NPC's in planetside?

[jakaul]

Originally Posted by IronMole

Selling 2 Dragons...

I'll give you 6 light ales (dude, they get you drunk in game, how cool is that?) and 2 party suits. I think the suits are grey and one that's sort of beige with a blue tie. Looks really sharp when we do those mass conga line things at the town center.

[VioletZero]

Originally Posted by Fenrys

The existence of PvE combat would make PvP fights smaller and less fun. It would be like having a competing game within the game.

It would also require dev time that would be better spent improving the PvP game, and could mess with balancing the PvP game.

I'm ambivalent to the idea of wildlife, but strongly opposed to PvE content.

That's the risk you run with ANY new content at all.

After all, why even add new continents when all it will do is just split the playerbase?

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by VioletZero

That's the risk you run with ANY new content at all.

After all, why even add new continents when all it will do is just split the playerbase?

MY DRAGONS CAN HAVE THAT CONTINENT TO LIVE ON!

[jakaul]

So if I'm being serious for a second, I'd pretty emphatically say no for the following reasons:

1) Performance for no value added - this is the case with cosmetic NPCs, such as animals and such. While it may be kind of fun to occasionally take your tank for a stroll to run down herds of helpless creatures, that's not something that would either get me into the game or keep me in the game.

2) Production for no value added - I want the developers doing work on making the PvP experience one that will maintain a healthy population of players for me to shoot at. I don't want them spending their valuable time trying to create pathing algorithms for stupid cows in a big field.

3) Losing sight of the main goal (PvP) - Where do you stop? People want an NPC faction? That won't be irritating. I'm fighting two other guys and it's awesome because I'm winning, only to get an NPC from out of the blue swoops in and either kills me or finishes the two guys I'm fighting. Or people that WERE fighting my group decide they can't win and go PvE it up for 30 minutes leaving us to hang out and have a dick measuring contest. Great...

4) And let me just expand 3 by saying that you'd likely destroy the game if you included a PvE component that was "safe" from PvP. Now this also ends up with the situation where PvE is there but not safe, which ends up in griefing. Trust me, if someone decided they couldn't beat me and went on a safari to track and hunt a purple giraffe, I'd VERY likely follow them and destroy their dreams. I might even dry hump the purple giraffe and piss on the corpse of the guy(s) that decided to relax and PvE it up.

Point is, PvE in PS2 would range from "nice to have" to "that's really stupid". I can't see a case that would change "nice to have" to "the game needs this".

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by jakaul

1) Performance for no value added - this is the case with cosmetic NPCs, such as animals and such. While it may be kind of fun to occasionally take your tank for a stroll to run down herds of helpless creatures, that's not something that would either get me into the game or keep me in the game.

Exactly. I mean I'm kind of okay with the idea of passive creatures, but hostile creatures add a lot more gameplay value to the game. That's why it bothers me when people interpret what I say for "deer and birds". Someone mentioned a dragon earlier. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned a wyvern type ice creature on Esamir which is basically a dragon.

Definitely more into hostile creatures wandering around in the game capable of being aggroed by players either on purpose maybe toward enemies or by accident when not paying attention. (In the case of a wyvern you might see a few flying around a mountain top. You can fly through them and they might use an EMP NTU attack (remember evolution Auraxis is fun) or go around them. They might also land.

Originally Posted by jakaul

2) Production for no value added - I want the developers doing work on making the PvP experience one that will maintain a healthy population of players for me to shoot at. I don't want them spending their valuable time trying to create pathing algorithms

Everquest Next already has pathfinding for its mobs. Chances are that means Planetside would easily have it. I mentioned this before that the actual development cost is a hard debate since it's hard to know how easily things are for them. I mean they could already have a full animation system for creatures in Forgelight so dropping them into Planetside 2 might be trivial. Saying one way or the other would be kind of jumping to conclusions.

Originally Posted by jakaul

3) Losing sight of the main goal (PvP) - Where do you stop? People want an NPC faction? That won't be irritating. I'm fighting two other guys and it's awesome because I'm winning, only to get an NPC from out of the blue swoops in and either kills me or finishes the two guys I'm fighting.

You stop when it makes the game not fun. We're looking at an ideal implementation, or I am, where they are added to make the game more enjoyable and immersive. They shouldn't detract from the core gameplay, but enhance it. Some people hate the idea of an NPC creature killing a player that wanders close to it or in its territory. Personally I find such an idea very immersive where you have a world with thousands of players and also a world that can fight back indifferent to the war. Like they've been there for millions of years before the 3 factions go there to fight for it.

Originally Posted by jakaul

Point is, PvE in PS2 would range from "nice to have" to "that's really stupid". I can't see a case that would change "nice to have" to "the game needs this".

Yeah I agree. I made this point earlier when I said priorities. I'm waiting to see their 3 year plan to see if creatures ranks higher than any of their decisions. It could be what they have planned is far cooler for Auraxis.

[Mastachief]

jakaul that is a very well made set of points

[jakaul]

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Exactly. I mean I'm kind of okay with the idea of passive creatures, but hostile creatures add a lot more gameplay value to the game. That's why it bothers me when people interpret what I say for "deer and birds". Someone mentioned a dragon earlier. In one of my earlier posts I mentioned a wyvern type ice creature on Esamir which is basically a dragon.

Definitely more into hostile creatures wandering around in the game capable of being aggroed by players either on purpose maybe toward enemies or by accident when not paying attention. (In the case of a wyvern you might see a few flying around a mountain top. You can fly through them and they might use an EMP NTU attack (remember evolution Auraxis is fun) or go around them. They might also land.

My concern is when NPCs become detractors to the intended gameplay. It deals with the "value added" part of play - while immersion is something that they *might* add, they can sure end up as an irritation. I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon, which shuts off my weapons and ends up in me being killed. That takes away from the primary goal of the game, in my opinion.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

Everquest Next already has pathfinding for its mobs. Chances are that means Planetside would easily have it. I mentioned this before that the actual development cost is a hard debate since it's hard to know how easily things are for them. I mean they could already have a full animation system for creatures in Forgelight so dropping them into Planetside 2 might be trivial. Saying one way or the other would be kind of jumping to conclusions.

I've been a software developer for over a decade, so I know that "trivial" things have a way of becoming very complex. :P You're right though, we are jumping to conclusions but the simple idea of adding this feature means an engineer has to spend time figuring out if it is trivial or not, which impacts schedule. There's something to be said for if they have one of the EQ2 devs that has intimate knowledge...then maybe the impact is small, but you also are dealing with art resources and such.

Originally Posted by Sirisian

You stop when it makes the game not fun. We're looking at an ideal implementation, or I am, where they are added to make the game more enjoyable and immersive. They shouldn't detract from the core gameplay, but enhance it. Some people hate the idea of an NPC creature killing a player that wanders close to it or in its territory. Personally I find such an idea very immersive where you have a world with thousands of players and also a world that can fight back indifferent to the war. Like they've been there for millions of years before the 3 factions go there to fight for it.

Yeah I agree. I made this point earlier when I said priorities. I'm waiting to see their 3 year plan to see if creatures ranks higher than any of their decisions. It could be what they have planned is far cooler for Auraxis.

Immersion to me is being in a battle where I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out alive. It's not driving through a forest wondering if the giant slothbear is going to try to eat me. But that's me, and not everyone else. Personally, I think you spend 100% of the resources getting the PvP rock solid and healthy, then you can worry about adding what's, in my opinion, fluff.

[Fortress]

Originally Posted by jakaul

I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon

fuckin lol

[IronMole]

Originally Posted by jakaul

I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon,

Pimpo isn't stupid, he's very smart and cute!

[jakaul]

Originally Posted by IronMole

Pimpo isn't stupid, he's very smart and cute!

If he's in PS2, I'm going to donkeypunch your stupid dragon.

[Espion]

I'd be so pissed to get EMP'd by a dragon... Dragons are usually shown in modern times with a body like a huge lizard, or a snake with two pairs of lizard-type legs, and able to emit fire from their mouths. The European dragon has bat-type wings growing from its back. A dragon-like creature with no front legs is known as a wyvern. Following discovery of how pterosaurs walked on the ground, some dragons have been portrayed without front legs and using the wings as front legs pterosaur-fashion when on the ground.

Although dragons occur in many legends around the world, different cultures have varying stories about monsters that have been grouped together under the dragon label. Some dragons are said to breathe fire or to be poisonous, such as in the Old English poem Beowulf. They are commonly portrayed as serpentine or reptilian, hatching from eggs and possessing typically scaly or feathered bodies. They are sometimes portrayed as having especially large eyes or watching treasure very diligently, a feature that is the origin of the word dragon. Some myths portray them with a row of dorsal spines. European dragons are more often winged, while Chinese dragons resemble large snakes. Dragons can have a variable number of legs: none, two, four, or more when it comes to early European literature.

Dragons are often held to have major spiritual significance in various religions and cultures around the world. In many Asian cultures dragons were, and in some cultures still are, revered as representative of the primal forces of nature, religion and the universe. They are associated with wisdom—often said to be wiser than humans—and longevity. They are commonly said to possess some form of magic or other supernatural power, and are often associated with wells, rain, and rivers. In some cultures, they are also said to be capable of human speech. In some traditions dragons are said to have taught humans to talk.

Therefore, I really think a dragon has no reason to own an EMP device. That would be very unrealistic. SOE needs to consider this carefully but ultimately decide not to include NPCs, PvE content, and especially no EMP Dragons.

[Fortress]

The word dragon entered the English language in the early 13th century from Old French dragon, which in turn comes from Latin draconem (nominative draco) meaning "huge serpent, dragon," from the Greek word δράκων, drakon (genitive drakontos, δράκοντος) "serpent, giant seafish", which is believed to have come from an earlier stem drak-, a stem of derkesthai, "to see clearly," from Proto-Indo-European derk- "to see" or "the one with the (deadly) glance." The Greek and Latin term referred to any great serpent, not necessarily mythological, and this usage was also current in English up to the 18th century.

The association of the serpent with a monstrous opponent overcome by a heroic deity has its roots in the mythology of the Ancient Near East, including Canaanite (Hebrew, Ugaritic), Hittite and Mesopotamian. The Chaoskampf motif entered Greek mythology and ultimately Christian mythology, although the serpent motif may already be part of prehistoric Indo-European mythology as well, based on comparative evidence of Indic and Germanic material. It has been speculated that accounts of spitting cobras may be the origin of the myths of fire-breathing dragons.

Therefore, espion is a ******.

[Cobalt]

EMP Dragons are the worst, if you aggro two of them they will EMP lock you until you die, sucks.

[Sirisian]

Originally Posted by jakaul

My concern is when NPCs become detractors to the intended gameplay. It deals with the "value added" part of play - while immersion is something that they *might* add, they can sure end up as an irritation. I'm fighting a 2v1 air battle and I happen to get EMP'ed by a stupid dragon, which shuts off my weapons and ends up in me being killed. That takes away from the primary goal of the game, in my opinion.

Depends you went near them. You probably saw it as a tactical advantage to fly into them and lucked out. The game has flares so in a way it could be a tactical advantage depending on how the hypothetical system works for an EMP attack.

Originally Posted by jakaul

I've been a software developer for over a decade, so I know that "trivial" things have a way of becoming very complex. :P You're right though, we are jumping to conclusions but the simple idea of adding this feature means an engineer has to spend time figuring out if it is trivial or not, which impacts schedule. There's something to be said for if they have one of the EQ2 devs that has intimate knowledge...then maybe the impact is small, but you also are dealing with art resources and such.

Yeah I mentioned that in an earlier post. (heh, lot of programmers here. 5 years in software dev myself).

Originally Posted by jakaul

Immersion to me is being in a battle where I'm trying to figure out how the hell to get out alive. It's not driving through a forest wondering if the giant slothbear is going to try to eat me. But that's me, and not everyone else. Personally, I think you spend 100% of the resources getting the PvP rock solid and healthy, then you can worry about adding what's, in my opinion, fluff.

Why do people keep doing that. "slothbear" is a new one. I personally like that added level of awareness to my environment. It's not something I see often in multiplayer FPS games. Take the new Tribes game. Everything tends to get very predictable with their static maps when it's just players. Planetside started to feel the same way. Walking through Hossin during a battle I think really accented it. You had this eerie canopy of trees people fighting around you. It would have been an awesome place for creatures to live as players move through the swamp especially with low fog as I mentioned before.

Originally Posted by Cobalt

EMP Dragons are the worst, if you aggro two of them they will EMP lock you until you die, sucks.

You guys lock into ideas amazingly well. It was an example, but what about flares to block them. You have to get a bit creative I guess. Or the developers would need to. They'd have to pick creatures which don't exist on earth and have an interesting set of abilities that players learn depending on the continent. Also the wyvern attack could be an NTU ice shard so planes can dodge them. Or ice missiles. It's a sci-fi game so there's a lot of leeway. Watching a wyvern attack infantry in passes launcing ice shards would be hilarious to see. I made a comment a while back in my creatures thread about how uncreative a dragon would be flying in the volcano cauldron of Searhus.

The crystal tremor worm for Indar and the cloaking tiger type creature for Esarmir are still probably my favorite ideas since they capture the idea of NTU abilities and fit into Auraxis. That and creatures that are camouflaged for Hossin to blend into the forest environment would be fun (for me at least) to run into. Especially designing them so they aggro differently based on threats. I mentioned this before. Having a larger creatures be indifferent to infantry but feel threatened by a tank or sunderer was an example.

[Fortress]

cloaking tigers??

but that would give them a massive advantage over the esamir snowbunny, which would throw the ecosystem out of whack because nothing would kill the microbeatle which would eat all the trees and then there is no air and then we all suffocate just because you wanted an invisible tiger gee thanks