A few things that Matt Higby needs to realize

[LegioX]

God i miss the good ol days of COD 1 COD 2 and COD UO. Now those were FPS's. No stupid killstreaks. Just you, ur gun, and the players in the map. My have things changed....and not for the good.

[Figment]

Regarding map size, is 8x8 too small?

So we got 64 square mile of map, or continent spanning from north to south? Let's assume the measurements are taken for the extremities. With the irregular shape of the beach, some of that terrain cannoy be fought on. So let's assume 95% as a generous number.

The grids cover around 90% of that terrain.

So how much of the terrain will actually be fought over? Let's start with the "T"-split that a lot of people imagine right now. That would approximately be 40% of the map. Let's assume there's at all times two or three behind the lines fights going, so another 15%-20%. I'd say 60-75% of the map would be used.

Let's say the terrain itself has a lot of places you can't functionally use, so another 80%.

We then got 0.95*0.9*0.75*0.8*64 ~33 square miles that would be used. Divided by 2000 people, that's about 16 square meters per player on average? Hmm doesn't sound quite right yet.

Alright, so let's assume there's a battlefield area in between two teams of players of around 40% of the remainder. Then we got 6,5 square meters per player in a fight.

Alright so let's assume some people are using the same battle space vertically (building/airborne) and by being in vehicles, that should increase the spacing a bit again. So let's just give a factor 3, maybe 4. Around 20 square meters per player assuming they're not condensed more?

Yeah it might get a bit crowded in a fire fight here and there, it should be enough, but I wouldn't mind seeing some bigger maps. Mostly to create more travel time and allow for more covert movement, tbh.

[Saintlycow]

Stardouser forum alt located

[sylphaen]

Originally Posted by Saintlycow

Stardouser forum alt located

Star joined after Figment, though. Conclusion doubtful.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by elfailo

Is "2000" the amount of players they're aiming for per map, or per server?

per map

[windlord]

I have to say that points 4 and 5 are bang on.

Tempo. You need the journey to appreciate the action. You cannot know happiness without understanding tragedy. The two are interlinked.

Basically build the environment and let the players build the narrative.

As you said once too much control over the game will kill it. Build an environment.

[Serpent]

This is true. Windlord has brought a fantastic point. What is the goal of capturing the facility without fighting for it... meaning is it as fun? Do you feel accomplished? Do you get more certs?...

No. Also, it seems so far to me that the players that played PS and those that are going to play PS2 as newbies (like myself) aren't exactly idiots, so I think we can come up with some interesting battles

[JHendy]

Originally Posted by windlord

I have to say that points 4 and 5 are bang on.

Tempo. You need the journey to appreciate the action. You cannot know happiness without understanding tragedy. The two are interlinked.

Basically build the environment and let the players build the narrative.

As you said once too much control over the game will kill it. Build an environment.

Well put. I absolutely agree. You described the spirit of sandbox gaming perfectly.

[LegioX]

Developers these days do not understand the joy/fun/nervousness of traveling in an open map. I hate using ww2ol all the time, but that was the only true MMO i played. You will be sitting in a truck full of guys going to the front. You look up and see an air battle. You look across the horizon and see the towns/buildings pop up in the screen. Then you see small explosions with tracer fire going off. I mean seriously...who would not like that?

You get that sense of being in something great. You're not just a lone wolf traveling into the fight. You're not just some grunt instant spawning into a contested town. You are part of 100's of players in one area. It feels great.

[Arktype]

I agree with the the 5 points diablotigersix stated. Especially on the strategy aspect as well as traveling.

I used to play WWIIOnline. Traveling is important in this game especially because in this game, 1 bullet kills you. therefore, traveling 10 min before arriving on site where the battle is, give you a rush of adrenalin, simply because you just spent 10 min to travel... so you don t want to get shot in 5 sec by a sniper or something... Like Diablo, I m part of the older generation of gamers who discovered FPS through Quake 1... Half Life 1 etc. This combo ( travel + easy to kill or get killed ) brought a lot more realism than in any other games FPS style i have played. In my 2 years playing this game, i rarely saw Kamikaze people running around to get shot. Team work was much more evolve because people relied on other people, which automatically added more team work than in any other games i have played.

I think Planetside Staff should hire a Military veteran as consultant, to test Strategies in game and have a better view based on the gameplay of the real possibilities 'ingame'

[Kurtz]

Originally Posted by LegioX

Developers these days do not understand the joy/fun/nervousness of traveling in an open map. I hate using ww2ol all the time, but that was the only true MMO i played. You will be sitting in a truck full of guys going to the front. You look up and see an air battle. You look across the horizon and see the towns/buildings pop up in the screen. Then you see small explosions with tracer fire going off. I mean seriously...who would not like that?

You get that sense of being in something great. You're not just a lone wolf traveling into the fight. You're not just some grunt instant spawning into a contested town. You are part of 100's of players in one area. It feels great.

^this. I remember looking out the open laffy otw as a sapper to blow the forward fb. That quiet just before chaos, watching that distant dogfight looking down at chat and seeing guys goofing off. Seconds later insanity.

The closest thing to that was PS1 and hot dropping out of a Gal on a highly contested base or tower.

The only server-based FPS to give that experience was Novalogic's Joint Operations Typhoon Rising which had huge maps and I think 128 players. You could get in a black hawk at night and drop 6 guys behind enemy lines (in shallow water) and sneak up on an enemy outpost with silenced weapons and knives. Also The only game I've ever gibbed someone while they were swimming. good times.

Bottom line, having to organize travel to the front is a must for immersion in an MMO.

[LegioX]

Traveling to a fight (not matter the time it took) was always fun. Shoot the sh*t with the guys on TS or vent while enroute and just overall take a step back and watch the game unfold in a real world type setting.

[Cosmical]

all valid points, but weve had this discussion a hundred times before. Yes we all have those first few FPS games that defined the experience for us, some of us were even lucky enough for it to be the original planetside.

Ide say the main thing that has changed the face of shooters, is faster connections and player skill. Back in the day, games gave you huge health bars to keep the fun levels up while you were lagging and jumping around like a spaz. Whereas nowadays connections are too fast and players too skilled for old jumping about shooters to seem compelling. Take Tribes Ascend, nothing about that game is interesting to me because i have had gritty hunkered down combat pushed onto me by Battlefield 3, and i wouldnt want anything else now, because it works.

My main issue is that vehicles seem too easily destroyed, knowing what we do that they cost resources to. Im thinking how anoying it will be to spend your last bit of cash on a vehicle, only to have it blown in a few seconds by an oncoming force. But, this will be sorted in beta testing. I guess more expensive vehicles, and more armour. Limiting the Battlefield.

[Malorn]

I've seen in a few videos now an aircraft being in a position to see two if not all 3 warp gates in the distance. Since the warp gates are in all corners of the map it makes the world seem rather small. Just watching Total Biscuit's videos it doesn't seem like it takes very long at all for people to fly around Indar.

From what I've seen if I had to estimate, Indar looks roughly the size of Searhus of PS1, which seems small if they're expecting to have ten times the number of players as a pop-locked PS1 continent.

[LegioX]

Originally Posted by Kurtz

^this. I remember looking out the open laffy otw as a sapper to blow the forward fb. That quiet just before chaos, watching that distant dogfight looking down at chat and seeing guys goofing off. Seconds later insanity.

The closest thing to that was PS1 and hot dropping out of a Gal on a highly contested base or tower.

The only server-side FPS to give that experience was Novalogic's Joint Operations Typhoon Rising which had huge maps and I think 128 players. You could get in a black hawk at night and drop 6 guys behind enemy lines (in shallow water) and sneak up on an enemy outpost with silenced weapons and knives. Also The only game I've ever gibbed someone while they were swimming.

Omg!! Join Operations Typhoon rising was the sh*t. Man i feel old. I remember playing that game like it was yesturday.