Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Can Planetside 2 evolve into great sandbox?
COOKERpl
Member Posts: 63
Is it possible that Planetside 2 will become next big sandbox ??
Thay said Planetside 2 will have some basic features in at launch, and then they want to expand on sandbox features later on. They will be talking with community about what players like / hate in game, so they can implement features ppl want / need to enyjoy the game.
What can be in the game we already know about ? [posted this in some other thread too , so its copy/pasted]
Player build structures / permament guild bases [after launch],
Active / offline progression and unlocks,
Player customised vehicles / weapons etc.
Resources will be needed for everything from gear to character progression,
Every inch of the landscape can be conquered,
New landscapes and even new PLANETS after launch,
Missions [auto generated by your empire or given by clan leaders],
- looks like good stuff. Ofc at launch it's not going to be ultimate sandbox, there will be no entertainers, no picking flowers for alchemy and cooking, but better this than nothing 
and they can expand that game with patches / expacks.
So what you think ? And what features would you like to see implemented ?
http://youtu.be/UenArhz6ESM part 1
http://youtu.be/3THiEGpSbIU part 2 - planetside 2 panel an Fan Faire.
Comments
If they have SWG- like crafting or EvE Online size of crafting, I'll buy a lifetime sub straight out of the box. I love eve, but it's truly flying spreadsheets in space. I've been looking forward to Dust, because it would be Planetside like. However, now that we're getting Planetside 2.0.......
I like a little twitch to go with my crafting. I need a full spectrum to keep me playing, not just one playstyle.
Really I hope not. I just want Planetside back the way I used to play it ~8 years ago.
No crafting, or collecting junk.
I dont need player/guild housing, that's why we had bases belonging to each side.
No missions either, just find a hotspot and drop.
It was great instant action, no garbage getting in the way of pure team based FPS goodness.
Go play counterstrike? I would say play TF2 but it has "crafting."
You just requested a solid FPS (though I never played PS, so I may be missing something).
God no, there is a reason why planetside didn't did got to be that smashing hit.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
How so? In it's peak, I could easily find 50-80 people battles going on, sometimes they lasted for several hours. Its not a game that needs 100,000 simultaneous players.
What killed it was stupid updates and expansions that unbalanced the game or just made it no fun to play.
If you think 50-80 is a good count for a healthy battle then you should have looked into ww2online at its peak around the same time planetside had it's peak, we had battles with 300-400 players even up to 600 at the same battle and across the entire front there were smaller battles, so i really dont see your point what you mean by healthy.
If it's not broken, you are not innovating.
I also hope that it doesn't evolve into sandbox. I am looking for an action game just the way original was. Also all the features that you mentioned in OP are implemented in themeparks too. I think you mean more like a hybrid sandbox?
Not going to happen with an MMOFPS game.
even more in SOE hands, best hope for another company do something who looks like it.
turning planetside 2 into a sandbox game would be a mistake, its a FPS... 3 way battles over bases... not sure how they can introduce more without spoiling everything.
Whether it can or not doesn't really matter. SOE are a free falling company that lacks the innovation needed to bring anything worth while to this market.
Planet Side is sandbox. Giving the players the opportunity to change the world around them without being funnelled through a path.
Agree, from what I see it's got plenty of sandboxy features in already. I've been yammering about this for ages now that the natural progression of the genre is a "hybrid" sandbox - open-ended world simulator but with carefully designed options for players to influence the world.
So it's not a 100% sandbox where the players can do absolutely whatever the hell they want or on-the-rails single player console thing with some "story" to run through while other people bother you. The natural evolution is somewhere in the middle - A sandbox underlying structure with plenty of "themepark" goodnes laid on top. GW2 folks seem to grasp it with their Dynamic Events and WvW and now even the allmighty $OE (we know what's good for you) are getting the picture. Good times for the mmo genre are finally ahead, I'd say.
Sandbox would be allowing players to build their own bases, control flow of war machine production from supply node to the Front sort of like a RTS game.
And that would be pretty nice. It's also something I don't think they'll incorporate to their system, to be honest. I would love to see something like that, but I just don't see the devs doing it (don't ask me why, it's just a hunch). Anyway, ever played Savage and/or Savage 2? That was one hell of a game (still is, and it's free to download now) in which one person would be the commander and the rest would function as ground troops. The commander would build things and give orders (which would be obeyed at the discretion of the players (believe it or not, they almost always did)) while the rest of the players would fight for resources and then defend them. It involved a lot of skill on both sides: if you fucked up with your resources as commander, the rest of the army wouldn't have enough upgrades and better units; if you or your ground squad weren't decent at FPS and/or managing skills RPG-style, then they could get easily smashed by better players. The balance was very good from what I can recall (haven't played in years, though) - if as commander you noticed that your ground troops weren't that good skill-wise, you had to make it up by devising a strong strategy and giving them all the little upgrades you could. If as ground troop you noticed that your commander wasn't very good, you could just vote to kick him out, hahaha.
Anyway, I think there's plenty of players out there who would love to take the partially distant commander role as well as many who would take on administrative/productive roles.
I agree. There is this myth that if you feature a commander role in a PvP game then everybody is going to want to be the "leader". My experience with open world PvP games is just the opposite. Most players are the happiest while being free to shoot people and follow orders for the "greater good" under a reasonably competent commander. (the responsibilities are not that fun really. If you win then it's "team effort" if you loose it's always the commanders' fault. As italians say, "Victory has many fathers but defeat is always an orphan") Imo the time is nigh for a massive PvP game that incorporates a proper command structure.
I didn't mean turn it into a Battlefield 2 game with the commander position where everyone's game is ruined if your commander sucks.
Well imo that's why the commander position should be left to the players to decide... That's why I rather liked the WAR/DAoC systems.. You have the tools to command (dedicated global channels and such) but there is no in-game mechanic that would determine who actually takes the commander role. In WAR it was all dead simple: if you're good people follow you. If you suck then people leave your warband. Imo the tools to effectively coordinate/lead should be provided by the game but the act of choosing the leader should be left to the players, if only by being able to leave/join an outfit at will.
If every player has the commander tools at his disposal then it is pure natural selection which determines which players draw in more troops under their leadership. The trouble begins when such tools are unlcked by in-game mechanics, such as combat experience or something. In my experience, players who rack up most kills are rarely the best commanders... The best warband leaders in WAR are mostly folks who wouldn't bother with actually killing an enemy player and are more into strategic play with other WB leaders or simply being nice to their "troops". "Combat" players are usually too obsessed with their personal achievement and ego to make truly great warband leaders (ofc there are numerous exceptions to the rule). To each his own I say... pansy strategists and gung-ho warriors both need each other and there is no reason why one should be predicated on the other. A good PvP game gives space and opportunity to both classes of players and provides equal opportunity for glory and achievement to both of them.
Well in Planetside the AMS driver has considerable amount of battlefield control, caues they control where infantry spawn. There's a good starting point for players who like to command, really command.
Yeah, this.
Planetside was always about constant action and taking bases. I don't want anything to change that.
Although I wouldn't want them to go back 8 years, removing all the balancing and good things they added. We'd have people being constantly run over, cloakers killing rexo users with ease, people using surge while shooting, TR Maxes with no useful ability, AMSes with one terminal on the back so it gets crowded, skyguards being completely useless, Sunderers (remember them?) being completely useless, the Striker bug that let you fire and then lock on giving the target no warning, having to wait 10 minutes for the HART... and we'd lose some cool weapons and vehicles like the Dragon, the Radiator, the Scorpion, the Scout Rifle, the LodeStar, the Wasp, the Router, the Switchblade, the Thunderer variants... plus countless things I haven't mentioned. They may have messed up with BFRs, but they've also added a lot of cool stuff since launch. It makes me sad to think we probably won't see a lot of it return in PS2.
IMO
PS1 was great but it's a new generation of players out there now.
There has not truely been anything like PS1 since its decline, yes I know Tribes, Tabula Rasa, Global Agenda, and such, but they were never truely its equal.
We will see in PS2 many sandbox elements and I'm sure those will be much more similar to other MMORPGs not to FPS or MMOFPS games of today. It maybe that the new changes to PS2 take the game in a whole new direction while retaining some of the mass combat we enjoyed during capturing of the bases, towers, or continents that made the first so enjoyable. Then again taking the game in a new direction could destroy the mass combat entirely.
We currently see ourselves awash in MMOs these days both pay to play and free to play and we like to say that there's something out there for everyone but as I see it we have simply deluted the waters with halfa** games that quickly go to a free to play models or end entirely. If you build it they will come doesn't work as well when the genie of newness is more than a decade out of the bottle.
I will be preordering PS2 when it becomes possible I have no doubt but I'll be a short time player if it doesn't offer the action fix I'm looking for as the original did.
No need to flame, remember this is just opinion not fact.
Nope it will suffer the same fate as Tabula Rasa.
I would guess that sandbox is the opposite direction they plan to go with Planetside 2. I would actually be happy to hear that it was going to be more like a shooter than an RPG, but that would probably make less money. I have a bad feeling they are going to leave out everything good that a real shooter game offers such as balance and emphasis on gameplay, and bring in all the bad aspects of RPGs, such as emphasis on gear and treadmill grinding. Territorial dispute, base building, and 3 faction warfare are still drawing my interest, but I'm going to have to wait and see what they do with everything else.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as I look at this, I feel like its a game such as Halo, or Call of Duty. Basically map based, play the round, then go to the next. Then I see people talking about this being a sandbox mmo? I'm confused, can someone feed me some info, i'm googling and finding very little.
Incognito
www.incognito-gaming.us
"You're either with us or against us"
The game is much more massive then halo or cod. Halo and cod max out at 24ish players while the original planetside has 300+ fighting on one continent. From what i've read Soe is hinting at 1000+ player battles but i have hard time believing anything they say these days.
Also check out this faq http://www.planetside-universe.com/p-faq-16.htma
and heres a basic guide of the continents http://www.planetside-universe.com/p-continents-18.htm