Planetside Idea Lab - Page 32

Hayoo · 2004-09-30, 07:59 AM

Thanks, Greyflcn. I'll put these in the Request Tracker and/or the Wishful Patch Notes when I get the chance.

On that packetloss bug, Fr1day's www.planetside-tracker.com would be the place to go for reporting that one.

Hayoo · 2004-10-03, 02:33 PM

Current To-Do List for graphics and diagrams:

Deployable Emplacements
Outfit Management Interface
Outfit HQ, Camps, and Barracks
Player Salaries
Capture buffer idea
Comtech, Tech, Adv Tech
Squad HUD improvements
Command Squad updates
Urban Outposts
Empire Tech Levels
Sanctuary Capitals
Planets and Continents (w/standard, geographical, and tactical maps)
Personal Inventory additions (backpacks, bags, etc)
Current Weapons
Current Vehicles
Current Facilities
Tower cut-aways
Squad compositions
Engineer version of Medic-location feature
Player tracker
Outfit privacy filters
Custom addons for Standard Armor (berets, caps, etc)
~~Hacking status above terminals~~ (finished)
~~Damage status above terminals~~ (finished)
Battleplan improvements
~~MP3 player concept shots~~ (already illustrated by Guirigay)
Empire-specific emoticons for forums
Various Wishful Patch Notes illustrations
Navy concepts (zones, lattice, certs, vehicles, etc)
Space concepts (won't develop until # of players rises)

Hamma · 2004-10-03, 03:00 PM

http://s3.************.com/Planetsid...p?showtopic=83

Some really sweet stuff over there, finally now getting a chance to look around the community more that life is calming down hehe

CassH · 2004-10-03, 04:09 PM

you have a realy big list for yourself there.

Hayoo · 2004-10-03, 08:47 PM

Thx Hamma

Originally Posted by CassH

you have a realy big list for yourself there.

Yeah, I should finish it within a couple years I think. LOL

Hayoo · 2004-10-04, 11:53 AM

Deployable Emplacements WIP section has been updated with more descriptions.

http://s3.************.com/Planetsid...wtopic=23&st=1

Medical Tent
Medical Station
Supply Post
Support Station
Command Post
Lookout Post
Bunker
Monitoring Station
Camo Netting Upgrade

Weapons Emplacements will be described soon as well.

http://s3.************.com/Planetsid...wtopic=23&st=1

Warborn · 2004-10-04, 12:18 PM

I take it you're really hoping they get Planetside a new engine sometime soon, Hayoo? Or at least find a way to make the inclusion of so many deployables feasible, performance-wise?

Hayoo · 2004-10-04, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Warborn

I take it you're really hoping they get Planetside a new engine sometime soon, Hayoo? Or at least find a way to make the inclusion of so many deployables feasible, performance-wise?

You should ask T-Ray. I ventured if this idea were possible and he said yes. So I've continued working on it.

Warborn · 2004-10-04, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by Hayoo

You should ask T-Ray. I ventured if this idea were possible and he said yes. So I've continued working on it.

With all due respect, the last time I checked, T-Ray was an artist, not a programmer or otherwise technically oriented individual. He may not be the most qualified individual to say what is within the realm of possibility when the game's continued performance is concerned. After all, flamethrowers are possible, they're just too hard on the framerate for them to add at the moment. Same sort of thing.

I'm not going to press the point, because I obviously can't back it up with much more than my own opinion, but fact is that while what you're proposing with many of your suggestions might be possible, I can't see it working well simply because of the polys involved. With all that you suggest, we're talking about some serious additions to most battlefields. Barriers, bunkers, towable guns, etc etc. They'll all have a negative impact on the game's performance, likely to the extent that this idea would be considered impractical despite whatever gameplay merits it might have.

But, either way, don't let my comments slow you down. Even if I'm correct and at the moment there's a definite technical barrier preventing the majority of your ideas from being feasible, who knows what the future will bring.

Ivan · 2004-10-04, 06:15 PM

The way I look at Hayoo's ideas is if PS can't handle them now, the ideas are there for the Devs when they think about a Planetside 2 or what ever it will be if there will be one.

Hayoo · 2004-10-05, 12:28 AM

Well the way it seems to me is that Planetside is constantly evolving and changing, finding ways to overcome obstacles, so the things I think up might or might not be in the realm of possibility. I have no way of truly knowing so it's better to be far out there than not far enough when it comes to designs. Just like the In Concept articles, the original idea might not make it in, but bits and pieces could, and that's really exciting.

1) Remember they said they couldn't do cont terrain upgrades on the fly, then reversed that when battle islands came out, since they discovered a way to do upgrades in smaller doses.

2) They said they couldn't do a variable hit feature on models, but now we have BFRs that apprently include that (please correct me if I'm wrong). Who knows what else they'll be able to do.

3) Plus we'll have had introduction of poly-heavy models like the lodestar, Core Combat vehicles, the phantasm, and now BFRs, with the promise of more content on the way. One can only assume they're thinking of ways to handle all this in the future, so I anticipate that and design accordingly.

4) The cycle of MMOs tends to includes engine upgrades. We can assume (at our peril of course) that one will come in an expansion or otherwise by at least Christmas 2005 or PS risks being left behind and percieved as shamefully outdated and irresponsibly stagnant.

5) Because SOE doesn't own me, I can let my imagination go wild and pay as little or as much attention to any techincal limitations I come up against.

But I'm glad you can forgive me on most of my concepts because of this.

6) I actually do try to limit the impact of extra dataloads on the game by duplicating textures and shapes across objects. I also take steps to limit the additions so that types of objects and features would not be massed together where there would be higher traffic and risk of more lag.

It's all a balancing act between my crackpot flights of fancy and wanting to present it with enough realism so that the Devs will consider the idea in part if not in whole.

But finally and most importantly, this is all just entertainment. I'm hoping you guys are enjoying the things I do, because that's reward in itself.

If the Devs take note and put something in that I've posted, I'll be cheering right along side everyone else.

Warborn · 2004-10-05, 12:58 AM

2) They said they couldn't do a variable hit feature on models, but now we have BFRs that apprently include that (please correct me if I'm wrong). Who knows what else they'll be able to do.

I'm fairly sure their reason for not including it was regarding infantry rather than vehicles. I honestly doubt they considered hit boxes for vehicles. For infantry I can understand, as it would create a greater load on the servers for the massive numbers of infantry hits that go on during a mid-sized fight. For vehicles though, as there are far fewer vehicles than infantry, their decision to include hitboxes for BFRs doesn't conflict with the sentiment I echoed just now. So I imagine it was more thinking outside the box than it was overcoming technical obstacles.

3) Plus we'll have had introduction of poly-heavy models like the lodestar, Core Combat vehicles, the phantasm, and now BFRs, with the promise of more content on the way. One can only assume they're thinking of ways to handle all this in the future, so I anticipate that and design accordingly.

High poly vehicles is fine and dandy, because they're piloted by people, and if you've got 300 possible vehicles to be piloted, but only 50 people in a fight, then you can still only have 50 vehicles tops in combat, so the fact that you've got all these new high poly vehicles isn't such a big issue, especially when we're talking about vehicles which you expect there to be few of in each battle.

Conversely, what you're suggesting is deployables independent of the individual. Lot's and lot's of polygonal structures which don't have a hard cap like vehicles do in realistic battlefield situations. Rather than swapping out older vehicles for newly released ones, you'd be stacking the polys on top of the vehicles and infantry already in a fight. With the amount of stuff you'd like in, performance can only decrease, because unlike vehicles, these things aren't piloted by someone, so there's seemingly little to stop many, many bunkers and barriers and towable artillery pieces from being created in the midst of a battle, bogging peoples' systems down in some cases.

4) The cycle of MMOs tends to includes engine upgrades. We can assume (at our peril of course) that one will come in an expansion or otherwise by at least Christmas 2005 or PS risks being left behind and percieved as shamefully outdated and irresponsibly stagnant.

Yes, and I eagerly await such an update, but it's been my experience that upgrades to improve engine performance tend to take the bakseat to upgrades designed to make the game look prettier first and foremost. Samhayne seems a pretty reasonable fellow though, so I hope that, when the next expansion comes around, he opts for something to improve performance, so we can get stuff like flamethrowers and, yes, maybe even stuff along the lines of what you're suggesting. Let's just hope that if it ever comes to that, such ideas aren't laid low by orbital strikes and so on too often for them to really be worth their weight.

But finally and most importantly, this is all just entertainment. I'm hoping you guys are enjoying the things I do, because that's reward in itself.

If the Devs take note and put something in that I've posted, I'll be cheering right along side everyone else.

Yes, well, your suggestions aren't limited to objects to clutter up the battlefield either, and some of it echoes my own opinion and wishes, so I would certainly enjoy seeing some of your concepts come to life too.

Originally Posted by Ivan

The way I look at Hayoo's ideas is if PS can't handle them now, the ideas are there for the Devs when they think about a Planetside 2 or what ever it will be if there will be one.

I wouldn't count on there being a Planetside 2. Current Planetside isn't afflicted with the mudflation that makes it necessary for MMORPGs to eventually have a sequel (after you get too many levels and too much loot until it's all old hat for the playerbase and too overwhelming for new players). There's really nothing that will cause Planetside to wear itself out over time. Or, more appropriately, nothing that can't be improved and updated and enhanced with patches and expansions.

Hayoo · 2004-10-05, 01:33 AM

Maybe it would have been quicker had I directly answered your original questions

Originally Posted by Warborn

I take it you're really hoping they get Planetside a new engine

Yes.

Or at least find a way to make the inclusion of so many deployables feasible, performance-wise?

Yes.

heheh. To answer the unspoken questions: Yes, I am already aware of netcode limitations, but No, I do not limit every idea to them because I believe PS or some other game can overcome them eventually. Idealab ideas are based around this assumption. I'm afraid the site would be really boring if it wasn't.

Hayoo · 2004-10-06, 08:39 PM

Various additions and tweaks to the following sections on Idealab (some are just updating links or adding forum links):

JetRaiden · 2004-10-06, 09:03 PM

Hayoo, if you were a woman, I'd make sweet, sweet love to you.