[Suggestion] Furnishings for Construction, Livelier Bases

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Detectivemac, Apr 28, 2016.

  1. Detectivemac

    Obviously this isn't a massively pressing concern, but I've heard the complaint from friends and random people alike that the biggest thing they can't stand about Planetside 2's art design is that everything is, in their opinions, just too bland and sterile. There's no soul in any of it. While I understand that this might be partially intentional given that the game is about clone armies fighting an eternal war with a large portion of their supplies being provided by a neutral mega-corporation, you've already defeated yourself if this was the intent- putting such flamboyant cosmetics on sale has seen to this.

    So here I'm just suggesting two things.
    • Furniture available for ANT construction. Chairs, couches, cots, desks, maybe a barracks prefab- one of the big appeals to building your own base in games that give you the option is tweaking the layout until it's comfortable and homey to the owner- and you don't have much to work with at the moment.
    • Less utterly soulless art design. Look, I'm not trying to bash the old art director or whoever the new one is or anything like that, but the current style for bases in particular is just kind of... Bad, in my opinion. It's a bunch of gray boxes with over-designed sci-fi greeble and not much in the way of personality. I'm sure you guys are tired of hearing comparisons to PS1 given the differences in budget, but heck, PS1 had beds, locker rooms, medical facilities, and by my recollection, even rec rooms.
    Just something to think about, in the future or no.
    • Up x 2
  2. Sebastien

    All those things would cripple framerates.
  3. sebastian oscar post

    *facephalm*
  4. DeadAlive99

    I totally agree, OP. I've always despised the bland, greyscale, uniform design. There's so much that could be done there, and the best way to do it would be to get volunteers from the community. There are lots of people that would love to do that stuff and get a huge ego trip off of it, to boot.

    That depends on how much you put in, how it is put in (simple rectangular shaped collision box vs intricate detailed box, or even no-collision pass-thru aesthetics), and what kind of battles are typically fought in each room.

    If an open field battle with tons of waving flora and massive weapon effects doesn't kill the framerate, then I would think a few cots, a toilet and a flower vase in a room with a small battle would be no problem. It's that open field rendering that can cause fps issues. (I'm willing to be corrected, of course, I'm no codin' king, or anything)

    Here's what I'm thinking: First, you redesign the bases to be more life like with good variety. Then, you test one base at a time and see how the battles affect the framerate, and where the bigger battles tend to be fought. Wherever the problem rooms are, lessen the content.

    But definitely, "we've" got to try. These bases are horribly bland. And especially with great graphics being the big thing these days, improving on that will only help our population issue.
  5. Detectivemac

    My knowledge on videogame development is nil, but from a pure outsider's perspective, I'm not sure I understand precisely how we can have people building giant fortresses but a flower pot or couch here and there would kill everything. Willing to be corrected.

    Don't you facephalm me. Atmosphere and art direction is an important part of games for plenty of people.

    It'd just be a nice little thing, in any case.
  6. Sebastien

    Because the fortresses add more things to use to kill mans. Nobody is going to take time to look at furniture more than once, after that it may as well be boxes hat way less ram is needed.
  7. Demigan

    If players were able to build it themselves, big problem for frame rate.

    But as I noticed the other day, many bases have gotten more like homes. You'll find tables and chairs spread out, and other crap standing in bases. I think this might be the first step in making the bases more like homes and repurposed war bases.
  8. Detectivemac


    Yeah, I only just now discovered that there actually are things like chairs and tables sitting around in some of the bases now. This is pretty nice, a good first step.




    Well in that case, we really might as well have a completely blank white gameworld since flavor is completely unnecessary, you know?

    In any case, apparently they can add a little bit of this stuff seeing as some of it has already been implemented.
  9. ArcKnight

    this is a WAR!!!!!!!!!! not a family picnic simulator

    and I doubt this will be good for framerates
  10. sebastian oscar post

    Solders in freaking bunkers no not need ******* FLOWER POTS!
    Are you some ******** spoilt little sh*t who gets everything he wants except F***ING FLOWER POTS IN A MILITARY BASE IN GGGGAAAAAMMMMEEEE?!
  11. websterhamster

    It would also be nice to be able to add our outfit logos to our bases.
  12. DeadAlive99

    I think the fps aspect is being way overblown here. I've played other shooters that have moderate sized indoor battles, complete with rooms filled with stuff, and they play fine.

    In fact, having bases with empty rooms is very unusual in shooters.

    I know the aesthetics are unimportant to some, but they are important to a lot of us, and anything that doesn't hurt one group, but pleases another, should be added to the game.
  13. Detectivemac

    Are you well, sir?

    Also soldiers aren't hardened ALWAYS SERIOUS ALWAYS KILLING OSCAR TANGO MIKE machines, they goof off constantly when they're not fighting. Having stuff that makes the bases look vaguely lived in feels more "real" than not.
  14. XanIves

    Other games simply are not PS2. Planetside 2 used to have all of the things this thread talks about, chairs, tables, unique models that gave a sense of prensence to each facility, but they were removed at part of the Operation Make Game Fast update. A lot of extra decorative models adds up fast when you have to render hitboxes and individual models.

    Rendering 1 million identical models is far cheaper in processing time than rendering 1 million unique models. A bit of an exxagerated metaphor, but it gets the point across.


    However, that being said, Planetside's performance is in an excellet place right now, with the introduction of multithreading support and a number of optimizations over the years, so they may very well be able to add these models back into the game without rendering it unplayable for half the population. Pretty sure we already saw tables returning in one of the revamped Indar bases.
  15. Mezinov




    [IMG]
  16. Scr1nRusher

    How about a interior crocodile alligator that drives a Chevrolet movie theater?
  17. Money

    [IMG]
    • Up x 1
  18. Raap


    In very short; Each object is a set of draw calls for the engine - and therefore your computer - to load and render. Add too many objects and you will simply overtax systems. The size of objects is irrelevant, which is why PS2 happily throws around large buildings everywhere, but avoid decorating said buildings with tons of little things. Similarly PS2 uses the same object many times over, you probably recognize the same stack of boxes in quite a few locations, perhaps turned or tilted, but the same model nonetheless, this is likely due to PS2's engine either only loading such model once, or the engine can group the model, both methods should result in few draw calls (I don't know PS2's engine so I cannot say which method is used).

    There is a lot more that can come into play, such as the texture resolutions, animations (if any), game logic (if any), etc. But you get the idea, detailed assets really murders performance while adding little to gameplay.

    Edit: Worth noting is that this graphical limitation does not mean PS2's engine is bad. I'd say it is a very good engine, not many games can do what PS2 does; A massively multiplayer shooter that can perform extremely well with tons of people in the same location. Such functionality has a price.

    With that said, adding a few semi-fluff things that can be constructed won't hurt much. A sensible thing would be base floors and light posts (dark light perhaps). These would have to be limited by the same rules as all current building mechanics... But chairs? Those would serve zero real purpose.
  19. Detectivemac


    That sounds vaguely familiar, so I must have forgotten it. Thanks.
  20. DeadAlive99

    All of that makes sense to a point, but with the description I give below, I still don't really get why PS2 is so different than other shooters. It certainly is massively different outdoors, but inside of small rooms, I don't see any difference.

    The client only has to render what is seen by the characters eyes (correct?). Much of the additions we're talking about would be inside of these small bunker type rooms, including inside of small rooms that are inside of larger bases.

    It doesn't matter if there are 10 rooms inside of a large base, and each room has 5 new objects in it, and there are 100 players fighting inside the base. The only thing that matters is how many people are fighting inside of an individual room, and can the client render a single room with 5 additional objects. Correct? Larger rooms and semi open areas, like the mid-level of a bio lab where heavy farming takes place, need not have anything added.

    If 10 people can fight inside of an object filled room in BF, why can't they do the same here? PS2 gameplay is only really different when you get outdoors. Indoors, you could sub in BF weapons, sounds and graphics and no one could tell the difference, i.e, you go in a room and shoot people.

    If 100 new objects inside the whole base had to be rendered at the same time along with 100 players visible through walls, for some odd reason, it would be easy to understand it being a problem. But I think we are predominantly talking about these bunker sized rooms that never have more than 10-15 people in them, tops. Plus, the type of fighting in those rooms is very typically "camp, strafe, spam and farm". There's not a lot of sprinting around and heavy camera action. Some, yes, but not like other areas.

    So, with this clarified, would you still say that the client could not handle it? And if so, why is a bunker sized room in PS2 so different for the client than in other shooters?