A bet for GU09

[Hamma]

My point is they have shown absolutely no indications since the Fan Faire reveal that they intend to move into more sandbox features.

I'm not really interested in debating it - I believe they are moving in the wrong direction overall and I really don't think anyone will be able to change my mind but the developers.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

My point is they have shown absolutely no indications since the Fan Faire reveal that they intend to move into more sandbox features.

Well, sandbox is a pretty wide concept. But a sandbox with boundaries is still sandbox.

I'm not really interested in debating it - I believe they are moving in the wrong direction overall and I really don't think anyone will be able to change my mind but the developers.

Fair enough.

[Hamma]

Well not even just sandbox, but really they haven't said much at all about anything except implementing more PS1 features and new weapons/camos. :P

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Well not even just sandbox, but really they haven't said much at all about anything except implementing more PS1 features and new weapons/camos. :P

Hmm... Depends what time period you'd pick, honestly I'd disagree somewhat with the "nothing" bit. The new MAX abilities for instance, the Harasser features with rumbleseat for instance, the Rush lane itself is more BF3 than PS1 (it's like they took a PS1 lattice line and made intermittent stepping stone spots on it). That's not really PS1 as much as it is an evolution inspired by it.

The most important thing now is to ensure base design and core systems are right. I mean, it would be great if they could be looking at naval warfare and seamless world transition and all that? But we're not in a state where that sort of discussion is relevant yet. :/
Reason for Editing:



Continental gameplay first has to be finalised and in that respect you'll see a lot of PS1 references because it's pretty related. When they move on they can start innovating in completely new features again. I mean, a lot of debate right now is balance and flow related. Once that is out of the way, we could start looking at the ultimate sandbox things.

Like that player created base thing: if they create continents with premade lattices and premade determinations of what size facility needs to be somewhere and let players build their own bases within assigned construction territory, that's still more sandbox than if you get everything pre-fab.

Even if creating your own regions and all would be more sandbox, the chances of that creating good flow are really low. So it's questionable if that's wanted.

We're just currently going through a reflection and refinement phase in development and tbh, I think we're seeing some results that aren't random, but really do add to the context and flow (even if it needs work and it doesn't mean it's a direct port from PS1, PS1 feedback can also be used to avoid minor and bigger problems and refine systems before trying them instead of copying them directly).

Regardless, it's a really tough job for the devs. Few games have this complexity and range of target groups (by which I don't mean previous games, but playstyle preference, groupsize, etc).

[Crator]

I remeber back when PS2 first release there were some very good threads posted about putting the lattice in to PS2. Those ideas were shot down by Smed himself. Said they would never do it. Interesting how things change.

Originally Posted by Hamma

I have no problem with PlanetSide 1, what I do have a problem with is fans unable to let go of the game and SOE now essentially attempting to make PlanetSide 2 into PlanetSide 1 and I personally think that is a huge mistake that will turn this game into another niche game just like PS1 that will die in a few years or less.

This statement begs the question "Why are the devs now implementing things that were in PS1 into PS2?" I like to think that the devs wanted to try something new at first in PS2. Take for example the G-AMS when the game first came out. That was soon switched to the S-AMS. They just wanted to try different things, slowly, and then swing back around with PS1 ideas if they didn't work. That's what seems to be happening now. If there had been more beta testing time, we would have hammered these things out then. But alas, they had to release on a time schedule so that's what happened.

Originally Posted by Hamma

I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I'd rather see PlanetSide 2 going outside the box with more Sandbox features rather than adding Lattices and random PlanetSide 1 features.

Originally Posted by Figment

Random features?

And even a sandbox needs limits, otherwise it becomes too niche. Especially on this scale: you'll see too few people in a fight, too much dispersion.

That's a very good point Figment. Take SWG as an example of "too niche". Aren't they using player feedback via a voting system to determine what they are working on?

[Dragonskin]

The problem with true sandbox games is that most players want direction. When Planetside 2 launched it was extremely sandbox.. to the point that new players lost interest due to lack of direction.. it literally threw you into a massive game with no instructions. Both of my hardcore gamer friends quit PS2 shortly after launch because they didn't know what to do. Even though I got them into a outfit and we ran together some.. in off hours when they wanted to solo and they were absolutely lost. I was in the same boat in beta, but luckily I got into the 666th Devil Dogs and they basically introduced the game to me.

Sandbox is fun, but it's niche. EVE is sandbox and while it's still healthy it's a very niche group that play it.

Generally people that play FPS games want specific rule sets. Team death match, sabotage, capture the flag... stuff that Planetside 2 doesn't offer. People also like to have determined ends to a match... which doesn't happen in Planetside 2.

But you know all this. There is still enough freedom within Planetside 2 to do a lot of things... but unless you do want to be like a EVE or Planetside 1.. you need to have direction for the FPS masses to join in. I think part of the reason that Planetside 1 was so small is because it was kinda ahead of it's time. MMOs were niche to begin with and FPS games were not sandbox at all.

[Maidere]

Unfortunately, the game was doomed to be niche when they announced the launch date. If they wanted to not make it niche on a long run they had to spend another year or more on developement of the core concepts.
Now SOE found themself in situation where every major change in any direction will lead to huge uproar on forums and pop drop.

ps: Planetside 2 is not a sandbox game and has never been a sandbox game.

[Chaff]

.
At least they're still listening to the community, and they are trying different things. As long as that continues, there's reason for hope.

It's a two-edged sword. I miss a lot of features & elements from PS1, but I don't miss the entirety of PS1. I remember how monotonous the gamplay became. The first year-and-half I was prety much in gaming Heaven, then the monotony slowly eroded the huge impression the early stages of the game imprinted in my brain. I think year 1.5 to year 3.-0 was when my rose-colored glasses unfogged. I was in denial. I kept hoping it would "feel the same" (as the early days). It never did. BFRs came in when a lot of guys were going thru their own form of burnout. BFRs took much of the blame. BFRs were nothing more than an unpopular attempt to spice-things-up. The game was dying with or without the introduction of BFRs.

I agree with earlier posts that they tried to make PS2 different. It needed changes. It needed more varied gameplay. Call me crazy, but I think adding 2 more Empires might do the trick. It'd be a hell of a risk. The color schemes would need cool heads to help keep 5 different Empires unique from each other. 5 Empires might be enough to eliminate 33% / 33% / 33% gridlocks.

Maybe they neeed to go out-of the-box more with their thinking. Perhaps all classes should not be present in every empire. Limit Light Assault to VS. Limit Maxes to TR. Limit HA to NC, ...... stuff like that. Add two new empires. Make one of them super-stealth guerilla spicialists. Radically differnt weapons & tactics for this Empire (new). .... food for thought ....

Let's say they did go to 5 Empires. Maybe some of the "events" could be dictated in-game..... the game decides which 2 Empires are allied vs the other 3 to take Amersih within X amount of time ....

Purists want 100% PvP, but I think an open mind is good in this area. Perhaps some random AI attacks (from who/what is left for another day) would help prevent the game from being too predictable or becoming boring. It'd be interesting how they could bring in "outside" forces that would completely stop continental tactics between the Empire factions.

I'd like to see Sony advertise PS2 more. I think they could bring a LOT more players in to check it out. I think they're being penny-wise, but dollar foolish in this regard.

The potential of this game is still almost too much to grasp. Hopefully there's enough money to keep enough devs employed to keep the game evolving.
.

[Figment]

More empires would confound things with all the camos.

PvE... is a very tricky thing. Player placed turrets is one thing, AI player replacement units... doesn't sit right with me. I'd personally be okay with wildlife though. It would make the environment more emersive and that's not a bad thing.

[RykerStruvian]

I thought wildlife was one of the things they were working on? Along with weather?

[Snydenthur]

Originally Posted by Chaff

Let's say they did go to 5 Empires. Maybe some of the "events" could be dictated in-game..... the game decides which 2 Empires are allied vs the other 3 to take Amersih within X amount of time ....

Purists want 100% PvP, but I think an open mind is good in this area. Perhaps some random AI attacks (from who/what is left for another day) would help prevent the game from being too predictable or becoming boring.

Things like more empires, more continents etc just won't work until they manage to get a solid playerbase. At the moment, only recommended servers really get new players. They can have peak population of over 5000 players. When the server isn't recommended, it quickly dies under the original size. They should first try to keep all the new players, then think about adding things that need a bigger population.

There should never be AI in multiplayer shooter. That would ruin the game. If I want to play against computer, I can find much better games for that purpose.

[Gimpylung]

Can someone clarify what exactly is meant by 'Sandbox' with regard to PS2.

I know how it's defined with regard to games like Minecraft, GTA, Skyrim, Farcry 3 or Borderlands.

Generally, I understand it meaning that the player has the option to explore, loot, build, arse about, have adventures or just generally be creative with no particular goal aside from those the player sets him/herself.

I can see how elements like this could be added to a (semi)MMOFPS games like Firefall, I have absolutely no idea how they apply to a purely PvP game like PS2. Is there another kind of sandbox definition that I am unaware of?

Is sandbox a code word for PvE elements?

[Figment]

Sandbox is freedom to play the game you want to play it. Think FarCry.

[Assist]

Originally Posted by Gimpylung

Is sandbox a code word for PvE elements?

Sandbox is usually in reference to character freedom. Usually means some sort of advancement system, crafting system, or building system that is completely optional to a player. I'm not entirely sure how it would work in PS2 either. The entire point of sandbox games is that there is no set goals, no developer created objectives, etc. The goals are created by the players, with rewards decided by the developers.

I think what people want in PS2 as a 'sandbox' is more along the lines of what Darkfall and EVE have as PvP sandbox style games, which is more player driven politics, advancement, and bases. In Darkfall Clan A holds a city, the city has X rewards(resources/location), and Clan B wants the city. Clan B doesn't have the ability to take the city themselves, so they enlist others to help out. Clan A doesn't have the ability to defend the city themselves so they upgrade it through other means and defend it by enlisting others. Basically the entire process is more defined by the amount of interaction the players have with each other and the amount of time/effort they put into keeping their cities. The problem with a system like this is it's really dependant on the city having some sort of reward for holding it that is a real benefit to the outfit/clan that holds the city. Also a problem is that the game is faction based, where you really don't choose your faction mates, unlike EVE and DF which are player created alliances. So who gets which city becomes an issue. Right now there's nothing like that in this game in terms of bonuses for maintaining a base. Though there certainly could be, such as implementing a real resource system, possibly a customization system based on some sort of resources, etc.

But down to basics the number 1 part of a sandbox is player created content(using the tools developers have given them). There's not really any of that in this game, but there is the possibility for it and certainly a demand for it throughout the MMO community.

[Gimpylung]

That doesn't really enlighten me Figgy tbh. Is it freedom to ignore the TR tank column thats about to steamroll through the nice game of hopscotch I'm having with Predator4.

I'm not being facetious, I don't know what level of freedom is meant within the confines of a persistent PvP wargame.

ediT: Cheers Assist, ghosted me while I was on the phone there