You guys should just remake the whole game in Unity or something

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by thed1rt, Nov 9, 2020.

  1. thed1rt

    I love this game but it has been bluescreening for 5+ years that I played this game on and off on ps4. Is there any plan to actually address the ps4 bluescreens?
  2. InexoraVC

    They won't. They have some income now. If they will make the same game using an other engine (Unity, UnrealEngine...) - will it raise their income ? I think it won't.
    P.S. I'm not sure other engine can handle large continents with massive battles.
  3. iller

    Even Unreal Engine is an absolute NO-GO for MMOFPS's. It would take 4 years of un-engineering and re-engineering to make any of those engines capable of producing clean Hit-Registry and proper server shader / entity culling subroutines with the kinds of dynamic entities-in-render-distance that Planetside demands

    The thing that most people don't realize about Planetside is that a LOT of its physics are only simulated and aren't actually calculated in real collision hulls because multithreading Tech for that was severely limited back in 2009-2012

    The two best bets currently are either leasing Amazon's current engine, or trying to get Mark Jacobs to share his Engine (which just got finalized finally and is moving towards becoming a medieval real-time non-simulated projectile based MMO sorta like Mordhau meets Minecraft).
    • Up x 1
  4. Liewec123

    i'm wondering what PS3 could look like made with the technology of today, have you seen the tech demo for Unreal Engine 5?
    they have one room with over 16,000,000,000 triangles for contrast an entire PS2 tower (including airpads and interior)
    is 203,900 triangles [less than 0.001% of that single room from the tech demo]
    and then they go outside...

    its crazy tech, you could render the whole of indar with every character and vehicle, all at the same time.
    imagine not having render options, because EVERYTHING is already rendered, and you can see them across the entire map.
    no pop in, just flawless smooth gameplay with thousands of movie quality models all rendered at the same time.

    go up high enough and you can see the little tanks coming from all 3 warpgates in the distance,
    you can see the battles going on at each base, you can see everything!
    • Up x 2
  5. Demigan

    If you are going to use a new engine, why try to port old PS2 to it?

    It would be the perfect time to start building PS3. As far as I'm aware PS2 has run a solid profit for years, even going so far as to help pay for a lot of failed games and even today the game is still outliving newer triple-A games. If you build PS3 from the ground up and immediately tackle the problems that PS2 faced you would have a solid game on your hands.

    For example:
    • Make use of all that space! The PS2 devs rightly made sure there were places players would come together to fight, unfortunately they forgot to make the route to get there as interesting of a fight. The construction system could have played a valuable role in this if they hadn't made it too time consuming to be properly balanced.
    • Add more capture mechanics! Having quite literally a hundred maps of King of the Hill is boring. Make sure the capture mechanics switch around with every continent capture.
    • Add combined arms! Currently the game is set up to segregate infantry, tanks and aircraft as much as possible because the balance is off. Make sure all of these are in a mutually beneficial relationship with each other.
    • Make that teamplay and sharing information as easy as using Q to spot! Currently you need to be in a squad to have the tools to do teamplay, and those tools are either too time consuming (drawing on the map) or prevent information sharing by allowing only vocal communication that stops anyone else from sharing their information at the same time.
    • Make sure there's more than one way to be a master at the various parts of the game. An infantryman who has focused solely on learning headshots should be equal to someone who mastered other aspects of the gunplay. The best players would be all-rounders capable of handling the most of these traits efficiently.
    • Allow players to constantly change the battlefield! Let them nerf an enemy vehicle so it can't escape fast enough, let them buff allied aircraft to give them the edge when assaulting some ground targets, let players place larger deployables that create their own points of interest like spawnpoints, shielded area's, power generation for nearby other deployables, area denial deployables etc.
    The problem isn't the polygon count, it's the way you handle information send to each individual player. Otherwise we could pick an old game and suddenly play with thousands of players just because the polygon count is much lower.

    Two players send 1 message to the server (their location for example). The server sends 2 messages back to each player, 1 confirming their location and 1 containing the location of the other player for a total of 4 messages (2 each).
    3 players send 1 message to the server. The server sends 3 messages back to each player for a total of 9 messages.
    4 players = 16 messages.
    a 64 player battle that most games cap out on today = 4096 messages.

    A full 100 vs 100 vs 100 battle in PS2 would mean 90.000 messages.
    A full continent of players (900 people?) would mean 810.000 messages. And then imagine how many messages that becomes every second when you add packages for facing direction, shots fired, velocity, hits registered, current cosmetics applied, server-side objects like deployables and vehicles etc and you get an idea why most games will never really rise above 64 players.

    This is where PS2's latency and rendering system comes in. It delays the messages send back to each player. This means that it basically takes a little more time to collect data and send one package to each player instead of an individual message for each player's position (at least as far as I've always understood the system). That cuts down the 810.000 messages to the amount of players present instead but with all the consequences of the latency system. However that doesn't mean that each individual player's PC can handle it if you were to throw all 900 players, deployables and vehicles at their PC.


    Other than that... Holy S h i t that is an awesome achievement for Unreal. And I thought I was seeing the future when I saw the first demo's of Unreal engine 3 with some big creatures walking around...
    • Up x 3