Which PS locations should inspire the NEXT game?

[Vancha]

I imagine most people would like the landscapes and topography to be redone for the sequel, but there were unarguably some locations in Planetside that made for truly awesome fights. Post your favourites here.

Here's the continent maps to refresh your memories...

Amerish (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:AmerishContinentMap.jpg), Ceryshen (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:CeryshenMap.jpg), Cyssor (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:CyssorContinentalMap.jpg), Esamir (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:EsamirMap.jpg), Forseral (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:ForseralMap.jpg), Hossin (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:HossinMap.jpg), Ishundar (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:IshundarMap.jpg), Oshur (http://img33.imageshack.us/img33/8171/oshur8ht.jpg)*, Searhus (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:SearhusMap.jpg) and Solsar (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=Image:SolsarMap.jpg).

* - Map comes courtesy of Aut

Some of mine...

Amerish - The stretch of land between Azeban and Xelas had some good battles.

Ceryshen - Obviously the bridge between Sedna and Anguta.

Cyssor - The hill just south of the Faro-Gunuku bridge. In fact the whole north half of Gunuku's island seemed to accommodate good battle.

Forseral - The road between Anu and Ogma.

Hossin - All the land, bridge and tower between Acan and Voltan seemed made for great fights.

Ishundar - The gap between Baal's base and tower.

Solsar - The fights west of Seth, with the enemy coming over the ridge.

What's yours?

[DviddLeff]

Getting the mix just right is very important and I think you need the following ingredients:

1. Cover for both infantry and vehicles; without it everywhere becomes a simple matter of whoever has numbers or a techplant wins. Without cover for the attackers it is too easy for base defenders to hold off the enemy. Likewise if you are fighting at Rehua on Searhus you have very little chance; the enemy just sits on the hillsides all around and spams explosives until everyone is trapped inside.
2. Choke points are needed to focus fights in certain places so that fights do happen away from the bases; otherwise forces bypass each other and get to the base walls and just lock it down. Choke points obviously consist of bridges, bodies of water/lava and cliffs as well as any kind of small cover. Choke points can be so for some types but not others; aircraft can obviously bypass most, while infantry can move through woods while vehicles cant. Likewise to the VS water is not an obstacle but a benefit; it gives our magriders a stable firing position.
3. Variety is important; Ceryshen is a good example of where combat is too restricted as the constant choke points caused by the cliffs instead of focusing the combat spread it out even further as players are trapped in their corridor and are forced to spend too long travelling to get to the action. The separate battle islands were designed to cater for different play types; base assault, bridge battles, tank warfare and infantry and as they were small scale did a reasonable job of it.

[Tikuto]

It's usually choke-point locations in the game that seem incredibly epic and I enjoyed those locations very much. However, I also prefer a change a scenery after a long while from all fixated locations;








and for this to happen we must be able to find a purpose to "camp" in those "quiet areas" of every map. My idea for this is simple: Automated Robotic Constructs (small and big). Small ARCs are redployable; Big ARCs are not redeployable.
Small ARCs would have significant size (like the Lodestar) and could fly.
Big ARCs would be tremendous size (like two BFRs) and could walk (like Earth Assault Walkers (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Plpea2UxKk)) with automated Spitfires and Cerberus for self-defence.

The ARC allows additional structures in the field, like PlanetSide1 towers and a possible replacement for them, where players can compete in different places other than at fixated facilties. Small ARCs able to be controlled by any certified player; Big ARCs are only available to certified commanders. Mix them together and you'd make a remote battle station. Each ARC has 1 of Multiple deployable options from which the player and commanders can decide what to deploy at their designated site.

[DviddLeff]

Good point about how things could/should change if players could set up their own "bases".

My thoughts revolve around overhauling the Lodestar so that vehicles can spawn from it when it is landed/deployed.

The AMS already allows players to respawn and rearm in the field, a new heavy AMS could spawn MAXs.

Engineers can set up turrets and mines, as well as the manned turrets (these could become automatic at a reduced fire rate perhaps).

I would make AMSs and Lodestars require NTUs to power them, and have them refill at either base NTU silos or warp gates.

[Vancha]

we must be able to find a purpose to "camp" in those "quiet areas" of every map.
Ideally those "quiet areas" won't exist in the sequel, which would render ARCs a moot point, but anyway...

How large, roughly, would the large ARCs be? How close to a base would they be allowed to deploy and what awards would the enemy get for taking them/destroying them?


My thoughts revolve around overhauling the Lodestar so that vehicles can spawn from it when it is landed/deployed.

The AMS already allows players to respawn and rearm in the field, a new heavy AMS could spawn MAXs.
They're some fairly major changes too...which assume that either of the vehicles will have an equivalent in PSN.

Regarding AMS MAXs/Lodestar vehicles...do we really want that? The choice between spawning at the base walls/in the base courtyard as infantry, or having to spawn further and further away for heavier equipment (tower for MAXs, base for vehicles) seems like a fairly essential thing to keep intact. Being able to create MAXs and tanks right outside their door could very well quash the possibility for the defenders to ever reclaim their base after the "courtyard" gets taken (or however they gain access to vehicles in the sequel).

[DviddLeff]

True Vancha, having MAXs and vehicles able to spawn right at the gates or even inside an enemy CY would be troublesome; perhaps make it so that these heavy vehicles (and perhaps even the standard AMS as an additional change) can't deploy within an enemy SOI?

I really do think that giving players the choice to set up a mini-base where ever they want would help keep fights away from the bases; but as you say its an issue if they get set up too close to enemy bases. Also the Lodestar spawning vehicles and heavy AMS spawning MAXs would use up NTUs; which the vehicles could have to replenish from warp gates or friendly NTU silos (or have players use NTU siphons to steal it) so they wouldn't be able to be used indefinitely without a supply line. Also they would be risky to set up close to the enemy, as the NTUs would be lost if it was destroyed...

[Vancha]

I think we should leave it up to the terrain to create fights between bases...your idea seems too problematic in regards to using AMS/Lodestars.

With warpgates, you end up having people driving great distances, seeing very little battle, in order to keep stocking up on NTU. Not so bad for a lode, but torturous for an AMS.

With bases, how do you stop people griefing their own empire? I remember a fair few instances where people thought a base was worth losing in order to protect another one...you could well end up with 2-3 people pulling AMS, leeching the NTU and then destroying them to make the base go neutral.

With that said, I read an idea elsewhere about upgradeable bases using resources and such...which made me wonder if we could do the same kind of thing with towers (or whatever the sequel's equivalent is). What if towers were "upgradeable" by commanders/engineers/someone new, who could add a vehicle terminal of some kind? If you restricted it to light vehicles (ATVs, buggies and lightnings, for example), I think it'd be both balanced and relatively simple.

Alternatively, you could scrap towers all together and create something with a similar function, but buildable/deployable...

I do like the idea of player-built bases, but considering it wasn't entirely uncommon to end up with too many AMS', I wonder how you decide who gets to place the base among all those hundreds of players?

[Furret]

Personally, I think these mini bases would be too much like the infamous BFR. Too much firepower in too small an area. The great thing about planetside was having to work together to achieve a goal. The whole is more than the sum of its parts. That kind of thing. A base/walker would create too much of a one man army situation, where someone who gets a base walker can tell it to go wherever and change the battle.

The only way I can see it being implemented, is if it had a severe weak spot (like the open hardpoints in the video). Players should be able to say, run under the base/walker and fire two decimators into the core, and blow the whole damn thing up. Also, maybe a limit on the number of base/walkers per day per empire. That would definitely change the flow of the battle as soon as a base/walker shows up.

Although mostly, I agree with Vancha (again) that the terrain should be the main thing that shapes the battle

[DviddLeff]

The only way I can see it being implemented, is if it had a severe weak spot (like the open hardpoints in the video). Players should be able to say, run under the base/walker and fire two decimators into the core, and blow the whole damn thing up. Also, maybe a limit on the number of base/walkers per day per empire. That would definitely change the flow of the battle as soon as a base/walker shows up.

Just like Skywalker :p

I totally agree that the terrain should dictate the flow of battle, with the VS having the option to use water to their advantage, and aircraft able to ignore it all.

Having my AMS/Lodestar deployable "bases" implemented allows the battle lines to stay out in the field; you would have to work together to take out or defend these strong points, especially if they are defended with one man turrets and engy deployables.

I would like to see airborne mini bases, akin to the BF2142 titans; if you never destroyed one of those things you missed a fantastic gaming experience.

Check this out for a summary:
YouTube- Battlefield 2142 Titan Training Video

Now you wouldn't have to give them so strong a shield, or as many control consoles to destroy, but those are minor details as it gives yet another different aspect to game play. Make them purchasable with outfit points and you finally have a use for them.

Edit: 4 hours later:
http://img686.imageshack.us/img686/4641/airbase.jpg
http://img707.imageshack.us/img707/2960/airbaserear.jpg
http://img717.imageshack.us/img717/5149/airbaseunderside.jpg

[Baneblade]

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/list.m?topic_id=88000018644

The original Air Cruiser creator was me, it has since gone through a lot of changes and of course been all but abandoned since that thread.

I still think Air Cruisers would be one of the best ways to add to PS without taking away from it and at the same time bringing in a whole lot more in gameplay dynamics.

[Furret]

I feel like keeping track of people in a moving vehicle wouldn't be as hard as people think.

It just takes good coding. Personally, I don't think SOE should make PlanetSide 2 at all. The game probably needs to wait a few more years to come out, because for the true essence of PlanetSide, you're gonna need a lot of... stuff...

I feel like my computer could handle an ideal PlanetSide 2, but the game shouldn't come out until the average computer speed is as fast as mine =D

[DviddLeff]

Yeah Battlefield has managed to have people standing on moving vehicles way back in BF1942, similar release date to PS but obviously small scale.

Now I presume the average computer would be able to handle it in a MMO environment.

[Baneblade]

I feel like keeping track of people in a moving vehicle wouldn't be as hard as people think.

It won't be, because PS already does it. Every vehicle also has players in it, they don't disappear when they board it. If they did, the entire game would shit a brick every time someone did a full gal drop.

[Furret]

well the game only has to keep track of what, 13 people plus a possible vehicle with 2 people in it?
these airships would potentially have to keep track of hundreds of people.

[Baneblade]

Which would be different than without the airships how?

[Furret]

ten times the amount of avatars the game has to keep track of, all moving individually and with the airship?
I figure if thats not coded correctly, there's gonna be a hell of a lot of lag whenever an airship battle occurs

[Baneblade]

ten times the amount of avatars the game has to keep track of, all moving individually and with the airship?
I figure if thats not coded correctly, there's gonna be a hell of a lot of lag whenever an airship battle occurs

I'm not sure what you mean with that first part.

[Furret]

when 13 players jump in a galaxy, the game doesn't actually have to keep track of the positions of the troops. They aren't able to move around in the galaxy, just shoot/drive/watch. The players in the galaxy also couldn't interact with the outside world (save for exiting the galaxy). Pretty much, the game only had to keep track of the galaxy (for example: Galaxy at point (364.9,247.2,104.6) and that the galaxy had 13 players in it.

In order for one of these fortresses, the game would have to keep track of all the players moving around inside a moving vehicle.

Lets say there's a fortress moving at a constant speed of 5 mph due north.
There's a player inside the fortress moving at a constant speed of 5 mph due south.
The player is moving at 5 mph relative to the fortress, but 0 mph relative to the ground.
Now lets say the player turns 180 degrees, and runs the same speed due north. The player is still moving 5 mph relative to the fortress, but is now moving 10 mph relative to the ground.

Okay, I just explained all that, but I think I'm wrong.

If you had the character's position modified at all times by whatever the fortress is doing, you could save a lot of processing time.

>.>

[Baneblade]

It isn't as complicated as you make it sound. The game engine already supports units 'riding' on moving vehicles. No significant lag was generated by this.

[Furret]

the only difference is that the people wouldn't be riding. They'd be moving around inside the vehicle

[Baneblade]

Why would that be a difference? You aren't making any sense.

[Furret]

rawr! there's no easy way to explain it >.>\
Lets try a metaphor.
Okay, lets pretend there's a tube with 13 marbles in it. The tube can fit one marble sideways and thirteen marbles up/down. Once you put the cap on it, its nice and snug. If the tube started floating in a certain direction, how well could you keep track of each individual marbles position? Pretty well right?

Now lets say you have 500 marbles sitting on a tarp. Then four people pick up the corners of the tarp and start running with it, while flapping the tarp. How well can you keep track of each individual marble now? Not easily at all.

See what i'm getting at?

[Baneblade]

To a computer, there would be no difference. It can't use logical thinking. Every object is a variable it must keep track of independently.

[Furret]

meh, i was just thinking there would be more variables acting on the persons position, but i'm not sure anymore

[Baneblade]

Nope, riding around the continent on the top of a Vanguard is just as laggy as letting it mow you down.

[Sifer2]

Ah yeah the Titan mode was pretty fun in BF:2142. That game was basically the closest to a Planetside 2 we have had thus far though obvious it wasn't an MMO.

That would be the question is if the large mobile air bases could still function when you have hundreds of players instead of just around 60. I think they probably could.

However if they do them I hope they fix the two major issues Titan's had in 2142. The first was the bad FPS dip you would get when attacking one since when you land on it you have to suddenly load in all the ships indoor textures. Defenders would always camp the entrances an just mow you down during that dip lol.

The second was that when Titans were moving around there were physics glitches. For instance if your support guy an dropped one of those remote turrets in the right places you could push it through the floor or a wall when the Titan was moving. Then it would shoot people through them very annoying. It's why later in the games life server hosts just banned Titan movement which made the mode kind of pointless.

[Furret]

So a few months of troubleshooting for airships and everyone's happy =D

And maybe the place you landed on the airship was at the top, and you slid down the side of the ship before you even saw any enemies. The game loads the indoor environment while you're sliding down, and you're safe from enemy fire.

I don't know why i do this, but my ideas always come in the form of 'seed->tree'
There are no middle stages where i'm still developing shit. It causes very confusing posts >.>

Okay, full layed-out version:

In order to board the ship, you have to make a very precise drop to the top of the ship. The top of the ship is very very windy, and as soon as you land you are knocked to the ground. Once you hit the ground, your weapons are automatically put away, because your character is spending his time trying to slide in the right direction (towards the chute that heads to the battle). Once you get to the chute, it drops you down toward the battle. This drop takes a variable amount of time, depending on how long it takes your computer to load the airship's environment. Then, once you land, you're good to go and ready to fight on the airship.

[Baneblade]

The airship environment would be like everything else in PS, fluid (well as fluid as it can be).