Planetside 3

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by then00b, Oct 18, 2019.

  1. Exileant

    o_O More pretty, more features, more money, more lag. The idea is cool, But the execution of it is an entirely different beast. I am hoping they are smart like DCUO. ;) Update the game to be able to mesh with new systems, and pile on the content. Less Lookpretties, Equal more substance.
  2. then00b

    I would think they'll keep their ambitions in check, they kind of burned themselves with how they couldn't decide what to do with construction.
  3. Twerllewr

    Please stop reposting.
  4. DemonicTreerat

    Call my cynical, but I'll believe they're seriously working on PS3 when I see a finished product released on shelves.

    Right now Daybreak's history is one of making big promises to stir up hype and attract money, maybe putting out an gross failure, then stringing people along until they come up with another idea to generate more hype. And it is getting very old, not to mention insulting that they can't seem to realize that players are seeing right through their little vaporware scheme.

    This is very much a case of "fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me". I don't care what sort of grandiose ambitions and plans they have at Daybreak. I care if they can get their heads unglued from eachothers ***** long enough to put together a game that have even a fraction of what made Planetside so long-lived.
  5. AlcyoneSerene

    Nice dream and vision. That's all it'll ever be, just like a certain other digital cult MMO with virtually endless funding has proven.

    Unless some revolutionary new game designer already has some spectacular game engine specially crafted and capable of making a game of PS2's scale or greater, to truly tackle associated problems related to networking, rendering, bugs, game balance, marketing, and exploitation/cheating, and is able to buy the Planetside IP.

    It would also help if they had a level editor and 3D/graphics editor for the skilled community fan base to contribute to it.
    • Up x 1
  6. Jbeasty

    One of the last things I expected see, but I suspect this won't be a PS2 successor at all. The article I read was loaded with "expansive galaxy" type wording to make it sound massive, but I am betting it will be a slew of small(ish) CoD-BF style maps with arena gameplay. Calling PS arena a "stepping stone" or w/e is just ominous to me.

    I'll always remain hopeful, but there is 0 indication right now that this could be a proper MMOFPS game at all, let alone anything worthy of a PS successor. Would much rather see a new IP in the genre gain traction under crowdfunding.
    • Up x 1
  7. iller

    ^Or it's just a Destiny clone with somehow even WORSE PvP which is exactly how I'd describe Arena RIGHT NOW
    The thing here that Super Duper pisses me off, is that they COULD do that if they could just talk Mark Jacobs into licensing them the new Camelot engine. ...BUT they Higby'ing WON'T,

    (It's the only thing even close to reaching the market that could run those battles without reducing everything and everyone to the complexity of EVE online's low poly Ant-Circus). instead they'll just try to find a bunch more greedy Vulture capitalists who will then demand the even more egregious monetization just like Arena got (which has also been making the pre-existing Implant system NO FUN unless you're Rich) ... and they'll waste like 5 million dollars on overpaid engineers for an inferior performance but Super Shiny BlackDesert like engine when they could have just done a little Non-Compete bargaining and started work in a matter of months for a million or two AND had whole 'nother team to fall back on as a knowledge base

    The CSE's excuse will be: "Well, new Auto-threading A.I. integrated Chips and Multi-layer Processors are coming out so we don't really NEED to build an engine from the ground up to be threading Optimized ....So Nyeeaah :p"

    It's gonna be an exact repeat of Ps2 where 2/3rds of the ppl who install it can't even approach 60fps
  8. savageshark

  9. pnkdth

    CIG used the CryEngine... And they're still wrestling with it to make it work for them. Watching recent Star Citizen videos you marvel at the exciting adventure of avoiding instant death when walking down a flight of stairs, being flung out of your own spacecraft, dying when taking the lift into your aircraft, dying walking around in your aircraft, and other hilarious physics based bugs. Star Citizen is also aiming to be much more complex and a space sim thus are facing a great deal more challenges.

    In light of iller's reply I think they're being super wary of not walking into an agreement which could create a living nightmare for the game devs, i.e. avoiding a repeat of CIG's epic mistakes when choosing theirs. When I look at previous games who tried this I think the now fixed No Man's Sky is a much better comparison. Less space sim more fast paced action (Overload or Descent type when flying around). Combining this with the personalised hovercraft in PS:A we could easily see a type of single player transport/ESF (but not really a fighter craft) or any number of combinations as you move between planets. This is what I meant with "second movers advantage" as they can copy and improve rather than going into complete unknown territory.

    In other words, I do not think the scope of what they're talking about is so far off anymore and trying to force the current PS2 engine into it is probably going to result in a mess. Makes sense to start fresh.
  10. Trigga

    Cant quite believe youve all fallen for this lie.

    ''We cant get anyone to play PS:A because all out PS2 players hate it.''
    ''I know, lets tell them its a stepping stone to PS3.''

    Do they think we were all born yesterday?
    Come on guys use your brains, dont let hype cloud your judgement.

    More than happy to eat my words, but this screams of desperation to me.
    • Up x 3
  11. pnkdth

    Speculating is fun and I will continue to get excited around similar news since the net cost for me is zero.
  12. Demigan

    Ok but how would it WORK?

    They talk about multiple empires as if there are more than 3. That would mean spreading the playerbase over more empires AND a larger fighting space.

    You have a larger universe... how do players determine where they'll fight? They grab a space-ship, fly towards a planet and...? What loads? A continent? How do you unlock a warpgate? If you do unlock a warpgate, how do you make sure enough players show up at that same planet to fight rather than roam around trying to unlock more warpgates? Do you use lattic- I mean space lanes? Do we still have VS/TR/NC or the one-size-fits-all amorphous blob empires?

    I think that some things could be solved through the Bastion Carriers. You capture a planet consisting out of a few continents and the last fight is for the elysium or whatever that safe zone is called in space. Once done your faction uses a bastion carrier fleet to move to the next planet through a lattice/space lane concept. You then get a bastion vs bastion fight around the elysium thingy around the new planet. If unsuccessful the enemy goes back to your planet where you have to defend your recently captured elysium ad infinitum until one team captures the elysium safe zone and gets to invade the planet below.
    It would still have issues with pacing. To succeed at capturing a planet you need to basically zerg it to hell, which isnt fun gameplay. With an equal fight you would always be stuck at around the midpoint as players capture and lose bases to each other, which is what we see now.
  13. That_One_Kane_Guy

    I detect the scent of a small, grey, rodent. To put it bluntly, if Planetside 3 was ready to tease last week it was ready to tease at E3, a venue where it would have not only gotten more coverage and more hype, but potentially attracted more attention and revenue for PS2 and Arena. The fact that they are name-dropping 3 after Arena bombed and immediately following the layoff of a huge number of staff is suspicious, and the last two years have exhausted my supply of trust for any gaming company.
    • Up x 2
  14. FLHuk

    I read that Demigan and all my brain is shouting is "Not another seven years of Eve Online, you can't take it!"

    How to bring player built structures, player owned structures, spread out pop, larger universe and alerts all into one.... Reinforcement timers for ground action :/

    Log on, faction timers for defence and attack locations. Meh.

    Can't see it happening but the hairs on my neck are not happy.
  15. JibbaJabba

    If I hope for one thing it is this:

    Let it not be... at least on release... a free to play game.

    Make people pay *something* (a frickin single dollar, I don't care) to play the game. Many reasons for this.
    • Up x 3
  16. pnkdth

    First of all I think we need to shed everything PS2 related and think about what makes sense in such a game as PS3.

    Continents -> Planets: Outdated concept and should be replaced with planetary bases (large bases with satellite bases) which makes up the planet. Can be fortified and built on by players.
    Planet capture : Planet gives resources/proximity/great personal joy or whatever and locks upon capture for X amount of time. Breaking through it require besting planetary defences.
    Servers -> Mega server: Switched to mega servers per region and each planetary system expands based on population/activity/resources(gotta be more to it than pop).
    Where do I go? : Clearly mark and make it easy to get to planets under siege.
    Make zerging (and responding to zerging) FUN! : f*** cont caps, f*** alerts, and focus solely on what PS2 has proven is the single most important part of PS2, namely, "a good fight" and crank this up to eleven. If a faction zergs hard then give the faction who gets dunked hard the ability to rapidly redeploy and not straight into an impossible situation but since we have a much more vertical approach let it be a special carrier or sorts that warps in. Result is 1) Good fights 2) winning 50/50 fights or close becomes much more important 3) less whining about unfair fights.

    But since we do not even have a game concept bar some statements I don't feel like going into more detail nor do I feel particularly interested in going deep into the above ideas I just posted. They're just examples of how PS2 and PS3 have different challenges and trying to force game mechanics in from PS2 out of habit would probably hurt PS3's development. I really need more meat on PS3's bones to go in depth since we'd discussing hypotheticals about a game which does not exist. That and I have no idea how.
  17. Demigan

    I actually think that the idea of a first time payment could work. Say 10 euro's or so. Give the players DBG cash or whatever of equivalent value. You basically buy the game with a spot for your account and give the players a first taste of what their DBG money can do for them. But I think the most important reason you want it is to make cheaters less capable of instantly returning with new characters and accounts.
    • Up x 3
  18. Demigan

    What if you have a certain development status for planets?
    Like you said a planet no longer has continents, but large staging area's and bases. Basically the goal for the attackers would be to land and then try to capture or destroy a central base structure at the middle of the map. But to get there you have to pass small FOB's and support bases. The defenders have to retaliate against the staging area's and then defeat the enemy landing fleet (which could basically form the staging area bases, like an AMS Sunderer but for the empire or the Techplants that look like they still have the engines they used to land on the surface). This helps give a more focused goal to capturing and recapturing things.
    Planets get a rating for how build up they are, a planet that got low resources from their empire will have fewer orbital defenses and fewer FOB's and bases on the ground. Similarly the enemy landing fleets have a higher or lower rating. Basically this is a way to load a different continent depending on the planet biome and the build rating it got upon attack.

    To change how being outpopped works you can change what the goals are. If you are attacking with a low pop you are allowed to cause a catastrophic failure to a reactor and blow the place. If you are zerging the hell out of a planet the objective changes, you are now required to capture more bases and equipment and PREVENT the destruction of bases, which would be made more difficult. This way the outpopped defenders could potentially win the fight by scuttling all the infrastructure under attack (not blowing up the things not under attack for the event of reinforcements). So even though the planet is lost the defenders have a wincondition and the attackers a lose condition. This fits with the personal nature of players: reward them for what they accomplish with the people on the planet, rather than reward any victory however hollow. For clarity, "destruction" would not be a physics based falling apart of the structure, but more that important pieces of the structure get a new damaged look and in the case of bridges parts of it dissappear.
    It would also allow for specialist victories. An equal fight but you still managed to capture everything intact? That deserves a higher reward!

    Fights would also become more meaningful around infrastructure. Capturing a bridge intact before the defenders can destroy it (or keeping a bridge alive to make sure your reinforcements dont have to drive around for a long time) has its own reward for the players. Hell even as defenders you could capture the siege equipment and landing ships of the attackers for higher rewards.

    You can also add more support powers, preferably based on the infrastructure available. Being able as player to pay resources for an FOB to fire an artillery strike would help, and if a lower pop group gets to pay less resources (because less waiting list to make use of it) to use it you can equalize the power difference somewhat. You can also have things like an orbital uplink to request a container-droppod that brings you vehicles on the field and so much more.
  19. JibbaJabba

    I like it.

    And yes, Cheaters and griefing accounts are the #1 reason.

    Other reasons:
    It is *some* money against the balance sheet, making the game more likely to be financially successful.
    It forces customers to have a card on file and reduces the barrier on future purchases to a single click. Again, makes the game solvent.
    • Up x 2
  20. Trigga

    fair enough.
    Its my speculation that its all bovine excrement. :)

    I prefer the old 'expect the worst and dont be disappointed' mantra.

    Another interesting thought occured to me though.
    BBurnes mentioned Amazon + Smed being a good bet for developing a PS3.
    The devs hint at what was called a 'star citizen' type PS3 by some people on here.
    Star Citizen uses Amazon's Lumberyard...