Sandbox Persistent World vs PvE and Arenas

[Dreamcast]

This is what is going to come down to.


The developing team is only so big so they are going to have to use their resources for only one of these things most likely.


So what do you guys want the Dev team to focus on?



Personally I want them to focus on a Sandbox persistent World, I want them to expand the Massive Warfare to Space with Starships and moon battles.

I want them to make outfits have more power and give empires have more consequences if they lose....I want Empire related continents...I want to raid a starship with troops etc.


or


Do you want PVE and Arena type server games with 50 vs 50 players...playing in their own little world?


I could see a PVE continent or planet working if is along side a PVP and part of the persistent world....no dumb horde mode crap.



So what do you guys want the devs to focus on?

[Senyu]

I'm going to let someone else handle this one

[Eyeklops]

I totally expect a bittervet bias on this poll. However I will hopefully break that by being the first vote with "Sandbox Persistent world...PVE and Arena maybe later"

[Goku]

Last thing I want is any sort of PvE. Waste of development time. I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of instanced PvP for outfits to go up against each other every now and then. However I don't want real match making to the point it becomes a true style of instanced gaming or a true alternative to the MMO part of the game. I'm all for a Sandbox type of game eventually as they stated thats were it may go. I would prefer keeping it at most a FPS centered one with maybe EVE like qualities.

[Tatwi]

Fighting on a asteroid or moon that has lower gravity could be fun. Blow someone up and watch their corpse blast clear off the rock and into space... of course, in this scenario I would have a great view of said rock while I drift away...

SOE is part of the Sony Playstation umbrella. Compared to just about any other MMO studio, SOE have the resources to do whatever they could possibly imagine, so I am not limiting them to the choices put forth in this poll.

[Conq]

Arena/PVE Only. Just cause.

[diLLa]

Missed the choice of Sandbox first, and arena maybe later without any kind of PvE.

[Sabot]

The sandbox persistent world with whatever it may include, hands down. Build on that and there's no telling where the game might end up. So many possibilities!

Speaking of adding things... a little OT this. But I tihnk developers shouldn't be afraid of taking things they've added (in patches or expansions and stuff like that) out of the game completely again if it isn't working well in world.

Typed a whole lot more on that, but I'm not going to hijack the thread so.. I took it out ;P

[gufftroad]

i wouldn't mind arenas too much as long as it doesn't detract from the sandbox pvp and honestly the only pve i could see working is maybe having a random base on the front line be taken over by a grey faction and which ever empire gets it back first get a boost of resources from it for a day or two

[Sirisian]

I'm going to let someone else handle this one

Might as well have a go at it since Dreamcast hasn't read the other threads on these subjects.


Personally I want them to focus on a Sandbox persistent World, I want them to expand the Massive Warfare to Space with Starships and moon battles.
Separating anything from the core continents is a failed idea. They tried it with the caves and battle islands and players did not enjoy it. Anything that removes the trinity of infantry, ground, and air is not possible. You cannot remove playstyles from the game and that's what space combat would do. It creates specialized areas that require new vehicles and other gameplay elements and adds very little to the core game.

This is actually the same idea why naval combat would never work in the game.


Do you want PVE and Arena type server games with 50 vs 50 players...playing in their own little world?
These are two separate concepts. I've probably been one of the strongest opponents of PvE. The community is nearly 100% against NPC based PvE (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=39055) (where players are fighting non player AI). The core game is PVP centric, and adding combat that pulls players away from that is detrimental to the gameplay.

Arena based gameplay where outfits fight each other has a few threads now. Bringing that up again here would be a waste of time.


I could see a PVE continent or planet working if is along side a PVP and part of the persistent world....no dumb horde mode crap.
Most people that want this don't refer to it as PvE. That has the connotation of getting experience or rewards for killing the wildlife. Refer to the creatures (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36234) and wildlife (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42687) threads for a rundown of people's basic ideas for this.

// edit, also thanks for making another worthless poll with biased answers. Can't even vote in it without supporting someone's pre-existing definition of PvE.

[fod]

not interested at all in PvE and arenas
im playing planetside for the big sandbox :P

[kaffis]

Your poll is invalid. There is no "none of the above" option.

I definitely don't want to see PvE.

I don't think Arenas would complement the core game mechanics, and I don't want core game mechanics or balance issues upset by catering to arena mechanics.

I don't think "persistent sandbox" play is really relevant or interesting, unless you include erecting destroyable cover and turrets via the engineer class "sandbox play." The last thing I want to see is big outfits deploying bases and then refusing to fight anywhere else because they need to defend their base. If what you mean by "sandbox" is following our own goals and objectives without quest-style tasks... well, we've already got that.

[DarkChiron]

What I really want to see is PvP arenas in Little Big Planet. Because, it makes sense in the context of what kind of game that is.

Right?

[The Degenatron]

PVP Sandbox first and foremost. That IS Planetside.

However, a couple of years down the road, I can see a place for "arenas". An example of something like this would be the Trafalgar, Spillway, and Seaside maps from Global Agenda (except bigger to acomidate 600 players 3x200). Winning these smaller maps could net global benefits and be a stage for real e-sport events.

http://www.theaveragegamer.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Global-Agenda-Scramble-Trafalgar.png
http://img5.mmo.mmo4arab.com/news/2011/04/08/globa_agenda/ga3.jpg
http://oyster.ignimgs.com/ve3d/images/05/88/58841_global_agenda_seaside_vantage.jpg

[Policenaut]

Can't say I'm a fan of the poll options, so I'll chime in with my .02 cents. First off I just want to say that I never want to see PvE. It's an MMOFPS and fighting against real players will always be far more exciting than than shooting NPCs. Second, I wouldn't mind arenas being added at a later date, but having said that I do not want them to ever take precedence over the persistent open world and large scale battles.

I think arenas would be a nice addition to have, for example, for outfits on the same faction to duke it out. It's not unheard of for clans/guilds/outfits to have rivalry among each other, and arenas would be a good outlet for that rivalry without racking up the grief points. But at the same time if they were never added in, I wouldn't be crushed.

To iterate, when I play Planetside 2, I play for massive battles and the persistent world. If I want to play an esport or arena style shooter, I'll play a game that's specialized for it.

[HeatLegend]

I dont think you've gotten the whole point of this game, it's an open world PvP-game, adding PvE elements to it or Arenas would just ruin it.

[p0intman]

This is what is going to come down to.


The developing team is only so big so they are going to have to use their resources for only one of these things most likely.


So what do you guys want the Dev team to focus on?



Personally I want them to focus on a Sandbox persistent World, I want them to expand the Massive Warfare to Space with Starships and moon battles.

I want them to make outfits have more power and give empires have more consequences if they lose....I want Empire related continents...I want to raid a starship with troops etc.


or


Do you want PVE and Arena type server games with 50 vs 50 players...playing in their own little world?


I could see a PVE continent or planet working if is along side a PVP and part of the persistent world....no dumb horde mode crap.



So what do you guys want the devs to focus on?
You don't belong in Planetside. Get out. Now.

[ArcGuard]

// edit, also thanks for making another worthless poll with biased answers. Can't even vote in it without supporting someone's pre-existing definition of PvE.

I had to register just to ask this question...

Pre-existing definition of PvE? There is only one definition for PvE, and that is Player Versus Environment. I don't understand what you mean by that...

[Tehroth]

Arena/PVE Only. Just cause.

Begone vile demon. Away with thee.

Anyways sandbox for the most part, maybe arena for outfit vs outfit, or some some small instanced zone that is pretty crucial for your faction and if your team can do well against the other faction outfit it could help your overall faction goals.

[Senyu]

Might as well have a go at it since Dreamcast hasn't read the other threads on these subjects.

I'll take a crack then.

Theres pro and cons to outfit wars. Having smaller areas such as caves, asteroids, spacestations that allows 2 outfits to duke it out or groups of outfits fighting other groups of outfits does seem fun. Reward-wise it can range from empire benifits to bragging rights. But this removes the lonewolf players from the equation. The game is supposed to support your style of gameplay be it outfit or no outfit. One remedy I can imagine is the outfit wars can have "mercenary" hires of non-outfit players to be randomely picked from a volunteer pool. These players may also be booted from the battlefield by high ranking players vote if a mercenary player is being unable to group play.

On responce of a naval comment eariler, naval combat could be in the game. It simply requires a map "desgined" for naval combat. Not to say the map/continent is pure water but is a mixture of sea and islands allowing land and sea combat to take place. Even more so if there are some bases on the water itself. I am confident the dev's could create a balanced map including naval combat without it being centered to heavily on one side.

[gigafunk]

Arena play is the dumbest idea I have heard(worse than maxes driving cause they didnt say they wouldnt) go play quakelive or one of the tons of arena games already out or in development (Bullet Run or whatever soe is also deving is for YOU). Tribes is out, you should "gotta go fast" right on over there if you want arenas. Planetside is not arenas. Planetside is the next level of tactical war simulation. The brain game involved in arenas is a 6 and planetside is a 10. And, unfortunatly for anyone that wants an arena or instance, the devs know that. I doubt SOE corporate decision makers would waste money developing planetside into game with arenas, AND develop bullet run. Go there and stop trying to ruin planetside, it wont work, these devs are smart and understand what planetside IS.

[Bittermen]

I would like to see new environments first but I don't have a problem with PvE or Arena style gameplay.

Not like you have to partake.

[HeatLegend]

I would like to see new environments first but I don't have a problem with PvE or Arena style gameplay.

Not like you have to partake.

Just because you don't partake doesnt mean it wont change the game completly. It's a very high risk and last but not least of all not Planetside.

[Rago]

I dislike the Idea of PVE in Shooters.
PVP 4 all ! Fighting The TR and the NC should be Human against Human.

[Kran De Loy]

Two Points:

First:
Good First Person Shooter PvE can not be done with current technology (as in the software kind).

It works in single player games because it's all geared towards a single player and the game is all too often on rails or tunnels. Getting NPC AI targets made to cope for potentially 100's of players at once without completely over powering the NPC's is rather too difficult to to say the least.

Also PS2 is about the player's being the content, I would much rather that aspect of the game is never split between the PvP'ers and the PvE'ers.

Second:
Arena matches to cater to the eSports crowd is an okay objective after much of the rest of the game is finished IF there is enough hue and cry for it. Being able to arrange set matches between two or more teams to fight over a single instanced base is possible. However as I really dislike seeing the players within PS2 split for any reason I really much insist that such an Arena would not happen unless there is more than enough demand for it.

[The Degenatron]

Arena play is the dumbest idea I have heard(worse than maxes driving cause they didnt say they wouldnt) go play quakelive or one of the tons of arena games already out or in development (Bullet Run or whatever soe is also deving is for YOU). Tribes is out, you should "gotta go fast" right on over there if you want arenas. Planetside is not arenas. Planetside is the next level of tactical war simulation. The brain game involved in arenas is a 6 and planetside is a 10. And, unfortunatly for anyone that wants an arena or instance, the devs know that. I doubt SOE corporate decision makers would waste money developing planetside into game with arenas, AND develop bullet run. Go there and stop trying to ruin planetside, it wont work, these devs are smart and understand what planetside IS.

You're wrong about it not being "Planetside" or unsupported by the Devs. Two words: Core Combat. Yea, core combat was a failure, but it shows the mindset of the devs. Arenas are possible in the Planetside universe, whether you like it or not.

And look at my post above, there are some viable instances of what arenas could be in Planetside. A very important factor is that they could offer a compromise to the players who want "a decisive victory". Having an arena allows one empire to win completely (first driving off one empire and then the other) and to secure that arena for X amount of time absolutely does appeal to many Planetside players (and devs I'd bet).

Something I don't think many of you have realized is "This is IT." This truely is the next evolution in first person shooters. PS1 was ahead of it's time, but this time, it's set to change the way we game forever. The release of Planetside 2 will easily be placed in the same pantheon of gaming as Wolfenstien 3D, Doom, and Half-Life. Games that fundimentally changed the way people reguard what FPS gaming is. Frankly, the management of SOE would be fools to not be developing Forgelight projects that reach into every gaming genre.

"Get your popcorn ready." - Terrell Owens

[Baneblade]

Where's the 'No' option?

[Eyeklops]

Where's the 'No' option?
"Sandbox persistent World only...no PVE or Arenas"

[Akrasjel Lanate]

This is weird poll.

No PvE or arenas.

[Baneblade]

"Sandbox persistent World only...no PVE or Arenas"

Okay, where is the option that doesn't turn PlanetSide into a different game entirely?

[Eyeklops]

Okay, where is the option that doesn't turn PlanetSide into a different game entirely?

Seriously?...Planetside IS a sandbox game..LOL, classic.

[Baneblade]

Seriously?...Planetside IS a sandbox game..LOL, classic.

Your definition of sandbox is embarrassingly limited. PlanetSide doesn't qualify as a sandbox.

[DarkChiron]

Your definition of sandbox is embarrassingly limited. PlanetSide doesn't qualify as a sandbox.

There's sand and there's boxes.

What else do you need?

[Bags]

PvE is a waste of time, and in any modern game is only hard because it's difficult getting 9-24 other people who aren't brain dead.

[Baneblade]

There's sand and there's boxes.

What else do you need?

:lol:

[Eyeklops]

Your definition of sandbox is embarrassingly limited. PlanetSide doesn't qualify as a sandbox.

Please define "Sandbox game" using some sort of reference that would disprove Planetside being a "Sandbox game."

Not that wiki is all knowing, but...

"An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1]

The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3]. "Open world and "free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.

Sandbox emphasises a paradigm where, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to do as they wish creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.

Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity."

Lets see. Is Planetside an open world, YES. Is there any "right way" to play Planetside, NO. Is the entire world (mostly) available for the player to go to at will, YES. Is Planetside "on rails", NO. It doesn't have to be "Perfect World" in order to be considered a "sandbox game."

[infected]

arena and rpg pve won't get traction ever.

you will have a constant flow of players posting against it.

[JxP]

No PVE. If we have PVE then before you know it you will see shouts like "Looking for medic for 24 man alien tower raid" and that raid will require you to stay online for 5 hours to complete lol.

Not to mention there are very few games that properly balance classes when you have PVP and PVE on the same server.

[Baneblade]

Please define "Sandbox game" using some sort of reference that would disprove Planetside being a "Sandbox game."

Not that wiki is all knowing, but...

"An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1]

The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3]. "Open world and "free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.

Sandbox emphasises a paradigm where, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to do as they wish creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.

Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity."

Sandbox is a subtype of the 'open world' and 'free roaming' types. It is generally meant to imply the ability to shape the world itself, such as EVE Online and its ever increasing sandboxiness or DarkFall Online which let you build and destroy cities and empires.

Sandbox games 'provide the sand' and let the player build the gameworld. That is how they are supposed to work anyway. PlanetSide is a preconstructed world with literally the only interactions being between players and some control points. Not a sandbox.

If we could build bases and destroy bases, PlanetSide would almost qualify.

[fod]

Please define "Sandbox game" using some sort of reference that would disprove Planetside being a "Sandbox game."

Not that wiki is all knowing, but...

"An open world is a type of video game level design where a player can roam freely through a virtual world and is given considerable freedom in choosing how or when to approach objectives.[1]

The term "free roam" is also used, as is "sandbox" and "free-roaming";[2][3]. "Open world and "free-roaming suggest the absence of artificial barriers,[4] in contrast to the invisible walls and loading screens that are common in linear level designs.

Sandbox emphasises a paradigm where, as in a physical sandbox, the user is entertained by his ability to do as they wish creatively and with there being "no right way"[5] of playing the game.

Generally open world games still enforce some restrictions in the game environment, either due to absolute technical limitations or in-game limitations (such as locked areas) imposed by a game's linearity."

Lets see. Is Planetside an open world, YES. Is there any "right way" to play Planetside, NO. Is the entire world (mostly) available for the player to go to at will, YES. Is Planetside "on rails", NO. It doesn't have to be "Perfect World" in order to be considered a "sandbox game."

yeah i agree planetside is about as sandbox as you can get

id also like to know the other definition of sandbox that makes planetside NOT a sandbox game

[Karrade]

Taking people out into arena-like places, in a certain expansion, split the player base in PS1, which didn't help keep the massive battle feel intact.

1 on 1, 2 on 2, or Squad on Squad dueling arena's with rank tables however, I am not totally against, but I still think you may encounter the same issues once again.

PVE - Unless clever PVE is designed no. Clever PVE - Supporting units for low population factions. Clever, unpredictable, random AI invasions and such like will work one day in a game, where the devs realise that the same old battle tactics or events get stale, but I don't think planetside needs it, not when all these players are here to generate their own content. Did you ever play Tabula Rasa, great scope, but was boring as heck after a month as the tactics and events of the AI enemy attacks never changed.

Why not keep giving them ways to generate it ;) instead of AI?

NB Support units would be turrets in this case, which required less AI, but the same balance can be achieved with player health bonuses anyway.

[infected]

sandbox has different terms depending on the genre. in a single player rpg the term means something totally different. apples and oranges. just sayin

[QuantumMechanic]

How does the Planetside lore accomodate PVP arenas? I just don't see anything "sporty" about the war on Auraxis.

Arenas would just distract from the point of the game. As would an AI faction. Instead of trying things that could hurt core gameplay, let's focus on steadily making core gameply more fun (and new, but new in a way that works with the game).

[Sirisian]

Pre-existing definition of PvE? There is only one definition for PvE, and that is Player Versus Environment. I don't understand what you mean by that...
I kind of alluded to this in my post, but many people think of PvE as humanoid NPCs doing the rolls of players. Others view it as MMORPG creatures that players kill for experience and loot. Others view it as events where NPCs or creatures attack bases. A very small subset of the community views it as wildlife (passive or hostile) between bases, where dying to them is akin to running into a rock.

Because of all these different "pre-existing" definitions of PvE that people hold onto it's very difficult to have a conversation about this. Many hold onto misconceived ideas about performance because they are thinking of one idea where NPCs or creatures are in the middle of every base battle taking up bandwidth and rendering. Others fear that they'll detract from the PvP gameplay and any mention of the topic is heresy.

I linked three threads on the subject to show people's varying thoughts and definitions of what PvE meant to the community. If you read them you'll understand why this conversation is impossible to have without clearly defining what type of implementation one is talking about. Since Dreamcast didn't, it's impossible ascertain whether it's a good idea or not. Even then, most people don't read the original post or following discussion so trolls can easily sidetrack such a discussion.

For me personally, I'm 100% against humanoid AI in the game. I prefer living environmental dangers between bases in the form of hostile creatures with no reward. Dying to them would be akin to running into a cactus. (You'd need to read the threads to get an idea of what I mean. It's very difficult to summarize here). I viewed them as mobile base turrets outside of bases with abilities. You'll see from the other threads that everyone has their own view on hostile and passive creatures and the proper (or improper) implementation. (For instance, how close to the base they can get, or how powerful they'd be, or how fast they'd respawn, what type of alien creatures, etc.)

[Pillar of Armor]

NO PvE, this isn't firefall, or WoW, or Eve... NO Arena! This isn't battlefield, it isn't halo, it isn't TF2, it isn't CoD, it isn't CS, it IS PlanetSide. There are games for Arena and PvE play styles and PlanetSide is not that game. PlanetSide is a unique concept and I'd rather see the dev team put all of there efforts into making the game what it is: A massive first person shooter with massive battles in an open world.

Nuff said...

[Karrade]

I kind of alluded to this in my post, but many people think of PvE as humanoid NPCs doing the rolls of players. Others view it as MMORPG creatures that players kill for experience and loot. Others view it as events where NPCs or creatures attack bases. A very small subset of the community views it as wildlife (passive or hostile) between bases, where dying to them is akin to running into a rock.

Because of all these different "pre-existing" definitions of PvE that people hold onto it's very difficult to have a conversation about this. Many hold onto misconceived ideas about performance because they are thinking of one idea where NPCs or creatures are in the middle of every base battle taking up bandwidth and rendering. Others fear that they'll detract from the PvP gameplay and any mention of the topic is heresy.

I linked three threads on the subject to show people's varying thoughts and definitions of what PvE meant to the community. If you read them you'll understand why this conversation is impossible to have without clearly defining what type of implementation one is talking about. Since Dreamcast didn't, it's impossible ascertain whether it's a good idea or not. Even then, most people don't read the original post or following discussion so trolls can easily sidetrack such a discussion.

For me personally, I'm 100% against humanoid AI in the game. I prefer living environmental dangers between bases in the form of hostile creatures with no reward. Dying to them would be akin to running into a cactus. (You'd need to read the threads to get an idea of what I mean. It's very difficult to summarize here). I viewed them as mobile base turrets outside of bases with abilities. You'll see from the other threads that everyone has their own view on hostile and passive creatures and the proper (or improper) implementation. (For instance, how close to the base they can get, or how powerful they'd be, or how fast they'd respawn, what type of alien creatures, etc.)

Yeah I view the AI as turrets as well, because few developers (apart from AI War and a few others) have ever built a decent a AI. Still turrets have their place well and good, automated systems here and there for flavor.

Now you mention it wildlife doesn't sound all that bad in this kind of game, something moves - you shoot it but then realise its just a harmless animal, but you've given away your position! However if it cost serve lag then it'd be pointless, unless it didn't impact much.

AI War however, if you've not played it and want to see what a -good- AI can really do, check it out. - No fancy graphics but you die hard strat fans may well like it :). http://www.arcengames.com/w/index.php/aiwar-features

[Infektion]

why is this a thread?

[Eyeklops]

Sandbox is a subtype of the 'open world' and 'free roaming' types. It is generally meant to imply the ability to shape the world itself, such as EVE Online and its ever increasing sandboxiness or DarkFall Online which let you build and destroy cities and empires.

Sandbox games 'provide the sand' and let the player build the gameworld. That is how they are supposed to work anyway. PlanetSide is a preconstructed world with literally the only interactions being between players and some control points. Not a sandbox.

If we could build bases and destroy bases, PlanetSide would almost qualify.

Well, I would say that our definition of a "sandbox game" is different. However, I provided at least one reference, and a logical explanation as to why Planetside is a sandbox game. Where's yours? Again, provide me with at least one reference that would disprove Planteside being a sandbox game, other than your own opinion.

[Crator]

I voted 'Sandbox persistent world...Pve along side PVP later' with the below in mind...

Most people that want this don't refer to it as PvE. That has the connotation of getting experience or rewards for killing the wildlife. Refer to the creatures (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showthread.php?t=36234) and wildlife (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42687) threads for a rundown of people's basic ideas for this.

[Sephirex]

Well, I would say that our definition of a "sandbox game" is different.

I would say so. Looking around the internet, it seems your definition is not the commonly accepted definition, so you're probably going to be fighting a losing battle against the hordes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonlinear_gameplay#Sandbox_mode
http://www.giantbomb.com/sandbox/92-453/games/
http://gamingbolt.com/top-7-sandbox-games-of-all-time

[Baneblade]

Well, I would say that our definition of a "sandbox game" is different. However, I provided at least one reference, and a logical explanation as to why Planetside is a sandbox game. Where's yours? Again, provide me with at least one reference that would disprove Planteside being a sandbox game, other than your own opinion.

That wiki should have the word 'sandbox' scrubbed from it.

[Reefpirate]

I am a big Global Agenda fan... But their PvE was totally terrible and really took too much focus away from the PvP. No PvE in Planetside 2 ever, please, for the love of God.

The only PvE I would tolerate and/or encourage would be player versus cactus.

Arenas might be kind of fun, but I think there should be zero rewards for playing in an arena to make sure that the persistent world is where all the real action happens.

[Sephirex]

One of the reasons 2000 players is even possible is because all the processing of keeping AI creatures up and running is not on the table. If we do see PVE areas, expect to see player populations curtailed accordingly.

[Arovien]

Sandbox persistent world, arenas laters. I like to keep an open mind :)

[Eyeklops]

That wiki should have the word 'sandbox' scrubbed from it.
It's a public wiki...go do it then.

[OutlawDr]

There already is PvE.
Just go to some hill snipers love to camp out at, and farm away.

[bullet]

No PvE.
No arenas that split the community.

How about the devs/etc work on adding new continents, new content, new vehicles, new weapons, balance everything, squash bugs, manage the game and work on the sandbox deal if at all possible with this engine which then leads to more work that can be done with developing stuff for the sandbox.

The poll is biased to hell anyways.

[GhettoPrince]

If your expecting PvE and classic MMO mechanics than you fundamentally misunderstand what Planetside is.

[Sephirex]

I think Arenas would really revitalize this dying game!

Oh wait.

Not the Diablo 3 forums.
/facepalm