Sandbox Persistent World vs PvE and Arenas

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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

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

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

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

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

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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]

Originally Posted by DarkChiron

There's sand and there's boxes.

What else do you need?

[Eyeklops]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

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]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

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]

Originally Posted by Eyeklops

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]

Originally Posted by ArcGuard

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...