What if: the seamless world.

otomotopia · 2011-02-13, 06:39 PM

I have been thinking for a while now... what if Planetside Next's non-sanctuary area was just

ONE
HUGE
SEAMLESS
MAP.

By this, I mean one, streaming globe to fight in. One that you could, theoretically, fly from one point and reach that same point by going in a straight line for hours.

I mean, if naval combat is added in, you can add in oceans and Island bases, maybe some ranges for planes so they have to land (after a long time, of course) so that (With enough resources) a battle fleet with an Aircraft carrier and destroyers and subs would be necessary to take over island bases, which would be necessary to launch airborne invasions to enemy held-coasts... GAAAAH SO MUCH AWESOME POTENTIAL IN HERE!!!!

When Smedly said that he was very excited, this could be one BIG thing he was excited about. I'd be on cloud nine if this was here. I'd be... just... gone with anticipation.

JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

EvE has done it with 4000 people fighting in the same area and others experiencing only a small lag spike, rather then a huge game-breaking one. Darkfall had kludgy code but had done it all the same. It's entirely possible.

Obviously, if SoE hadn't started with this idea, its impossible now. Sanctuaries would have to be implemented as some sort of off-shore base, or be located off the battlemap somehow without directly interfering with the battle space.

BUT IF THEY DID, and if it worked... what would you guys think? Would you support it over the current map system?

ArcticPrism · 2011-02-13, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by otomotopia

I have been thinking for a while now... what if Planetside Next's non-sanctuary area was just

ONE
HUGE
SEAMLESS
MAP.

By this, I mean one, streaming globe to fight in. One that you could, theoretically, fly from one point and reach that same point by going in a straight line for hours.

If it were to take hours to fly from one point to the other side of the map that means the game is way too large. Spending a few minutes depending on what you are in just to travel across a continent now is more than enough. Traveling isn't a fun aspect of the game. They'd have to design getting into the action very well.

Add in oceans and Island bases, maybe some ranges for planes so they have to land (after a long time, of course) so that (With enough resources) a battle fleet with an Aircraft carrier and destroyers and subs would be necessary to take over island bases, which would be necessary to launch airborne invasions to enemy held-coasts... GAAAAH SO MUCH AWESOME POTENTIAL IN HERE!!!!

This would only work assuming ALL aircraft(not just ones launched from naval) had limited flight time and could not land anywhere very near like current air tower system. Otherwise "naval" islands would just be large air fights.

When Smedly said that he was very excited, this could be one BIG thing he was excited about. I'd be on cloud nine if this was here. I'd be... just... gone with anticipation.

JUST THINK ABOUT IT.

EvE has done it with 4000 people fighting in the same area and others experiencing only a small lag spike, rather then a huge game-breaking one. Darkfall had kludgy code but had done it all the same. It's entirely possible.

EVE doesn't have seamless world. It has thousands of zones. or terrain and many of the game's calculations are server side rather than client. The only reason you can have 4000 players in a map on eve is because you can play the game using only the menu.

Obviously, if SoE hadn't started with this idea, its impossible now.

BUT IF THEY DID, and if it worked... what would you guys think? Would you support it over the current map system?

Cyan stuff.

Bags · 2011-02-13, 06:49 PM

I'd love it but I'm not sure how feasible it is. Would fit in with the "no sanctuary" design in its traditional sense. Could have a "sanctuary", but it'd be part of the continent and thus near the fighting.

Where did he say they were adding naval combat?

otomotopia · 2011-02-13, 06:54 PM

First of all, I do agree on the bottom two points. That's why I said "If it was possible and balanced." I don't agree that a couple hours is too long because we will need strategic depth to fight in and through either way. But I am speaking in general themes here because the idea of HAVING that feature is what I was really asking about, not the specifics. Thanks for keeping me honest all the same

.

But would you support the feature itself, again, if it worked?

*Edit* I can't find the source. And I can't find the source, I should just edit it out.

I SandRock · 2011-02-13, 07:12 PM

Mixed. I like the idea of fighting for one big seamless planet. But I also like how you fight for different planets with completely different atmospheres to them. And how you can capture this one zone, which links to another. You could do this with one planet too, but if you start working in zones it becomes very artificial and already loses some of that seamless world feeling

Evilmp · 2011-02-13, 07:13 PM

well, Arctic, that's true, but another huge factor in having that many players is the fact that the maps are mostly completely empty. the only static objects are few and FAR between.

also, everything is small.

edit:

i imagine they will bring the game into a new world that is or was inhabited by the ancients. hopefully it will incorporate a full free range world, but that would be a massive project if we're talking about planetside's scale.

SandRock: planetside used to be based on just one planet, Auraxis. the "planets" you see now used to be different continents, each with its own environment. it worked very well and i personally had no trouble with it feeling artificial.

I SandRock · 2011-02-13, 07:27 PM

Originally Posted by Evilmp

SandRock: planetside used to be based on just one planet, Auraxis. the "planets" you see now used to be different continents, each with its own environment. it worked very well and i personally had no trouble with it feeling artificial.

I know, but planet/continent it remains the same concept. Which did work well, but is different from the seamless world suggestion. Because each continent was an independent individual zone. If the world was seamless you would not have real zones, you can't have a volcano bursting with lava right next to a valley full of snow. You can still have both, spread out on the world. But you'd lose that 'zone' feature. Which means you can't really do the whole continent linking, can't really capture an entire zone, nor have the bottle neck gate ways. It means it's all one huge big world you can traverse.

I actually quite like the more artificial zones which you teleport too and are all an individual isolated whole. That's not to say I don't like the idea of a seamless world. But both have their pros and cons and I'm not sure (atm) which one I would really like more than the other. Not to mention it seems like a huge feat to pull off which could strain resources.

Perhaps an in-between option would be best. Instead of one huge seamless world have several smaller planets that each function as seamless worlds. Best of both worlds?

CutterJohn · 2011-02-13, 08:03 PM

How do you enforce population limits with an open world? Invisible force field that keeps you out?

Nice ideal, but it won't work because you do have to limit the number of players that can congregate in one spot.

Baneblade · 2011-02-13, 08:23 PM

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

CutterJohn · 2011-02-13, 08:31 PM

Except if you can't load. Thats the question. You are travelling a across the water, but the poplock is solid, so you are still in the queue. What happens? Do you stop at an invisible wall? Get to go in and bypass the queue?

Hamma · 2011-02-13, 09:33 PM

The thought of a seamless world I will admit is quite appealing. I would love to see this in the game, but I am not so sure it is feasible with the type of game this is.

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

If it was to be done this is probably how it would be done, I think that type of setup could work fairly well.

Sifer2 · 2011-02-13, 11:07 PM

It's actually not an outlandish idea. Since server technology has improved since the original Planetside. The load can be shifted now so that if more players move to one spot several servers take over handling that spot of the world automatically. Instead of the old days where it was just one an would crash until some IT guys manually went an added more blades or whatever.

However while the server might be able to handle it can your computer? How many people swarming one spot can it handle before your frames per second becomes a slideshow? I'm sure SOE is aware of both of these things an I doubt were going to get an entirely seamless world. If they do i'll be impressed though. Would definitely need game mechanics to encourage spreading out though.

ArcticPrism · 2011-02-14, 02:11 AM

Originally Posted by Evilmp

well, Arctic, that's true, but another huge factor in having that many players is the fact that the maps are mostly completely empty. the only static objects are few and FAR between.

also, everything is small.

That's something PS:N could improve on. Create more objects of interest on the landscapes other than towers. Something that the empires will want to fight over. Towers that aren't near bases are usually just farm spots.

They could also have better base placements. Searhus is a good example of this. There are lots of bases very close together on the east side of the map, but the bases on the west are extremely far apart.

Grimster · 2011-02-14, 03:05 AM

Well to be honest I don't find it that appealing with one large seamless world as it for me at least don't provide that much benefit other than being a cool factor.

I think the drawbacks will win over the advantages because in my opinion a seamless world don't make that big of a difference in the end other than possibly taking the pace down in the game and providing a lot more idle time that I know we all love to hate.

Because if you think about it. What differences does it make if you traveled to your destination through a warp gate or over the ocean?

The only thing I can think about is that the ocean method would probably take more time.

I SandRock · 2011-02-14, 06:03 AM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

Seamless isn't as necessary as seemingly seemless.

Think of it like removing the warpgates and replacing with traveling across the water. The next zone is loading while you 'travel' without a special screen or loading bar. You the user wouldn't see the difference, it would be all in the presentation.

What would really be the point of it being seamless then?
Just more travel time rather than teleport to a warpgate on the continent?

The idea is nice because it becomes a more realistic thing, but I'm not sure if gameplay-wise it'll add more flavor and perhaps even detract from it. It's also very risky to just try it out. If it doesn't work, it could cost a lot of production time, money, resources etc.