I put some thoughts in many other posts, threads, in the way past so you will have to check them out if you want to hear all the requests I made to make a better game. Anyway for this post.... (A.) Make more than one way to complete the objective, not just capture the control points and hold them to take over control of a structure, building in the game. i.e. we could manually interact with each control point, if control points will still be in the game, and like overloading a generator, place nanites on it to start deconstruction of the thing. You will see a health bar, when this is done, going down. It can be saved by the owning faction by manual interacting with it to simulate nanites released to attack the foreign nanites that are in and on the control point. Note: Perhaps make more depth in the game by giving loadout options to carry such nanites to attack enemy , and nanites to repair and defend control points, a character will have to to have to take these actions(offensive or Support role regarding control points). Perhaps going further to make the game more interesting, is that only engineers can do the saving task(equip support nanites in a slot on character), and infiltrator can do the attacking(only equip the attacking nanites in a slot)? Also, we can, as infantry go in and destroy the Nanite system that is inside the building and keeping it maintained, so it vulnerable to say an ANT to come damage it, that is one more way to take down an enemy building resulting in destruction of any control points in it. The system can be repaired if destroyed of course, to come back up online, repairing and making the building invulnerable once more. (B) Let us create our own sturctures/buildings, that influence the game. i.e. Tech plant and the like, in whatever part of the continent we see fit. More on the idea is in other posts of mine; spoke about this peviously. Note: This is an opportunity to help with gaining revenue, because people can put their own design of a faciliyt(i.e. tech plant, biolab), in the game, by going through your studio. i.e. they pay to have it stay in the game, monthly. Every day you can send out data to clients to download any new designs. Furthermore, clean up of any old designs might happen every 6 months or so, to give time if someone want their design back int he game and started to pay to make it so(This saves bandwidth on both sides/the clients+game company side). (C) Make the game MODULAR, so things, features, can be put in and taken out with little or no bugs! As in modular I mean the coding for the environment, physics, so on, have their own places, and also can be changed if you desire easily without affecting anything else making bugs. i.e. Physics in the game Changing of gravity to have influence on objects/vehicles in the game can be done. NOT LIKE how you have it now in Planetside 2 where the coding seems messed up, for example you changed the emissary gun properties not too long ago and there was grapic problem with tiny and long arms, if you get my point! (D) MAKE NPCs, Including EMPIRE command NPC, so we are under orders to take something, mine something, do something(Mission given) by higher up. As for the regular NPC, we could get Empire Favour/points for special services, and idea I explained in other posts. i.e. we get empire points/command points/credits(whatever you want to call it), if we do things with our character to benefit the empire like healing up allies, killing, mining, and like. We can then spend those personal credits/points for special services, dropships to bring in a spawn point, gun ships, bombers, missile strike, create a NPC vehicle to follow and support your vehicle(i.e tank, mining vehicle) with onboard ammunition printer and intelligence to keep a certain distance from your vehicle, etcetera. NOTE: you should be able to gamble with these credits/empire points in Sanctuary, if you want playing little mini games, this was also explained in previous posts. (E) More things to do for the individual character in game. Customization of personal equipment is one of those areas while maintaining game Balance. i.e. Rival chassis will give 10% better traction, stopping power, turning speed per level, but will reduce speed+acceleration, at the same percentage for game balance purposes, and this is also fairly realistic, based on real life, as it is a heavier setup(and no engine modification to counter more weight). The opposite modification is SPEED Chassis, giving larger engine but less handling of the same percentage when going through upgrades. (F) Take your time, and listen to ideas from all over before beginning making the GAME. It will be a long and hard journey(going all over so many suggestions with internal discussion), to get what people mostly want/generally want, then you should be able to make great game that is accepted by new and older players of these open world games. Make Air Vulnerable Anti Air Ground, Equal or a bit more, still they maintain their dangerous arsenal. Right now, it is bad in Planetside 2, with the GROUND TO AIR weapons.
Yet another PS3 thread, anyway I'll throw my wish into the well. Real time atmospheric scattering. This is so beautiful it must be added to PS3. The sun almost exactly how it looks in real life when you see it rise over the water. <3
A) Shouldn't you first have an idea what these buildings would actually do? If it's destroyed, do the walls disappear? If so, what use would it have for the attackers? If they can hold the building long enough to deconstruct it this way then they are basically destroying their own cover. So the building would actually need to perform a task, but what tasks would those be? You also want attackability. If the attackers cannot enter the base to attack these buildings and eventually capture the points then you lose a lot of the gameplay. But if we keep the attacks as-is and the attackers have to go from building to building to get to the control point then the defenders are at a massive disadvantage. It's hard for the defenders to spread out throughout a base and keep buildings safe or keep repairing them and to add insult to injury they would need open and visible engineers while the attackers have easily hidden sneaking infiltrators. B) I doubt that this would be possible in combination with large amounts of players. Facilities are large and require a lot of space and area to place. Also having players generate designs would ineviteably lead to players creating a murderhole chokepoint facility that is nigh impossible to capture... Except for maybe a few teeny tiny clippable walls or a hidden one-way teleporter somewhere? This isn't new, if you've ever played any modified player-made maps they often have some kind of hidden thing that helps the maker get a massive unfair advantage. I can see a small amount of player-made additions to the game maps to help with terrain features and such, but not entire facilities. C) Any game developer would want this, and if they could they would. Making a bug-free game that is easy to adapt is the dream, and the Unreal Engine has always been the leading engine as far as I can tell in ease of use and adaptability. Yet it doesn't have this modularity, so it is likely impossible. D) I hope you mean a Director AI like Left 4 Dead has but instead of controlling zombies it controls... No wait it just controls zombies again. Yes I think it would be nice to have an overarching AI try to provide a basic reward structure that encourages good fights. It should reward (never punish!) players for following it's commands. This AI can also identify certain actions, like players holding a chokepoint (based on momentary heat maps containing deaths of players for example) and then make that an objective to complete. Such objectives could tie into the need for acquiring statistics players have. A "break chokepoint" objective is a valuable statistic that shows you are willing and able to break chokepoints for example. NPC's as in regular NPC's that can follow you and do stuff is a no-no. It is very hard to create AI's, and on PS2's continents you see problems arise. The game Firefall had a similar setup with large maps and AI that walked it and that game required a seperate server to run all the AI elements. But pathing is an exponential endeavor for an AI to complete, so any time the AI would be send large distances the AI servers would be brought to their knees. We also see that AI is server-side, like the Spitfires, and that this provides it's own problems. The looking direction of AI on your screen doesn't have to be the actual looking direction the server has, and trying to have the AI predict player behaviour based on the intermittend packages it receives (more intermittend than other games because of the latency system we need for large amounts of players) is a nightmare. E) Yes, vanilla vehicles (and infantry) shouldn't be at an automatic disadvantage. I think that all cert investments should be focused on specialization rather than direct upgrades. The only upgrades I would go for would be convenience upgrades. Having more ammo in your tank is a convenience but doesn't help you fight the battle better, just stick around for longer (unless the game uses low ammo counts that is). F) I think that aircraft should simply be redesigned to start with. PS2 is a large-scale game, make use of that! It's one of the only games around where an airfield could be an airfield. Absolutely massive, having a few bases around it's perimiter that provide services to the aircraft. While VTOL aircraft would be available I would love to see a division. VTOL are more helicopter-like, they focus on maneuverability to do combat with both ground and air, but when almost still their maneuverability is lower (to prevent the pinpoint accurate flying high-powered turrets we have now). On the other hand you have "normal" aircraft that require some distance to take off and land. These could function more like the bombers and fighter-bombers that PS2's WWII combat seems to favor. And yes, ground units should simply have the tools to defeat aircraft without it being a deterrent. The same actually also counts for infantry vs tanks. I don't want PS3 to again segregate infantry and tanks because infantry is just too weak to really combat them. G) My core idea for PS3 would be to focus on large-scale combat. We know that the most played part of PS2 are the large stale-mate battles around Biolabs and the crown and such. Go for that! Make it so people can only play the large facilities. Combine that with small secondary objectives around facilities that can be completed and defended and a variety of capture mechanics that switch after each continent lock (like CTF, or a VIP mode where you have to pick up and hold the point in your backpack to capture the base etc).
At the risk of repeating myself from another post: Big battles, yes, but also something to do for small groups and solo players, by completing objectives around the big battle, cutting off the big base or cauturing somewhere else entirely (means for that one the maps need to be big enough).
Thanks for the input guys. As for people putting in their own designs, I meant they have to submit drawings to the studio, and where to put the terminals, etc. The studio will give them a price to create it(i.e. a design of a tech plant and underground tunnels to whatever part etc.). The user then pays if they think it is fair price. Game studio makes it. Also, The creation based off the submitted design, might not be 100% true to the submitted drawing and the client must understand this. After the design is made, they will have to pay for it to be kept in the game per month, 6 months, or year. Little things can be added to the designs, like pretty lighting, symbols, name of the person whatever! I thought of something else having to do with vehicle customization, perhaps can apply to infantry as well.... Physics with vehicles. Each vehicle has weight limit(you see it in the loadout screen), so one can put on as much armour(in percentage) up to a certain percentage and to keep it simple, it applies to all 6 sides of the equally vehicle in the percentage. This can give more life to the vehicle, but will certainly reduce handling, speed at least, by equal percentage of the added armour. For example 20% more armour increase, will result in -20% speed reduction and -20% handling. Resource costs of the modified vehicle might be increased percentage wise too. i.e. You put on 20% more armour on the vehicle, therefore it cost 20% more.
Mark range on target reticule/reticle. You see those lines on the guns when in vehicles, or even on infantry sniper rifle? Well, we press a keyboard key, that is assigned to mark target range, and the reticule that fits it will light up to WHITE. First thought, we have to fire at them and hit them, like a vehicle, then we know we on target, so we press the button to mark position of the gun sights. This is useful on tanks, whatever as said. (2). If you cannot make custom buildings/structures for people in Planetside 3, then make multiple ones and only allow the alternatives available to Paying Members. IMPORTANT: (3) Planteside 3 must be FREE to play. Those who are free players populate the world and give challenges to paying members. So I disagree with others that wish for it to be paid only. (4) Custom Reticules for all things, small arms and vehicles. Also, they can have their colours changed. (5) Members that pay their real money to get more. i..e number 2 and 4 suggestions above - Taunting movements, like dancing (can select out of multiple dance movements in settings)
I suggest, because I want to find the people I not like.... to put people in categories that we select via "Name in chat/information window", "pressing V while looking at them with aim", "on kill screen" of -,+, neutral. So when we go to social screen we see the negative, positive, neutral list of their names. Also, we can put notes with a little note window when we click on their names , as to why we not like them, like them, or neutral towards them. furthermore, if we see them on the battlefield, area where we playing, we see the symbols near their names, perhaps RED - sign for ones we not like, Green + sign for ones we like, = grey sign for neutral(beside their names). 2. Need more depth in the game like doubling up Sunder Slots by taking away something and/or making it cost more. i.e... - Double deploy shield will give the sunder constant recharge rate of shield(it can do so while under fire), like how it does now(the recharge speed) when it being restored after taking damage. - Double cloak bubble will yield a sunder that still remains cloaked while taking fire, also can cloak vehicles around it in the small bubble. Therefore approximately 4 vehicles depending on size can fit cloaked around it, and will reveal themselves if they fire. - Etc. The vehicles modified in this manner, will cost maybe double Nanites and/or you lose some passenger seats to simulate fitting the extra slot. Furthermore, the vehicles might travel slower, because they are heavier, so there can be a speed penalty as well.
