News: New Blog via Smed talks ESports, Outfit Bases and More. (Overall Discussion)

[Blackwolf]

I don't like the outfit created bases idea.

I would love it if continents (entire continents) were designed with the ability for outfits to build their own destroyable bases on. But said bases would have to be destroyable rather then capturable in order to allow other outfits the chance to build where they wanted.

[Stanis]

Sounds more and more like Star Wars Galaxies : The FPS.

Which isn't a bad thing.
Can we have crafting too?

I'll gather resources with a fleet of harvesters again and make the very best medical products. I'll even sell them to the enemy, for a small extra charge.

[VikingKong]

Clearly the devs love a good troll post as much as the rest of us. Almost had me for a while there. Such a card, that Smed. ^^

[brighthand]

Originally Posted by SGTalon

I can see how some alien invasion events would be awesome. Maybe the 3 factions have to pull together to beat back the alien horde.

But i am sure it would be an event type thing. They have been doing stuff like that a lot lately on other games.

I am sure that it would also involve capturing of alien tech that is now yours and other cool stuff like that.

I mean really think about it, we have a huge battle going on at Zurvan and all of a sudden this huge ships come down and hordes of NPC aliens drop out of the ships and start tearing everything up. I can't see how this would be a bad thing.

I like the sound of making the alien invasion so strong that it forces all factions to work together or die. It has an element of drama to it that is refreshing. -And include Giant death-ray beaming Collossi that wipe out entire tank columns in one sweep!!

[RoninOni]

Originally Posted by Hmr85

I like the sound of almost all of it till he said NPC Invasions. Please do not do that. I personally want pure pvp where the opponent is actually a challenge. Shooting at AI is just meh.

OffTopic in this thread but:
My suggestion was to make invasions both rare, and focused to 1/3rd the world at a time throughout the duration, so that players who want to avoid it, can.

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This getting messy..

Is PS2 a completed game to be beta tested for weaknesses? Or is the game incomplete with no direction how to finish it??

I dont see this half-assedness in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

Step your fucking game up SOE.

derp

#1: A completed game wouldn't be in Beta.... EA/Activision have lied to you

#2: This is future, post launch, continued content that's being talked about here. This isn't some annual release, now buy a bunch of map packs, k, thanks for the extra $50 now buy another $60 game. This will be a persistent and continually supported game that grows with it's playerbase. New continents will be added, new equipment and weapons. And new additional support and meta game.

tl;dr version:

[camycamera]

i LOVE the idea of an NPC invasion. it would be cool to have all 3 factions (maybe) unite together to stop this invasion.... and then continue to fight again.

and that commander thing with the npc's sounds cool, but i dont know how it would work if they implement it. does each player command a group of npcs, or only a selected few? and i bet these npcs that you control would be some type of cyborgs... that would be awesome, fighting along side them/commanding them .

weather would be an awesome idea too, making you have to change tactics (like at night), and having to rely on tech (like at night) such as infra-red and such.

and it would be sweet to see.... UNDERWATER BATTLES imagine a water-based galaxy of some sort in the bloody water, or stealth ships, or swimming underwater, or even types of planes that drop torpedo bombs underwater.

the possibilities are endless for planetside 2, cant wait to see what they come up with post-launch

[cellinaire]

Not that I don't care about and love this game, but nothing on his article irks me in the wrong way. Easily expected with only few surprises and most of the things would be cool.

(and I still think BFR was a implementation/execution/planning failure, not as an idea and concept.)





...Yeah I know I'm an oddball, but..

[RoninOni]

^Yah, BFR's in concept aren't bad.... they just need to be more carefully implemented, and not the "goto"

If anything is the "goto" it should be tanks...

[Malorn]

I'm normally not brief, but I'll try to cut to the chase.

The first part about what makes PlanetSide 2 different is dead-on. He nails all the important stuff about PS2. I enjoyed reading that.

The second part about the business model is very solid. Its reassuring to me that he is committed to not make the game Pay-to-Win and understands that non-paying customers are providing content for paying customers. This is just plain awesome and exactly how I think it should be. It's Not Pay to Win. It's not eye gouging the customers with ridiculous in-game-currency prices. It's paying for convenience and understanding that games without players aren't fun for paying customers. People like me will definitely pay for convenience. Hell I've already maxed out my Smedbux at 50,000. I'll probably buy more if they have enough worthwhile stuff there. Whales like me with disposable income will more than cover the free players, and those players will keep the game alive and fun for me so I spend more. Great model! This was my favorite part of the blog to read, nice job there Smed I hope you stick to those principles. And shut up and take my money!

Now for my visceral reactions to the future plans (I commented in more detail on some of these in individual threads).

1) Player Owned bases - I like! Looks promising and I like the idea of a sandbox continent where we can make our own facilities to fight over the resources.

2) Harvestable resources - Meh. As long as it's automated harvesting (think moon mining or planetary stuff from EVE). Has potential if it's automated. If it's manual I will want to gouge someone's eyes out.

3) Water between continents - seamlessly - Meh. Don't see the value.

4) Lots more vehicles and weapons - I expect this, and generally it's good. However...there will be rioting if giant robots are involved. You know what I'm talking about. Don't even think about going there.

5) NPC enemies - Fail. Not what PlanetSide is about. Players are the content, you don't need to provide it.

6) NPC armies - Fail. See above. Non-human armies are boring and not interesting.

7) Esports support - Epic fail. Wrong direction. Not what PlanetSide is about. See topical thread for more details.

8) Weather - I truly hope this is one of the first things you add into the game post-launch. Weather adds variety and strategic goodness to the game. It's a great thing to add in sooner rather than later. I really want this!

9) Mac version (soon after launch) - Erm, sure. Gamers don't buy macs but I got no problem shooting mac fanbois. It's therapeutic.



Now for the things I think he should add to the discussion.

* More continents. I'd like to see at least 6 by Launch + 1 year. 10+ by +2 years.
* Global conquest. With more land comes more satisfying conquest. PS1 was unique in that it allowed you to conquer something that stayed yours for sometimes days at a time until someone forcibly took it back. That needs to live on in PS2 as well and 3 continents with footholds doesn't even scratch the surface of your possibilities here.

Generally Smed - don't stop at massive & epic. Keep going. Feeling of accomplishment and conquest was one of the best parts of PlanetSide. Feed into that. The bigger the persistent world and the more cool environments we have to fight over the more fun the game will be. And when you have more territory you can afford to lock some of it away to further add to the persistence. 3 continents is a great start, but you need more.

Persistent world, and more importantly the conquest of that persistent world is something no other game can offer. Keep innovating there. Don't leave any room for competitors. Take it to the next level. Don't try to make PlanetSide something it's not. You have something great here. Keep going, don't get sidetracked.

Overall a good blog, some of those things, namely PvE and ESports have me concerned. Rest of it looks good/great.

[RoninOni]

^I'm shocked you see the value in adding more and more continents for global conquest yet not linking them all together with oceans.

You complain about the uncap warp-gates yet coastal islands and navies are the perfect natural solution to completely removing the warp-gate dependence. Then warp-gates become more convenience and tactical.

[Boone]

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

This getting messy..

Is PS2 a completed game to be beta tested for weaknesses? Or is the game incomplete with no direction how to finish it??

I dont see this half-assedness in Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

Step your fucking game up SOE.

Yeah, they're just ideas and they likely won't make it, and if they do it'll a while so relax.

Enjoy BO2 I suppose.

Originally Posted by cellinaire

Not that I don't care about and love this game, but nothing on his article irks me in the wrong way. Easily expected with only few surprises and most of the things would be cool.

(and I still think BFR was a implementation/execution/planning failure, not as an idea and concept.)





...Yeah I know I'm an oddball, but..

People have their own ideas how everything should be made anymore. If it doesn't fit..it's a failure, period.

[Warruz]

Not to sure about the whole NPC thing, id like to see events perhaps a meteor crash that contains alot of resources to change the front of the game and things like that but NPC's irks me a little the wrong way.

Outfit bases i also have an issue with being that it focuses more on the outfit then the faction which is what planetside was all about.

Otherwise everything else sounds great especially linking everything with water allowing Navel assaults and coastal bases(Bases over water to).

[MrMorton]

You could do really awesome things with player owned continents and Esports style competitions.

Because all the infer-structure to be able to compete in the big upcoming battle would require time to prepare, you could do something as simple as saying. On day X two weeks from now, control point Y has a cash reward of Z dollars. Whoever controls it at the end of day X gets the prize, until day X this control point will be blocked from capture. ready set GO.

then you would have a two week long rush from all the outfits to build up to get the upper hand in that one day huge battle.

Do you save up your resources to have a huge teched up army on the day of the fight? or do you spend resources early to gain control of surrounding areas to have a better starting point? Which outfit can have the most efficient trades over the other outfits to gain an edge?

Do you use cheap units only to get the best trades? or is using deadlier, higher cost units better?

before the fight, is it better to backhack your opponents bases in order to reduce the resources they can bring to the battle? but who do you backhack? who do you perceive as the greatest threat? can that perception be manipulated by all the teams?


that's an awesome start to a thriving competitive meta game.

[SVoyager]

I agree with most of what you said Malorn, very good post!! This is quite a long read for me also sorry but I took the time to read your entire post and here are my comments on it. The first paragraphs, I agree with you. I am one of those that will probably insist in spending 10-20$ on stuff a month. I will want to buy things and not only to get some stuff in game but to also support it and keep it going.

Originally Posted by Malorn

1) Player Owned bases - I like! Looks promising and I like the idea of a sandbox continent where we can make our own facilities to fight over the resources.

Totally agree!

Originally Posted by Malorn

2) Harvestable resources - Meh. As long as it's automated harvesting (think moon mining or planetary stuff from EVE). Has potential if it's automated. If it's manual I will want to gouge someone's eyes out.

Gotta disagree here. I think its some form of replacement of the ANT. It's a twist in its implementation and I like the idea. I would personally be one of those that would drive it manually. I did a few ANT runs in PS1, while not dedicated to it, it is still fun to do once in a while. I think this is aimed towards those that liked to do ANTs, those that like to have a support role and do less direct fighting (I am one of those, I mostly drive lodestars and repair people for long periods of time in PS1, I rarely fire my gun and while it might sound boring to some, I really like doing that!). It would also add some variety. It could be linked to the mission system they want to use. Enemies have orders to kill the harvester, friendly to defend. I see alot of potential with it. I really love this idea.

Originally Posted by Malorn

3) Water between continents - seamlessly - Meh. Don't see the value.

I see this as a technological prowess. Now they can say that they can have maps 16 times the size of BF maps with no loading, they could even brag about bigger maps and the fact that they are able to blend in all types of combat. About the water between them, I think it would add variety to the game. Its a bit like in PS1 when attacking bases are done in stages. Vehicle fights until reaching the base and infantry fights to control that base. Now it would add another stage to that. Water invasion to reach a continent, vehicles to reach a base and infantry to capture it.

Of course you wouldn't have water fights every hour, which is fine by that. It would just give a change of pace once in a while. IMHO, I think this could be a great idea but careful implementation is required. You don't want PS2 to become a naval game. If you endup having a stalemate on the naval fight, things might become bad.

Originally Posted by Malorn

4) Lots more vehicles and weapons - I expect this, and generally it's good. However...there will be rioting if giant robots are involved. You know what I'm talking about. Don't even think about going there.

Agreed 100%. About the robots, its very clear they don't want them. Smed said it so many times, they just won't make them, period. I don't see why we still mention them. (I know it was a part of having killed PS1 but we should turn the page. They won't make them.)

Originally Posted by Malorn

5) NPC enemies - Fail. Not what PlanetSide is about. Players are the content, you don't need to provide it.

Extreme hesitation for me here. I often thought that if there were some NPC in PS1, it could have retained some pop as fights would be less difficult to find and possibly endup having bigger fights. If you play on low pop hours, you are pretty much screwed. There is one fight usually and you hope that your faction's pop is not splitted on 2 continents or you endup getting your a** kicked on both continents. I see that PS2 could be affected by this too, to some extent should the pop levels don't reach what they expect. So should we add AI to keep the action going? Should we add AI to make an "okay" fight reach big to epic proportions?

Also AI in night fight, how do you code an AI to recognize someone who is hidden under a rock in perfect darkness. The AI could spot people hidden more easily. Bad thing. They AI won't be able to strategize on a large scale, bad thing.

I know that PS should be player driven only and thinking about AI is not an easy thing. Would it benefit us in the long run?

Open mind is required but still, I am really neutral with that idea.

Originally Posted by Malorn

6) NPC armies - Fail. See above. Non-human armies are boring and not interesting.

Indeed agree. Armies is pushing it a bit. 10% AI vs player population might be ok. AI pop maybe could be used to compensate for faction imbalance only. Blending AI in only here and there could be ok, but a whole army, hmm. Nah. You would need some really good AI. Waay too much dev time needed I think.

Originally Posted by Malorn

7) Esports support - Epic fail. Wrong direction. Not what PlanetSide is about. See topical thread for more details.

Havn't seen your thread but I agree with you 100% here. I think it is time wasted. What good will that do? I might be biased as I am a person that couldn't care less about tournaments and things like that. I watch a bit of TB's vids and i see him link to streams of tournaments. Interresting to watch once but really not my thing. Is it the koreans or ppl over there that are really into this kind of thing? Anyway, for me, this is not a good idea.

Originally Posted by Malorn

8) Weather - I truly hope this is one of the first things you add into the game post-launch. Weather adds variety and strategic goodness to the game. It's a great thing to add in sooner rather than later. I really want this!

100% agree with you here again. Weather is a must. If its really hard to implement, I wouldn't mind if it were moved to spot #2 or 3 so to get the easier stuff in faster but still, we need weather!!

Originally Posted by Malorn

9) Mac version (soon after launch) - Erm, sure. Gamers don't buy macs but I got no problem shooting mac fanbois. It's therapeutic.

Haha, yeah im 100% with you here. You can even add a small apple icon over their heads just to make sure I prioritise my targets :-). kidding, macs are fine, I don't really care about them but if it brings more ppl in, okay support that platform. I think they won't like being slaughtered so much tho heh.

Your last 3 paragraphs there is very well said and written, I totally agree with you!! I think that with sea combat, you will get what you wish for about the part of "global conquest". Once a continent is done, get on your ships, drive to the next one. While you leave to assault the next cont, you get the feeling of a job well done, this continent is ours. But yes, more epic, more conquering etc.

Very good post Malorn, thanks! I hope my comments adds to the discussion!

Cheers
SV

Originally Posted by Malorn

I'm normally not brief, but I'll try to cut to the chase.

The first part about what makes PlanetSide 2 different is dead-on. He nails all the important stuff about PS2. I enjoyed reading that.

The second part about the business model is very solid. Its reassuring to me that he is committed to not make the game Pay-to-Win and understands that non-paying customers are providing content for paying customers. This is just plain awesome and exactly how I think it should be. It's Not Pay to Win. It's not eye gouging the customers with ridiculous in-game-currency prices. It's paying for convenience and understanding that games without players aren't fun for paying customers. People like me will definitely pay for convenience. Hell I've already maxed out my Smedbux at 50,000. I'll probably buy more if they have enough worthwhile stuff there. Whales like me with disposable income will more than cover the free players, and those players will keep the game alive and fun for me so I spend more. Great model! This was my favorite part of the blog to read, nice job there Smed I hope you stick to those principles. And shut up and take my money!

Now for my visceral reactions to the future plans (I commented in more detail on some of these in individual threads).

1) Player Owned bases - I like! Looks promising and I like the idea of a sandbox continent where we can make our own facilities to fight over the resources.

2) Harvestable resources - Meh. As long as it's automated harvesting (think moon mining or planetary stuff from EVE). Has potential if it's automated. If it's manual I will want to gouge someone's eyes out.

3) Water between continents - seamlessly - Meh. Don't see the value.

4) Lots more vehicles and weapons - I expect this, and generally it's good. However...there will be rioting if giant robots are involved. You know what I'm talking about. Don't even think about going there.

5) NPC enemies - Fail. Not what PlanetSide is about. Players are the content, you don't need to provide it.

6) NPC armies - Fail. See above. Non-human armies are boring and not interesting.

7) Esports support - Epic fail. Wrong direction. Not what PlanetSide is about. See topical thread for more details.

8) Weather - I truly hope this is one of the first things you add into the game post-launch. Weather adds variety and strategic goodness to the game. It's a great thing to add in sooner rather than later. I really want this!

9) Mac version (soon after launch) - Erm, sure. Gamers don't buy macs but I got no problem shooting mac fanbois. It's therapeutic.



Now for the things I think he should add to the discussion.

* More continents. I'd like to see at least 6 by Launch + 1 year. 10+ by +2 years.
* Global conquest. With more land comes more satisfying conquest. PS1 was unique in that it allowed you to conquer something that stayed yours for sometimes days at a time until someone forcibly took it back. That needs to live on in PS2 as well and 3 continents with footholds doesn't even scratch the surface of your possibilities here.

Generally Smed - don't stop at massive & epic. Keep going. Feeling of accomplishment and conquest was one of the best parts of PlanetSide. Feed into that. The bigger the persistent world and the more cool environments we have to fight over the more fun the game will be. And when you have more territory you can afford to lock some of it away to further add to the persistence. 3 continents is a great start, but you need more.

Persistent world, and more importantly the conquest of that persistent world is something no other game can offer. Keep innovating there. Don't leave any room for competitors. Take it to the next level. Don't try to make PlanetSide something it's not. You have something great here. Keep going, don't get sidetracked.

Overall a good blog, some of those things, namely PvE and ESports have me concerned. Rest of it looks good/great.

[Wreckful]

You could do really awesome things with player owned continents and Esports style competitions.

Because all the infer-structure to be able to compete in the big upcoming battle would require time to prepare, you could do something as simple as saying. On day X two weeks from now, control point Y has a cash reward of Z dollars. Whoever controls it at the end of day X gets the prize, until day X this control point will be blocked from capture. ready set GO.

then you would have a two week long rush from all the outfits to build up to get the upper hand in that one day huge battle.

Do you save up your resources to have a huge teched up army on the day of the fight? or do you spend resources early to gain control of surrounding areas to have a better starting point? Which outfit can have the most efficient trades over the other outfits to gain an edge?

Do you use cheap units only to get the best trades? or is using deadlier, higher cost units better?

before the fight, is it better to backhack your opponents bases in order to reduce the resources they can bring to the battle? but who do you backhack? who do you perceive as the greatest threat? can that perception be manipulated by all the teams?

I love this idea. It is the only way I can see eSports happening.