Battles in space for the future

[Sempars]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And since there are no real MMOFPS other than PS and WW2OL, which did not have space combat, no true examples can be cited, either for or against, to demonstrate precedent that an MMOFPS can't do space; although I do think that if we took a game like Battlefront which had space combat within the confines of limited map size, and consider how much better that could be done in the larger combat areas that an MMOFPS can provide, that it can be done just fine.

As for PvP in MMORPGs, while I agree that there are lots of problems balancing PvP and PvE, how is that a population splitting issue? I have not played WoW, and don't know how WoW does PvP so maybe there is something different about how WoW is set up. But from what I know of the other MMORPGs that I have played, my expectation of a standard MMORPG that has PvP but is NOT PvP focused, is that they have PvE servers where there is no PvP unless you agree to a duel or go to special or Arena zones, and there are PvP servers where PvP is fully enabled. I don't see how that splits communities. I mean, if a standard MMORPG needed 30 servers to handle its population and 5 of them are PvP enabled, so it's split 25 PvE and 5 PvP, that's still no more split than it would have been?

How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units. One to battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

[Sledgecrushr]

Originally Posted by Sempars

How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units. One to battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

The idea I have been pitching is instead of creating a space game and glomming it onto a server as extra content. You create a space game that combines all of the servers. Instead of splitting the playerbase we would combine it. Instead of conquerable continents we could very well have entire conquerable planets. We could strive for dominance with an entire solar empire.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Sempars

How many Examples do you Need? Only need one. CORE COMBAT!!! Its not false its True. We had 100's of people battling for bases. Then Core Combat came out, we lost those #s. As a Outfit we had to break into two huge units one battle in Core and the other one on top. It was stupid. How can you argue that not splitting up the population?

PS1 continents could only hold 150 per empire/450 total. Weren't Core combat areas drawing from the very same 150/450? Of course that would be a problem. But space would be like its very own continent.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Yes, I do expect that space combat can be well done in PS2.

So do I, as long as SOE puts in a 3 year+ development cycle with a dedicated dev team wich simply won't make any money. Where's the sense of trying to sell a space-sim to FPS players playing an FPS game, instead of making it a seperate or tie-in game aimed at space-simmers?

Originally Posted by Stardouser

And since there are no real MMOFPS other than PS and WW2OL, which did not have space combat, no true examples can be cited, either for or against, to demonstrate precedent that an MMOFPS can't do space

Dust 514, go and guess why it's a PS3 exclusive (because it doesn't split up the community and take away players from the space game) and go and guess why it's a separate game and not just an Eve Online update (because it needs to be "sold" as a seperate game to justify the expense and because the COD crowd isn't the same as the Microsoft-excel-in-space crowd).

But even then you're avoiding the point entirely. If you make 1 game, you don't split it into multiple rulesets that:

1) split the community (BF3 hardcore/softcore),
2) dilute the game world population (Core combat, at least partially to blame for the server mergings by forcing some people into the retarded caves, or World of Warcraft with their new zones, leaving the old world completely empty),
3) Draw ressources away from what people paid for in the first place (Look up the Eve Online: Incarna scandal),
4) Change core game mechanics in order to attract a completely different playerbase (SWG: NGU update).

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Think back to PS1, you couldn't even have more than 450 or so and now you can have much more.

I don't want "much more", i want 2000. Release the space combat patch and I'm either playing with alot less than 2000 or it's server merging time across the board.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I mean, if a standard MMORPG needed 30 servers to handle its population and 5 of them are PvP enabled, so it's split 25 PvE and 5 PvP, that's still no more split than it would have been?

Yeah and let's pretend that that doesn't take away development time from the PVE game. Or let's also pretend that the PVP won't be broken, half-assed and that the balancing considerations won't mess up the PVE.

[Kurtz]

I am pro space battles, but theres a reason why NONE of the Star Wars (FPS) games haven't had space combat and ground combat. The same reason why Dust is separate from Eve. Very very hard to do seamlessly.

I'm against anything that would split population as well. Any space combat would be essentially an air to air server (or zone) and that would draw folks away from the continents.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by roguy

But even then you're avoiding the point entirely. If you make 1 game, you don't split it into multiple rulesets that:

1) split the community (BF3 hardcore/softcore),
2) dilute the game world population (Core combat, at least partially to blame for the server mergings by forcing some people into the retarded caves, or World of Warcraft with their new zones, leaving the old world completely empty),
3) Draw ressources away from what people paid for in the first place (Look up the Eve Online: Incarna scandal),
4) Change core game mechanics in order to attract a completely different playerbase (SWG: NGU update).

I don't want "much more", i want 2000. Release the space combat patch and I'm either playing with alot less than 2000 or it's server merging time across the board.

I'm not even going to address development time or costs, because we can't possibly know that unless we've got financials and other internal data on the game, so it's reaching to even go there.

I had a longer answer but then I realized something because I started to add an additional argument, so I deleted it all(I will say that BF3 is not a good argument, because hardcore and normal core servers do not prevent any individual 64 player server from being populated). I thought back to your argument "at least people on other continents are still playing an FPS". Now, in a pure sense of people playing something other than an FPS in other areas, that does not bother me. On that point, we simply have to agree to disagree, because neither of us will change our minds.

But I thought, well, if space combat is not relevant/attached/meaningful to the ground game, and it's just people fighting over something that doesn't mean anything, then I don't want it either. If it's not going mean something to the metagame, then it may as well be a separate game. But if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line. If having space combat means servers have to be merged from 20 to 16, then that's fine. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. PS2 will have more than enough population to keep you supplied with a healthy population continent. How can it be relevant to the metagame? I'm sure there are ways. That's for SOE to dream up.

As for your statement that you want the full 2000 though, that's going to be interesting. At first when the game releases, servers will no doubt be pretty packed. But then when they start releasing more continents in the 5 year plan, one of two things will happen:
A. They merge servers in order to keep all continents populated the same.
B. They do not merge servers, and since we now have more continents for the same amount of people, it will be possible to have a server whose population has not dropped, yet we have continents with no fighting at all, or the population is spread out across continents.

Even if there is never any space combat, when they add new continents, this issue WILL come up. Either there will be server merges or there will be unpopulated continents or populations spread out among continents. It will happen.

However, as for your World of Warcraft comment about old world zones being empty, that's what happens when you add new content in an MMORPG. MMORPGs are usually level based, and old world zones are often lower level, and people become higher level and move on. That can't be translated to an MMOFPS, Planetside 2 is not going to be a game where you reach level 50 and no longer have a need to go to level 20 zones.

[Slide Surveyor]

Save it for planetside 3....

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I'm not even going to address development time or costs, because we can't possibly know that unless we've got financials and other internal data on the game, so it's reaching to even go there.

No it isn't, assuming that it takes at least an equal amount of effort, time, skill and money to stay competitive is purely logical. Either SOE has twice the ressources compared to a dedicated space sim team or it's going to be sub par. Ressources that would be better spent on the core game that for everyone who plays PS2, actually want to play, without having to create a whole new game from scratch.

And again, it doesn't make any marketing sense to sell a space game to FPSers, as much as bundling knitting accessories with an edition of FHM.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

(I will say that BF3 is not a good argument, because hardcore and normal core servers do not prevent any individual 64 player server from being populated).

And are the weapons/vehicles/maps be balanced for both modes? Can they ever be balanced for both modes? No and no.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

But if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line.

And that brings us back to Core Combat, where people have to play something they don't enjoy to win. Or space sections in SWTOR because it's more efficient to level.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

If having space combat means servers have to be merged from 20 to 16, then that's fine. We're just going to have to agree to disagree. PS2 will have more than enough population to keep you supplied with a healthy population continent. How can it be relevant to the metagame? I'm sure there are ways. That's for SOE to dream up.

And essentially you'd force players who never asked for this feature, who didn't join the game for this feature and who probably arn't interested in this feature (they'd be playing Black Prophecy instead anyway...) to lose their servers? Losing Werner in PS1 absolutely sucks, I don't even see why they'd do it intentionnally for PS2.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by roguy

1. No it isn't, assuming that it takes at least an equal amount of effort, time, skill and money to stay competitive is purely logical. Either SOE has twice the ressources compared to a dedicated space sim team or it's going to be sub par. Ressources that would be better spent on the core game that for everyone who plays PS2, actually want to play, without having to create a whole new game from scratch.

2. And again, it doesn't make any marketing sense to sell a space game to FPSers, as much as bundling knitting accessories with an edition of FHM.

3. And are the weapons/vehicles/maps be balanced for both modes? Can they ever be balanced for both modes? No and no.

4. And that brings us back to Core Combat, where people have to play something they don't enjoy to win. Or space sections in SWTOR because it's more efficient to level.

5. And essentially you'd force players who never asked for this feature, who didn't join the game for this feature and who probably arn't interested in this feature (they'd be playing Black Prophecy instead anyway...) to lose their servers? Losing Werner in PS1 absolutely sucks, I don't even see why they'd do it intentionnally for PS2.

1. SOE has already talked about adding space later on, so I'm sure they've run the numbers. How can anyone argue against it without access to info on how much it actually costs? A lot of the money on a game is designing the engine. The engine is already done. And not everything has to be redone, they could even reuse Reavers/et al as starfighters. Not that I would know but I heavily suspect that adding something like this is not starting over from day 1 where it will cost the same amount of money all over again. And, in space, there's no landmasses to design by hand, except for the space station anyway. My understanding is that designing the continents is a sizable cost.

2. It's not a space sim any more than the presence of Reavers/Galaxies makes it a flight sim. I wish I could remember this far back, but I can't, but I suspect that back in the 90s when companies were just starting to toy with the idea of putting infantry, tanks and aircraft together, people probably had the same objection - after all, who would want to force aircraft and tanks on FPS players? MMOFPS is THE genre to combine planetary and extraplanetary combat. And frankly, considering the scale that MMOFPS represents, it seems illogical to try and boil it down to an infantry shooter anyway.

3. BF3's balance has nothing to do with population splitting. Servers in both modes get populated and that's what matters.

4. For one thing, it actually WAS necessary to fight in core combat to unlock things. There should be no sections of the game where you must go there in order to unlock something that you can use elsewhere. This is not an MMORPG where we have quests.

5. As I established, when they add new continents, there will either be server mergers, or players will be spread across more land. One or the other will happen regardless of space combat or not.

[DirtyBird]

They wont make the Core Combat mistake again.
They'll make other mistakes but not the Core Combat one.

[Xyntech]

As Stardouser mentioned, players will get spread out with new continents the same as with any new areas. We already know that the game will launch with 3 continents and that more will be added after launch, so let's just take this as for granted. Either new players will come in and fill the space, or servers will merge, but either way the new contestable areas will get appropriately populated.

Personally, I'd like to see space combat that felt more like an extension of the ground combat in a lot of ways. Make space modification options for the vehicles and classes, where they function very similar to their terrestrial counterparts in a lot of ways, but with some added spaciness.

Aircraft become full on space ships, able to freely fly around the space "continents (zones)."

Land vehicles become the equivalent of Lunar Rovers, with modifications to allow them to function in low gravity environments or even to stick to surfaces as crawlers, used to fight over larger rocks and asteroids and smaller moons. Maybe even inside space station environments.

All infantry classes get modification options for magnetic boots, maneuvering thrusters, etc, to play infantry combat in space and around asteroids and space stations in a manner similar to Shattered Horizon, while still retaining a lot of the same elements that make classes unique from each other in ground combat.

The main point would be to not be throwing out everything from the one style of gameplay just to add a new style of fighting. They could even make the space variants of vehicles and infantry look significantly different, so long as you still got to use a lot of the same unlocks in space as you earned for their ground base counterparts. The same goes for naval combat, where you could have unlocks for a tank simultaneously unlock the same thing for a counterpart boat. They can still play significantly differently depending on the environment, but you don't have to go unlocking entirely different cert trees for every style of environment that they add. Only one or two extra cert trees per item to help specialize in that new environment.

[roguy]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

1. SOE has already talked about adding space later on, so I'm sure they've run the numbers. How can anyone argue against it without access to info on how much it actually costs?

Like i already said 3 times now, either they put in as much effort as a dedicated space game or it'll suck. I've listed like 10 examples now how trying to shoe-horn 2 games into one always sucks, so reread my previous posts. Even RAGE's car deathmatch multiplayer sucked.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

A lot of the money on a game is designing the engine. The engine is already done. And not everything has to be redone, they could even reuse Reavers/et al as starfighters. Not that I would know but I heavily suspect that adding something like this is not starting over from day 1 where it will cost the same amount of money all over again. And, in space, there's no landmasses to design by hand, except for the space station anyway. My understanding is that designing the continents is a sizable cost.

So pretty much as much money that it took Black Prophecy then, since they didn't design their engine from scratch either. It's still incredibly wasteful when you could develop more ground vehicles, base layouts and weapons wich DON'T require massive gameplay/balancing/engine changes, money and time.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

2. It's not a space sim any more than the presence of Reavers/Galaxies makes it a flight sim. I wish I could remember this far back, but I can't, but I suspect that back in the 90s when companies were just starting to toy with the idea of putting infantry, tanks and aircraft together, people probably had the same objection - after all, who would want to force aircraft and tanks on FPS players?

Tanks and planes play alongside infantry, therefore they play the same game. Spaceships don't, get it? So why not get a bejeweled side game too? Planetside was an infantry game with vehicles, you want to play something that isn't planetside (Orbitside perhaps? Solarsystemside?).

Originally Posted by Stardouser

3. BF3's balance has nothing to do with population splitting. Servers in both modes get populated and that's what matters.

Tried playing 64 player Operation Metro on Hardcore? Extreme example but I cba to go into details with weapons and overall map balancing if you're blind.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

4. For one thing, it actually WAS necessary to fight in core combat to unlock things. There should be no sections of the game where you must go there in order to unlock something that you can use elsewhere.

"if it can be added so that it does mean something to the metagame, then it's worth it. And that's the bottom line."
Contradiction.

[Mirror]

Just now this sort of question will get an answer similar to the question about naval warfare, "Yeah, it's certainly something we may consider in the future" or in other words, "LAWL, what a dumb question".

The devs have a 3 year plan that takes effect from release. If the idea you want is not on that plan then don't expect it.

[SixShooter]

If this were the space station we were fighting over I would be interested...

[VaderShake]

Originally Posted by SixShooter

If this were the space station we were fighting over I would be interested...

Try First Strike Mod for Battlefield 2142

http://www.fsmod.com/

Death Start Battle Video: