information from groups not being an open book or posting their missions...so what? Seriously. If you wanted to assess the battlefied I'm certain you can gather where the battle is happening anyways assuming we gain the proper map tools such as hot spots.

But seriously if a group decides that they want to do their own thing and strike behind enemy lines or w.e, so what? Any individual could do that too.


Telling an outfit of even 15 people that "We're doing this mission" isn't proper coordination. That's like just squading up and pointing everyone where to go with a waypoint and nothing more. So what's the point?

You're not gaining anything from coordinating together unless you can actually work in synergy by working together, getting to know each other, and having the proper tools to know where each other are. One of the most useful things about platoons is you had gold,purple, and orange 1-10. It's so easy to go "I'm down, orange 3 on minimap." as opposed to "I'm down, need rez, by the south east entrance behind some of those boxes, one of the green dots on your map."

If we went double digits with 20+ people it one squad it would just clutter up the map too far.


tl;dr - Platoon or higher command is a good tool that will possibly be required. If anyone would be harmed by the mission v outfit relationship (however unlikely there is a relationship to begin with) it would be the outfit.

-edit- There will never be synergy between coordinated outfits and scrubs. That's the nature of synergy, people who play together more often will play together better the more they do so. On top of this many outfits make their own SOP(Standard Operation Procedures) that in my experience are sometimes VERY different. The highest amount of synergy you're going to see between the zerg and Outfits is that one will influence the other in where to go from time to time (they both get to influence one another, some outfits won't, but some outfits will definitely try).

-editedit- We've already gone without platoons in the original Planetside before they were implemented. I don't feel Massing everyone together through the mission system provides a better benefit. It replaces the Command chat primarily but as far as coordination goes it's basically just a giant global waypoint.

[The Kush]

Thanks Hamma! Awesome vid. And I know you said its not final but I really hope the ttk is increased

[Logri]

YES! Thanks for asking the question I submitted and it's even more cool that I got the answer I was hoping for :D

Hamma + Jennyboo = new personal hero of the day!
Looking extremely forward to seeing more of your footage :)

[Captain1nsaneo]

Thank you for doing this, good stuff in that interview. Really glad to hear about platoons. Maybe we'll get battalions too, but we'll have to wait for beta to see if it's actually needed.

Quick note about the VoIP and about players. If you've not seen it yet I'd HIGHLY recommend watching this:
http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/harassment
The guys who do that series are consultants for game companies and know their stuff. That episode is their thoughts on dealing with verbal harassment commonly found in games and more importantly how to deal with it. The idea of auto mute for people who are muted by large numbers of the base is something that should definitely be looked at.

[LtCarman]

I highly doubt this will happen. Auto-join is for those people who apparently exist that can't be assed to make their own squad or understand how to join one manually. The rest of us should be able to make our own squads.

See, that is what everyone thought before the BF3 beta rolled out. No way would DICE do something as idiotic as that. DICE only decided to add that feature when the community went up in flames about it.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not comparing to SoE to DICE at all by any means. In my opinion, SoE is a great developer in my book. It's just that squads in FPSs are important to me and I want to make sure that it's done right. My best memories in gaming have come from playing PoE2 (a BF2 mod) on the Tactical Gamer server (wish I could've afforded a monthly subscription back then for PS1). It featured squad play that I have never seen in any other game since due the either a lack of a squad system or a barely functional one.

[Hamma]

Its a valid concern because as you said DICE failed and did it. I doubt SOE will make that mistake as important as Team Play is to PlanetSide.

[Stardouser]

DICE definitely tried to make a low flexibility squad system. It still is very low flexibility, in many many ways.