Segregated Continents

[Glennsnake]

I know Matt talks up PS2 as being persistent and massive unlike other popular FPS titles. However I'm more than a little skeptical.

The segregation of the 3 continents takes alot away from gameplay in my opinion.

Without the ability to push a faction out of a territory completely the continents dont feel to me like they are interconnected at all and feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps.

Getting very excited for this game but I would hope that the dev's have considered the massive implications of segregating the continents as they have done. I believe it takes too much away from the 'massively scaled' feel of the game and the interconnecting webs that existed within original planetside.

[Thomas]

I have to agree with the fact that it won't feel the same with each faction still having a foothold regardless of who controls the continent but I think that is balanced out.

As we have seen, spawning any vehicle seems to take resources that you gain from controlling territory on that continent. Now seeing as though if you are only in your foothold base you won't have any resources coming in, hence you would need the whole faction's army to come in to start taking stuff over. This will encourage most factions to just leave one continent and attack another where they are already engaged and have territory under control.

I don't know if the dev's have even released any information on the other continents yet, perhaps they have some interconnectivity planned? I hope so.

[Sturmhardt]

Sorry, I dont really remember... but how exactly were the continents connected in PS1?

[Glennsnake]

Instanced as they are now.

However, unlike PS2, there were no 'safe zones' within a continent, meaning if a faction lost all controls points they no longer had a presence there.

The new design in PS2 is that every faction has a safe zone on each continent meaning that it is impossible to complete remove a faction from a continent.

[Thomas]

Sorry, I dont really remember... but how exactly were the continents connected in PS1?

Some bases were connected to the Warp Gates that went to one other continent. This would then open up a base on that other continent to be captured.

[Toppopia]

Instanced as they are now.

However, unlike PS2, there were no 'safe zones' within a continent, meaning if a faction lost all controls points they no longer had a presence there.

The new design in PS2 is that every faction has a safe zone on each continent meaning that it is impossible to complete remove a faction from a continent.

Unless you completely surround the base and kill all that leave.

[Glennsnake]

3 continents. 3 factions.

Why not give each faction a 'safe zone' on 1 continent?

Change the other 2 faction safe zones to warp gates.

[Toppopia]

3 continents. 3 factions.

Why not give each faction a 'safe zone' on 1 continent?

Change the other 2 faction safe zones to warp gates.

Except when the empire captures 'their' continent and blocks the warp gate so no one gets through, i guess thats the same argument as the camping a factions safe zone. :confused:

[ringring]

I know Matt talks up PS2 as being persistent and massive unlike other popular FPS titles. However I'm more than a little skeptical.

The segregation of the 3 continents takes alot away from gameplay in my opinion.

Without the ability to push a faction out of a territory completely the continents dont feel to me like they are interconnected at all and feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps.

Getting very excited for this game but I would hope that the dev's have considered the massive implications of segregating the continents as they have done. I believe it takes too much away from the 'massively scaled' feel of the game and the interconnecting webs that existed within original planetside.

I kind of share your concern and I think quite a few people do. But, I'm just going to wait and see how it all pans out.

It's possible that interminable 3-ways develop but if so I think the devs will address it. The game has to have a shooter element and also a viable RTS.

[Stardouser]

I agree with these concerns of course. Being able to physically travel between continents would be a very awesome feature of the game. And I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have this except technological reasons. Some people have said, oh, if the game world is too large, at some point you will have to zone, and you don't want to have people zoning right in front of your enemies. Now, I don't know whether or not that particular limitation is avoidable or not, but if it is not avoidable, I suppose I will buy it for PS2(not PS3, we should be more advanced by then).

[Noivad]

With Maps capable of 6000 players each the battle will rage on all three of them. Just think WW II when Allied forces were in the Pacific, In Europe, and in Africa all at the same time. Each with Map with its own terrain, look , and feel. No concerns for me. :evil:

[Sturmhardt]

Some bases were connected to the Warp Gates that went to one other continent. This would then open up a base on that other continent to be captured.

Oh right, now I remember :)

I dont really see a problem here... Beta will show which system is gonna work.

[ringring]

I agree with these concerns of course. Being able to physically travel between continents would be a very awesome feature of the game. And I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have this except technological reasons. Some people have said, oh, if the game world is too large, at some point you will have to zone, and you don't want to have people zoning right in front of your enemies. Now, I don't know whether or not that particular limitation is avoidable or not, but if it is not avoidable, I suppose I will buy it for PS2(not PS3, we should be more advanced by then).

I have no worries on that score, you will be able to travel beweet continent, via the wargates (TB even said it in one of his reports iirc).

I'm also sure cr5's will be calling for people to move from one continent to another to secure a winning advantage - at least I hope so and always assuming all coninents are not already full.

[Stardouser]

I have no worries on that score, you will be able to travel beweet continent, via the wargates (TB even said it in one of his reports iirc).

I'm also sure cr5's will be calling for people to move from one continent to another to secure a winning advantage - at least I hope so and always assuming all coninents are not already full.

I know you can travel between warpgates, I meant physical travel between continents - flying directly over the ocean until you reach it. I presume the original poster is talking about this as well. Not sure? Maybe he isn't aware of warpgates.

[Thomas]

I know you can travel between warpgates, I meant physical travel between continents - flying directly over the ocean until you reach it. I presume the original poster is talking about this as well. Not sure? Maybe he isn't aware of warpgates.

It seems like he was referring to the lattice system that worked with the warp gates that made the continents seem connected.

[Glennsnake]

I know you can travel between warpgates, I meant physical travel between continents - flying directly over the ocean until you reach it. I presume the original poster is talking about this as well. Not sure? Maybe he isn't aware of warpgates.

Nothing o do with HOW they are connected.

I mean connected through a 'pathway' like in original planetside. Once continent links to a gate on another....they are linked as such though a loading screen.

Currently continents are NOT linked in such a dynamic way. BAttles in one do not effect others in any way.

[Stardouser]

Nothing o do with HOW they are connected.

I mean connected through a 'pathway' like in original planetside. Once continent links to a gate on another....they are linked as such though a loading screen.

Currently continents are NOT linked in such a dynamic way. BAttles in one do not effect others in any way.

Actually, we don't know that. First of all, each continent is not one big single battle(and if they are, then continents are too small).

And the reason I say we don't know, is because we don't know the resource system yet. For example: If your empire loses so much of your land on one continent that you can't produce enough resources, does that mean you are SOL, or can you use resources from another continent to make up for it?

[Pyreal]

Instanced as they are now.

However, unlike PS2, there were no 'safe zones' within a continent, meaning if a faction lost all controls points they no longer had a presence there.

The new design in PS2 is that every faction has a safe zone on each continent meaning that it is impossible to complete remove a faction from a continent.

As regards the new design; Two Scenarios :

1: PS1, No Footholds: Faction B holds all controllable territory on continent.
Faction A attacks from staging point outside of the continent.
Result: Faction A must rally and travel before attacking.

2: PS2, Footholds: Faction B holds all controllable territory on continent.
Faction A attacks from staging point within the continent.
Result: Faction A must rally before attacking.

The only difference is that PS2 removes the non-action travel time, and the self satisfaction of Faction B of having total domination.
Neither scenarios allow for attacking with resource heavy attack vehicles.

To me it seems to be a non-issue. It's mostly different in form. The functional difference is beneficial in that it is a quickening of the action.

Good job PS2 Devs, trim that fat! :D

[NCLynx]

I wish they'd choose one continent per faction as the "Home" Continent and put the safe zone for that specific faction on that Home continent.

EX Terran safezone on Indar (without the other 2 factions having a safezone on that continent) etc etc etc

[Kipper]

I'm less worried about this than I was.

When I saw the TB video I thought that the "foothold" looked quite a lot like a shielded warp gate.

My guess is that they have it set up in a way that's probably fairly easy to switch between either uncapturable foothold or active/inactive warp gate.

Beta will probably see both styles being tested out and the game will open with the one that's found to be the most fun.

[Timealude]

Also this might change once they add more continents as well, I have a feel post launch is going to be very eventful for us in the coming years.

[KTNApollo]

I wish they'd choose one continent per faction as the "Home" Continent and put the safe zone for that specific faction on that Home continent.

EX Terran safezone on Indar (without the other 2 factions having a safezone on that continent) etc etc etc

This would lead to the majority of fighting for one faction to remain on a single continent, while the other two factions would stick to their primary continents.

[capiqu]

I would support some kind of continent to continent effect. I strongly support the hex system over the lattice hands down. However I feel the links between the continents should mean something other then just an entry and exit gate. For example If the TR are fighting in continent A and their resources are severely depleted. Then they should be able to draw a certain amount of resources from continent B from which they have a link from.

Another issue is whether we will be camped in our safe zone (warpgate) or will we have more then one entry point into each continent.

Also what about home continents? I know there are no home continents in PS2 but will some claim a particular cont as a home cont just like some in all 3 empires call Oshur their home cont even though it isn't a home cont?

[Tapman]

Crunch the numbers, short of a severe population shortage on a single empire or an alliance between two empires (unlikely) the numbers and distance will guarantee a certain degree of population density that will give an enormous advantage to the defender as you get closer and closer to your shield.

Based on TB's video, it seems that they just brought the sanctuary to the warpgate. Interesting idea, I think it will work out because even if an empire got pushed back into their own shield it would not take long for them to surge out and retake massive amounts of territory.

As far as OP's concern (as best as I understood it) about each continent being an instance, to me that begs the question, "Do you know what we are getting?" Continents are literally MASSIVE, 64 square kilometers and every square inch is handcrafted specifically to be contestable, a continuous battlefield. The battles are going to be 667 v 667 v 667 at the MINIMUM, in the sky and on land. If the original advertisements were correct, eventually on the sea.

That's right, the pre-order page (before it was taken down after the F2P model was announced) and some articles mentioned that Planetside 2 would involve Naval battles. Discussion at the time generated an idea that once the oceans of Auraxis are opened up and the territories are mapped on it, you could fly or take to the ocean in a battleship to get from one continent to another. This also eventually leads to more continents being discovered on the planet until eventually they run out of planet and they have to move into space and to other celestial bodies. The problem is that I doubt my machine will be cool with loading all of that at once as a seamless never-loading universe. I think it's good for the devs to section off slices of this world and beyond if it means we get the insane experience we all know is currently being created. Even if we do get naval warfare though, I believe having a warpgate on each continent that acts as a makeshift sanctuary will serve as a good starting point for Beta.

[Bags]

2000 people per instance isn't enough?

That's far more than we ever saw in PS1...

[Soothsayer]

This would lead to the majority of fighting for one faction to remain on a single continent, while the other two factions would stick to their primary continents.

Yeah, if your empire owns it's home continent and you are getting a maxxed out continental resource accumulation then what is the point of going to an enemy's continent to take territory away from them?

If your empire gains resources globally then people would never log out.

As to the OP - I'm not worried about not being able to fly from one continent to the next. I don't see how its that big of a deal and there's little point to it when there are warpgates readily available.

The only small thing that it would do is allow you to get into the continent without a person camping the foothold knowing where you've landed until you're discovered at the target, assuming your target wasn't next to the foothold and you were trying to be stealthy. The solution is to not let the camper follow you though.

[Graywolves]

I'm hoping that they make more continents and transition into have 3 home continents and 1 neutrol then working from there.

[Jimmuc]

I'm hoping that they make more continents and transition into have 3 home continents and 1 neutrol then working from there.

aye thats how i feel about it. i see the footholds only good for 3 conts but with 6-7 conts? please no footholds at that point. we can have 3 home conts with 3-4 to fight over.

[Xyntech]

2000 people per instance isn't enough?

That's far more than we ever saw in PS1...

We had 500 (later reduced to 400) per continent in PS1, spread over 10 continents. So I'm with Bags 100% here. The first Planetside felt huge with only 5000 players spread across 10 continents. Planetside 2 is going to feel ridiculous if it has 6000 spread across 3 continents.

Even if they only managed to hit 1000 players per continent, that's still double from the first game, which many Planetside vets (who have also played Battlefield) will confirm, the first game still felt massive.

I'm hoping that they make more continents and transition into have 3 home continents and 1 neutrol then working from there.

I agree with this as well.

[Blackwolf]

Except when the empire captures 'their' continent and blocks the warp gate so no one gets through, i guess thats the same argument as the camping a factions safe zone. :confused:

Kinda hard to camp one empires safe zone when the other wants to fight too.

Honestly giving each faction their own "home continent" with the other two points on the continent acting as warpgates sounds like an awesome idea.

It gives real meaning to the defenders when they are battling to keep hold of their home continent. And when they start releasing new continents they can release them in 3s and again provide each continent as a home continent.

[Mastachief]

Yeh I share these concerns too have done since the sancs got binned. Remember though that if it doesnt work in beta they can change it. In planetside 1 there wasn't a lattice to begin with and it was manic so they had to introduce the lattice links to fix it.

To me the ability to hack anything any where could lead to this again.

[Bags]

Yeah, if they need a sanc I don't think it would be too hard for them to whip up 3 mini conts that connect to the main continents via waygates.

The reason the main conts take long to make this time is because they're handcrafted for combat.

[Serpent]

We don't really need a large amount of continents necessarily, but even so having a lot of them + connections would be awesome.

Would add incentive for space combat, to get somewhere much faster (1 side of the map to the other, or something)

[Blackwolf]

Yeah, if they need a sanc I don't think it would be too hard for them to whip up 3 mini conts that connect to the main continents via waygates.

The reason the main conts take long to make this time is because they're handcrafted for combat.

I don't think a sanc is needed at all. I just think each continent should have 1 empire foothold on it, and that entire continent acts as a home continent.

[Ohaunlaim]

And when they start releasing new continents they can release them in 3s and again provide each continent as a home continent.

Releasing in threes would take waaaaay too long. Just release one at a time but let them use the old PS1 style of no foot holds, only warpgates, and with the ability to fully push an enemy off.

Let the players try this out a bit. If they like it keep it. If they don't, once new continent number three is released THEN convert one of the warpgates on each continent into a foothold.

[2coolforu]

Home continents sounds like a really awesome idea, they can start all linked together with footholds on each, then when enough extra continents are added the 3 original continents can be split into 'home' continents. The only way for an enemy to reach your home continent would be via a neutral continent, so if you got pushed all the way back you knew shit was going down. Could lead to some epic moments holding that last free base.

[Vash02]

One concern I have is the footholds inside the warp gates. From the video footage the warp gates look tiny (smaller than PS1 gates), how are we supposed to mobilise even PS1 numbers inside them?

Also why have they made them small? They look pathetic next to the PS1 gates :/

[Mechzz]

I know why a lot of peeps are liking the "one home continent" idea, as it gives a real sense of victory to wipe a faction off the 2 other conts. Is it not the case, however, that SOE are unlikely to do this as it will increase the number of servers they need to keep running to keep us all happy?

There is a 666 player per faction limit on a continent, so 1,332 players will need to find another server if they get zero-based on 2 continents with no footholds on those. That may then cause further population imbalances on the servers they head to, leading to the 3 different factions all being on different servers just looking at each other?

[Soothsayer]

With home continents you have one continent where "the fight" is then you have the rest. It screws up the whole dynamic of the uneasy equilibrium created by having three factions.

1 faction gets a fight on their home continent, the other two factions collect constant resources from having a fully uncontested continent to themselves.

[Mechzz]

With home continents you have one continent where "the fight" is then you have the rest. It screws up the whole dynamic of the uneasy equilibrium created by having three factions.

1 faction gets a fight on their home continent, the other two factions collect constant resources from having a fully uncontested continent to themselves.

Yup. This too. And this may be the biggest reason there won't be home continents until several more continents are in the game. It's Malorn's "rich get richer" writ large.

[cellinaire]

I know Matt talks up PS2 as being persistent and massive unlike other popular FPS titles. However I'm more than a little skeptical.

The segregation of the 3 continents takes alot away from gameplay in my opinion.

Without the ability to push a faction out of a territory completely the continents dont feel to me like they are interconnected at all and feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps.

Getting very excited for this game but I would hope that the dev's have considered the massive implications of segregating the continents as they have done. I believe it takes too much away from the 'massively scaled' feel of the game and the interconnecting webs that existed within original planetside.


1) You're not the only one who's afraid about this issue. As a matter of fact, many members of this forum have been discussing about it for several months already.

2) "feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps."
...Really?

3) So you sound like "empire foothold on every continents" will destroy the 'interconnected' feeling and most of the game's fun level. We still have to get our hands on the game in Beta to draw an initial impression about that one. Thinking about it, the direction they're taking this time won't be that much of a headache.

I definitely don't mean "yeah let's attack people who want to discuss 'cause they're just haters Lol go away PS2 FTW", but there were already many people who have simply fallen into the trap of overestimating the 'cons' and at the same time underestimating the 'pros'.

It's called 'moderation'. I'm sure you know it, don't you? ;)


(ah.....one more. Do you know we didn't have the ability to invade each empire's sanctuary even in PS1?)

[Figment]

My personal suggestion would be to create "control nodes" in the sections around a warpgate. Warpgates would still have a lattice connection to another continent. At the beginning of the game (with three continents) only one sanctuary is a permanent sanctuary, over time, up to three such footholds could become permanent (like PS1 home cont warpgates). Permanent warpgates can be used as broadcast warpgates to traverse to any of the temporary sanctuary warpgates.

Around each individual warpgate, you can capture nodes. But to turn a warpgate into a sanctuary warpgate, you need to hold more than 50% of the nodes on each side of the intercontinental link. Meaning if your control drops to or below 50%, the sanctuary warpgate turns neutral and its Identification Friend or Foe (IFF)-Shield is lost on both sides of the intercontinental link.

Right from the start of the game, this would allow for the capturing of "home continents" and keep the idea of invasions alive, it provides a significant target for special ops teams, forces people to defend all over the continent (dispersing population).

It also allows the fight on one battle to directly influence that on another.

[CommandoCarl]

See, I liked the whole sanctuary continent idea. My suggestion would be instead of everyone's own massive continent, how about a small island and 2 warpgates they can warp to with 1 universal gate on the sanctuary island. On the island all you would need is a couple towers for spawning and a vehicle pad area and a small upgrade building for certs and implants and such. That way you can still gather a sizable force and not crowd up a warpgate.

[Blackwolf]

See, I liked the whole sanctuary continent idea. My suggestion would be instead of everyone's own massive continent, how about a small island and 2 warpgates they can warp to with 1 universal gate on the sanctuary island. On the island all you would need is a couple towers for spawning and a vehicle pad area and a small upgrade building for certs and implants and such. That way you can still gather a sizable force and not crowd up a warpgate.

You mean exactly like PS1?

The DEVs are obviously experimenting with something new here. I think the reason that they are starting with 3 continents to begin with, and progressively add more, is to get a feel for when there are too many continents.

And not having sanctuaries means less time developing continents that are all but useless as battlegrounds.

I just think they should keep 1 foothold on each continent so that only 1 empire has a foothold on said continent. I really doubt you'd see a "rich get richer" problem because 3 empires battling on 1 continent will never hold up for long. Sooner or later one of the empires will assault one of the other continents or the pops will dry up at low points and the battle will shift dramatically.

[Figment]

You mean exactly like PS1?

The DEVs are obviously experimenting with something new here. I think the reason that they are starting with 3 continents to begin with, and progressively add more, is to get a feel for when there are too many continents.

Not at all, it's simply how many maps can you get done for launch by handsculpting them? It's simply a resource heavy process.

And not having sanctuaries means less time developing continents that are all but useless as battlegrounds.

Nowhere does it say that good content for players by definition has to be a battleground. In fact, the entire game menu could be a continent if they wanted to and Sanctuary in PS1 basically served for setting up your character and for social gatherings, next to being part of the actual game (setting up raids, invasions and other troop organization). It's a quite nice way

Other games that did that include SSX 3 and a number of kart (Diddy Kong Racing), rally (Dirt) and a bunch of other games where the menu or "lobby" is a part of the game. And of course there's Mario 64 and other such games. You could not race in those areas, but that didn't mean it was useless, sometimes you could "walk", "browse", "drive" or "ski" through the menu options and sometimes you'd find hidden content etc.

So rather than breaking immersion with a menu, they made the menu part of the game. I think that's a very nice touch as long as it's practical (VS warpgate on a hill was not).

[IMMentat]

As regards the new design; Two Scenarios :

1: PS1, No Footholds: Faction B holds all controllable territory on continent.
Faction A attacks from staging point outside of the continent.
Result: Faction A must rally and travel before attacking.

2: PS2, Footholds: Faction B holds all controllable territory on continent.
Faction A attacks from staging point within the continent.
Result: Faction A must rally before attacking.

The only difference is that PS2 removes the non-action travel time, and the self satisfaction of Faction B of having total domination.
Neither scenarios allow for attacking with resource heavy attack vehicles.

To me it seems to be a non-issue. It's mostly different in form. The functional difference is beneficial in that it is a quickening of the action.

Good job PS2 Devs, trim that fat! :D

This.
With home continents you have one continent where "the fight" is then you have the rest. It screws up the whole dynamic of the uneasy equilibrium created by having three factions.

1 faction gets a fight on their home continent, the other two factions collect constant resources from having a fully uncontested continent to themselves.

And this.

Having 3 "home" continents would only create a 3 turtle strategy with watchful eyes on every incoming warpgate.
Why bother having hexes if you can safeguard an entire continent by patrolling the only 2 entrances?
The continental zonelines would become a bottleneck through which a defender would outgun any single attacking force (assuming even populations), numerous local reinforcement hubs versus an army that has to transport every vehicle twice the distance. (from a home copntinent base, to the warpgate, to attack a base/outpost on a different continent)

If the main downside to the foothold is that an enemy can watch you form up an army, then how did an enemy get that close to you undetected? The devs can just add a perimiter wall to the warpgates (or more likley make them 1 way mirrors) preventing ground level observation (cloaked smurf accounts) while player driven aircraft can counter any airborne spies. I doubt the draw distance will be so great that long distance observation will be possible.

[Novacane]

Has there been any suggestions to how many continents are being planned for launch? I can only remember seeing one from the videos.

[cellinaire]

To the OP :

Planetside 2 - Just what is it all about, anyway?


"Wow. I'm not sure how many more bad game companies can continue to completely rip off Halo and have the entiring gaming world love them for it. Dropships........Halo. Futuristic Armour........Halo. Futuristic Facilities........Halo. Tanks........Halo. Rocket Launchers........Halo. Cragside maps........Halo. Stealth Abilities........Halo. Multiplayer........Halo. Most clear and obvious rip off of Halo I've seen so far. How can you people be so fucking blind?" 

-2 days ago by Glennsnake-



.....well :cool: is it purely coincidence...or.. ?

[SKYeXile]

get with the internet lingo ladies, an instance implies there is a duplicate of said zone running in tangent with it filled by other players, there is none of that in PS2, they're zone in PS2, with a population lock. Just thought i would bring you up on this in case you try to preach to the unconverted and they hear the word instance and be all like "wtf n00b i want open world, fuck instances and your face"

[Squeekypop]

Long time lurkers first post.

The topic of segregated continents ties in with the one and only concern I have with PS2. 2000 players per continent sounds alot. It is alot. However with the way this game is going in terms of the great marketing and videos that are being produced I worry that people will be spending alot of time trying to get onto their outfits server due to the (hopefully) massive amount of people wanting to play.

I've no doubt that my worry is unfounded, just thought I'd put it out there. I'll go back to lurking around now.

[Glennsnake]

To the OP :

Planetside 2 - Just what is it all about, anyway?


"Wow. I'm not sure how many more bad game companies can continue to completely rip off Halo and have the entiring gaming world love them for it. Dropships........Halo. Futuristic Armour........Halo. Futuristic Facilities........Halo. Tanks........Halo. Rocket Launchers........Halo. Cragside maps........Halo. Stealth Abilities........Halo. Multiplayer........Halo. Most clear and obvious rip off of Halo I've seen so far. How can you people be so fucking blind?" 

-2 days ago by Glennsnake-



.....well :cool: is it purely coincidence...or.. ?

I like to troll.

Case closed :D