Question about Safe-Zones

[SniperSteve]

Hey all.

So I was watching Miir's video, and it showed a visualization of the capture system including the safe-zones and Hexes based on the information we have had to-date.
(Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUp1zs1ZNpc&feature=youtu.be)

However, I did not realize until I looked at it that there is almost no Hex area to play around with. What I mean by that is if you did want to go behind enemy lines, for example, you are looking at only a few Hexes that would qualify.

If this pattern of three safe-zones are repeated on each continent, it seems to me that the feel of battle progression would be lost, and it would feel rather like battles instanced on different maps, as they would never interact with each-other. (IE: none are entirely capturable, loosing the feeling of progression from one continent to another.)

Does anyone know if the three safe-zones per continent idea is correct, and how will that lead to battle progression and continent capture as we knew it in PS1?

[Crazyduckling]

There are safe zones like in the video, but I don't think we know how big the hex's are.

Too me, those seem way too big. It has been said a base will be comprised of multiple hex's. That being said, you will have much more hex area to play around with behind enemy lines.

[Raymac]

There's almost no info on the size or configuration of the hexes at this point. Miir's video is really awesome, but I think his hexes might be on the larger side just to clearly demonstrate the concept.

[SniperSteve]

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

[basti]

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good :)

[acosmo]

i think ps2 should punish factions who get pushed back to their sancs.

[SniperSteve]

Yeah, I don't like the sound of it. I guess it will work similarly to broadcast warpgates??


Anyway. So here is one possible reason why it needs to be that way.

The TR get their stuff together and totally own one morning while the VS and NC are sleeping. Thus they both get pushed back to one continent each by dinner time. Since they can only spawn on the one remaining continent, they are limited to 1000 people logging on for that server, but 5000 people want to play, and are locked out until they break out into the second continent.

[Tasorin]

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good :)

I feel the same way about beach head safe zones on each continent. Until they actually start revealing the core game mechanics and ample information to explain how it works the verdict is still out.

SOE has a lot of explaining to do about how most of the core game mechanics are going to work.

If I were to list them out in no particular order:
1) Capture/Control System
2) What does F2P really mean
3) Implementation of the Cash Store
4) Freemium Account structure
5) Resource allocation and acquisition
6) BETA ... BETA ... BETA

[Raymac]

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good :)

I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I always felt the biggest downtimes in the game were around the continent captures. Most of the time, the losing empire saw the writing on the wall and would abandon a contient for another fight leaving the winning empire a huge 9:1 pop ratio to clean up the last few bases. Then you had a bunch of downtime as the CRs bickered on where to go next. Then many times when you attack a new continent, the enemy wouldn't put up any sort of resistance until you took a couple bases.

All in all, there could easily be over an hour of boring as shit downtime around a continent capture, all for just making it change a color on the global map. I think it's highly overrated.

[Miir]

The size of the hexes in the video were chosen for simplicity. They said some bases with be 5-7 hexes in size. So hexes will likely be closer to Dvidd's map size.

https://sites.google.com/site/planetsidetactics/command/Grid2.png

It looks like the warp gates will be the new safe zones. If you zoom in and you can structures in there. (see attached)

[SniperSteve]

So I guess we could think the safe zones as permanent broadcast warpgates, then. (With the nearby tower always hacked for that empire.)

[acosmo]

soe intends to make the game less about conquest and more about resources.

[SKYeXile]

Yea i would imagine the hexs be more this size:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v629/SKYeXile/planetsidehex.jpg

[Vash02]

I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I always felt the biggest downtimes in the game were around the continent captures. Most of the time, the losing empire saw the writing on the wall and would abandon a contient for another fight leaving the winning empire a huge 9:1 pop ratio to clean up the last few bases. Then you had a bunch of downtime as the CRs bickered on where to go next. Then many times when you attack a new continent, the enemy wouldn't put up any sort of resistance until you took a couple bases.

All in all, there could easily be over an hour of boring as shit downtime around a continent capture, all for just making it change a color on the global map. I think it's highly overrated.

I think this is more of symptons of low population rather than a flaw with the mechanics.
When the game is released and there are thousands of people on per server you probably wont get that long downtime.

[CutterJohn]

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?


They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

[acosmo]

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?


They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

well, it'll be fun to figure out how to rape the entire map until the playerbase is unconscious.

[ringring]

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?


They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

Yes, we did and do even now. Not continuously but when we knew the NC/VS are looking or will be looking for a fight.

We'd also 'CE up' the linked bases.

We'd also choose our targets based on the linked bases the other two empires had to us. e.g. if we attack NC what will the VS do? Oh noes, once they cap the cont they are on presently their only option will be to attack a cont of ours!

Soooo, I'm with the general opinion on this thread in that never being able to lock a cont sounds just wrong, however I guess we need to fully understand gameplay before coming to a definative conclusion.

[basti]

soe intends to make the game less about conquest and more about resources.

They clearly want to make it more about resources, but the way i see it, conquest actually benefits from it.

In Ps1, we often had situations where you couldnt push, or didnt want to.
Lets take North East Ish Triangle for example:
http://www.planetside-idealab.com/images/newlattice2_ishundar.jpg

Baal, Akkan, Dagon. Those are the 3 bases, the 3 bases that game me a lot of stuff to think about.

TR-Dagon
NC-Baal
VS-Akkan

Obviously, the NC are down to one base, VS have the south, TR the north.

TR usually try to attack Baal, VS Baal or Hanish, NC Dagon. If everyone attacks Baal, you have a 3 way that cannot be won. Both Tr and VS would attack from the same side (the Hill between Dagon and Baal forces the TR to head a bit more south, right into the VS), and even if one of the two manages to overpower the other, Baals geographics make it extremly hard to attack the base head on (The little hill that the tower stands on divides the rest of the continent and baals general area, providing any defender with rather save position for tanks, and a quick and easy way to retreat. )

In fact, i never saw baal being taken in a Akkan Dagon Baal 3way. Never.
The only winning move for the TR here is to completly abadon dagon, defend hanish, let the NC take dagon, let the VS push baal hard and take CY or more, and retake dagon after baal gen/spawns are down and the NC are cleared out.
The winning move for the VS is to play the same game. Attack Hanish hard, force the TR to retreat to hanish, wait till the NC go after dagon, then push baal quick and hard, take it, and hope the TR take dagon instead of akkan.

in 8 of 10 tries, this strategy failed. Not because its flawed (not at all, its brilliant, after all it is my strategy :P ), but because execution requires high precision, and the other empires need to run right into it. Usually it ended in a clash between TR and VS for akkan/hanish, NC retaking dagon and then joining the 3 way.



Now, the resource system, in combination with the territory system and the uncapturable base stuff, could change this completly. Instead of being forced into the Baal Akkan Dagon triangle, any empire could just go somewhere else. I did paint hex grids over all the continents quite some time ago, and checked the theory of the design, and so far i didnt found anything that could end up in a dead end triangle. There are just so more options now.

[CutterJohn]

Soooo, I'm with the general opinion on this thread in that never being able to lock a cont sounds just wrong, however I guess we need to fully understand gameplay before coming to a definative conclusion.

How do you figure? I'm betting locking a continent gives some nice bennies, obviously one of which is to make it really hard for an enemy to cap a base there.

Indeed, I imagine that sometime soon after the game begins, each empire will, quite unofficially, have its home home continent or two, that they aggressively defend because that is theirs, goddammit!

Which also means it will be a great source of pride to cap it away from them.

[ringring]

How do you figure? I'm betting locking a continent gives some nice bennies, obviously one of which is to make it really hard for an enemy to cap a base there.

Indeed, I imagine that sometime soon after the game begins, each empire will, quite unofficially, have its home home continent or two, that they aggressively defend because that is theirs, goddammit!

Which also means it will be a great source of pride to cap it away from them.

There's always a link to any cont, therefore by definition a cont can't be locked.

And didn't you say to capture a base with no friendly hexes could take 30 minutes. It is a disincentive but no barrier; it is slightly less time as it took to capture say Oro (prior to the drain virus) and I've seen that and similar done many times.

[Xyntech]

There's always a link to any cont, therefore by definition a cont can't be locked.

And didn't you say to capture a base with no friendly hexes could take 30 minutes. It is a disincentive but no barrier; it is slightly less time as it took to capture say Oro (prior to the drain virus) and I've seen that and similar done many times.

Yeah, but once you capped that base, it would take at least 15 minutes for the enemy to recapture it.

If the enemy has that base surrounded, they will take it back in 30 seconds. Holding it will be extremely hard, defending your territory will be relatively easy. Even a momentary surge will allow them to retake it.

[NewSith]

You guys are too fixed on the sytem being chess board-like, where all terrain is covered with capturable terrain and every piece is connected from all sides:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/Scheme1.jpg

But instead, we're most likely to get a hex layout which is a map on a map.
So in fact terrain itself will only be a part of resource play. Imagine 6th square in the first line to be a certain hex, that is the only link to the rest of the continent. Strategically convinient point based on layout. But this point is situated in the swamp, making it very hard for vehicular combat. The space below the desired square is passable and represents a wide open area - perfect place for vehicle combat. This area also provides a route to the main resourceland that is connected by that single hex, allowing to go around the critical loacation to leave the enemy without bonus, following scorched earth doctrine. Now that's strategically convinient point based on landscape.
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/Scheme2.jpg

In the end it may turn out that we're going to have Company of Heroes territory control model where certain points give control over critical objects, far into enemy territory, where hex control would not give such advantage. Just like VS controlling the road in the picture below:
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/Scheme3.jpg

PS: Miir, I want your video in 3d as in your signature, with Cabal or EVA voice (from C&C) explaining sutff =P I have Cabal's voice in my head every time I see your sig.
Command & Conquer 3: Tiberium Wars Hard - GDI: Intro - YouTube

[Elude]

Aside from decreasing the downtime to get into combat or the need for resources instead of continental control, I think another reason they've changed it this way is to keep players active on said continent at all times.

They've put so much effort into this one continent with manually detailing areas of the terrain and keeping bases looking unique, I highly doubt they'll let it take a break from player weapons fire.