3 continents at start, or... 9-12-15?

[Figment]

Why have three continents at launch, if you can intercontinental lattice the same three continents five times and replace those continents over time? >.>

All but three of these would be placeholder continents.

Later on they can just replace continents in such a lattice by newly released continents.



This would solve a lot of issues of players being on a different server and later on having to merge servers when new continents are added and pops per continent drop-off a bit due to further spreading of pop, would allow for capturing continents, would allow for different sanc footholds for each empire on a different continent, etc. and would allow to relocate to another fight that's a bit different but still the same continent if they so desire to fight on a specific continent, at least for a while.


Thoughts?

[EVILoHOMER]

Planetside had the problem of too many islands which spread the population out too thin, so I doubt SOE want to make the same mistake again. When you look back at Planetside how many of them Islands did we actually need? You only need one of each type....

[SKYeXile]

i like the plan. good idea to bring back the diversity of battles in planetside while been easy to implement. every contient a 3 way fight is gonna get old, this would be a good way to add 2 way fights back into PS2 while adding more tactics to the command metagame.

the problem as i see it now, if you get pushed back to your foothold, while in planetside you jsut goto another cont whatever, in PS2 its gonna turn into one of those gay warpgate camp sessions.

In summery, this needs to be seen again:
(tell me if img broken)
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/planetside_052803_001.jpg

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

(tell me if img broken)
http://pcmedia.ign.com/pc/image/planetside_052803_001.jpg

It's so beautiful /tear

Oh, and I <3 this idea! I'd go with 3 sets of 3.

[ringring]

You're singing my song Figgy, althought placeholder doesn't sound good, I much rather there be additional properly made conts.

Completely disagree with evilhomer about too more continents are bad. It#s as if he thinks the population will spread out like butter on a slice of bread, and it won't.

When I started PS in mid 2004 there was one poplocked fight, one nearly poplocked fight and a couple of small skirmishes. Everyone got the battle they were looking for, and, importantly, there was empty space for grand strategy to operate in. CR5's could decide the poplocked fight wasn't going anywhere and switch the primary target elsewhere.

It was much better.

[Mechzz]

Good bit of lateral thinking.

Copy/paste
Copy/paste
Copy/paste


now we have 6 continents.

+2

[Xyntech]

If they did this, I wouldn't do any more than 6 continents total. These continents have a lot more captureable land than PS1 continents, so 6 PS2 continents worth of space would be more than enough to match and exceed the PS1 equivalent.

Interesting and outside the box solution. I'm liking it. Sort of like having vehicle start up delays as placeholders for vehicle entry animations, although I would make replacing the duplicate continents with new continents as a top priority, compared with vehicle entry animations which I'd just get done whenever it was possible.

[Snipefrag]

I do think that only having three continents will really affect the meta game, and the meta game is why a lot of us play PS. But i'm not sure that copy pasting the continents is the best way to go about solving it, i would say they should put a lot of their development efforts into producing new continents as fast as possible after release. Focusing on building on the meta game, lattice links, different base capture mechanics, strategy to make the game more varied. With three continents we will probably see a lot of repetition in the first few months, but hopefully we wont care as the excitement for the game will still be at its peak.

[kaffis]

I really like this idea.

Why do I like this idea?

1. Because I want more continents in the future.

2. Because I don't want server populations to get spread out when those continents are added.

3. And because I don't want to start with lots of servers and then merge them to combat #2.

Note, however, that I don't care if the lattice returns between continents. If the developers wanted to work it in because it can fit, that's fine. Perhaps you could have captureable warpgates away from the footholds, that could be used to come in from an unexpected angle on a different continent without backhacking penalties/difficulties.

But I'm 100% fine with footholds on each continent and calling it a day.

[Figment]

Another benefit is that you can test if empires get just terrain advantages if they start from specific footholds, or if this is down to balance between empire units, outfits, etc. Maybe some empires are simply better with certain weapons in certain terrain.

So if you have different starting points within the same patch release, you get a better feel for how it affects continental flows of resources and battles.

[kaffis]

Another benefit is that you can test if empires get just terrain advantages if they start from specific footholds, or if this is down to balance between empire units, outfits, etc. Maybe some empires are simply better with certain weapons in certain terrain.

So if you have different starting points within the same patch release, you get a better feel for how it affects continental flows of resources and battles.
This is definitely a good idea for beta, at least.

[Xyntech]

This is definitely a good idea for beta, at least.

Agreed. If nothing else, this is a must for beta.

It could end up being a little too wonky seeming for full release to have duplicates, but maybe it would just create impetus for them to make a few more continents for release than they were originally planning, assuming playtesting proves it to be valuable.

[shadowsfm]

i get the feeling the forth continent is that starship in the consent art

[Figment]

What if we would have different servers in beta where some servers have Lockes continents and some have linked continents?

That should give devs a lot of feedback on different systems.

[Warborn]

Having fewer continents means big fights constantly. No more people being spread over many separate continents. I imagine they will be very sparing in adding new continents, maybe even resorting to a sort of cycle, where as one continent becomes active, another closes. Either way, spreading people over wider and wider areas doesn't seem like it will do much to encourage big battles.

[Figment]

Having fewer continents means big fights constantly. No more people being spread over many separate continents. I imagine they will be very sparing in adding new continents, maybe even resorting to a sort of cycle, where as one continent becomes active, another closes. Either way, spreading people over wider and wider areas doesn't seem like it will do much to encourage big battles.

Look, if you want to have 60.000 people playing, three continents of 2000 people each, won't do anyway. You'd need 10 servers. At minimum.

[Mechzz]

Look, if you want to have 60.000 people playing, three continents of 2000 people each, won't do anyway. You'd need 10 servers. At minimum.

Hmmm. I wonder if the limit of 6000 players on a server is a hard constraint? So adding more continents would just spread the 6000 more widely?

[Figment]

Hmmm. I wonder if the limit of 6000 players on a server is a hard constraint? So adding more continents would just spread the 6000 more widely?

No, the pop limit is per continent.

How else would you ever go over three continents? You can't play this game on three continents for years, right?

Besides, 6000 people is only a fraction of the people that could be there due to having signed up for that server.

[Mechzz]

Where's Basti when you need him? I recall him writing that it's 2,000 per continent and 3 continents per server, so 6,000 players per server.

[Figment]

Where's Basti when you need him? I recall him writing that it's 2,000 per continent and 3 continents per server, so 6,000 players per server.

For launch, yes.

[Lonehunter]

Where's Basti when you need him? I recall him writing that it's 2,000 per continent and 3 continents per server, so 6,000 players per server.

Those numbers are referring to people that can be active at once, there should be more then 6,000 accounts assigned to one server

I really, really don't want any cloned continents. The continents we have are all ready bigger then PS1's. Can you imagine having to deal with "There's a good fight on Amerish" "Which one?"

[Vancha]

Keep in mind that those 6000 won't all be logged in at the same time. I don't know how many people on X server are typically logged in at the same time, but even at launch I'd guess it doesn't reach 50%, so that's more than 12k people per server easily.

[Figment]

Keep in mind that those 6000 won't all be logged in at the same time. I don't know how many people on X server are typically logged in at the same time, but even at launch I'd guess it doesn't reach 50%, so that's more than 12k people per server easily.

You do realise you just said a server won't have more than 12.000 subscribers... right? Expect more, way more.

[Vancha]

You do realise you just said a server won't have more than 12.000 subscribers... right? Expect more, way more.
No, I explicitly said there would be more than 12k subscribers per server. What you said I said is the exact opposite of what I said.

[Figment]

No, I explicitly said there would be more than 12k subscribers per server. What you said I said is the exact opposite of what I said.

No, you said there'd be more than 6000, and an initial assumption of around 12.000.

That doesn't mean that the server would have to be full at an arbitrary number of 6000 though, as some seem to suggest here.

[Xyntech]

I really, really don't want any cloned continents. The continents we have are all ready bigger then PS1's. Can you imagine having to deal with "There's a good fight on Amerish" "Which one?"

Nah, the copied version would be called Shammerish.

Esamirror

Indarstinguishable

[ringring]

Those numbers are referring to people that can be active at once, there should be more then 6,000 accounts assigned to one server

I really, really don't want any cloned continents. The continents we have are all ready bigger then PS1's. Can you imagine having to deal with "There's a good fight on Amerish" "Which one?"
They are not bigger than ps1, they're about the same size as a standard cont but smaller that the larger ones, ie cyssor/esamir.

[Graywolves]

I like Higby's reasoning for no cont-locking as he doesn't want to lock content away from players.

Having more continents and the ability to feel progression in my conquest and not feel like every continent is going to be attacked at any time is something I want but I am willing to adapt to a completely vulnerable theatre.

Copy-pasta is not something I want as far as experiencing content goes though.

[Figment]

I like Higby's reasoning for no cont-locking as he doesn't want to lock content away from players.

Having more continents and the ability to feel progression in my conquest and not feel like every continent is going to be attacked at any time is something I want but I am willing to adapt to a completely vulnerable theatre.

Copy-pasta is not something I want as far as experiencing content goes though.

It's not the goal, the goal is to accomodate more players and gain insight faster (from multiple perspectives), as well as ease some processes along the way. Besides, you would experience the same content anyway.

[Vancha]

No, you said there'd be more than 6000, and an initial assumption of around 12.000.

That doesn't mean that the server would have to be full at an arbitrary number of 6000 though, as some seem to suggest here.
Damn you. No.
so that's more than 12k people per server easily.

Easily more than 12k is not "around 12k". It's easily more than 12k. "Easily more" being more than just plain "more", which itself would indicate 12,001 up to infinity, but I think the inclusion of the word easily puts at least somewhat of a buffer between the number immediately after 12k and a number significantly larger, that number being far and away from "around 12k" at the very least.

Personally, I think you've under-appreciated the capabilities of the word "easily" here. You should apologize to it.

[p0intman]

A-S-S
F-I-C
H-O-E

and I guess theres some other conts in ps2 that arent in ps1.

But we need the ps1 conts to return, only larger.

[Mechzz]

Those numbers are referring to people that can be active at once, there should be more then 6,000 accounts assigned to one server

I really, really don't want any cloned continents. The continents we have are all ready bigger then PS1's. Can you imagine having to deal with "There's a good fight on Amerish" "Which one?"

Got that, but Figment is assuming that the actual server capacity will be higher than 6,000, allowing more continents to be set up on a server meaning we can keep the 2,000 per continent limit even with 9-12-15 continents on a server.

[Figment]

Personally, I think you've under-appreciated the capabilities of the word "easily" here. You should apologize to it.

Fine. Sowwy easily. :(


<3

EDIT: And yes, I presume the active server capacity should lie around 30.000 eventually. If not more.

[Xyntech]

They are not bigger than ps1, they're about the same size as a standard cont but smaller that the larger ones, ie cyssor/esamir.

I disagree. The first Planetside had a screwed up distance measuring system, so any figures about it's map size are probably based on a faulty scale.

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison. It may be off, but it's generally in the ballpark. Measure base features on your own and make your own rough calculation if you disagree (click the picture to enlarge):

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4480/comparisons.png (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4480/comparisons.png)

Also, there are only 17 captureable points on Cyssor (ignoring towers, which provide no direct land control benefit), while Indar has 70 captureable hex areas. Remember that much of Cyssors land mass never had extensive fighting happening over it (especially that giant mountain in the middle), while the devs intend most of the land mass of PS2 maps to be engaging battle zones.

Combined with the fact that Cyssor could only support 500 (then 400) players, as opposed to PS2's goal of 2000, and that instantly makes Indar comparable to possibly as many as 4 of the original Planetside continents, even if it's only slightly bigger than (or even the same size as) Cyssor.

Obviously having 3 or 4 continents worth of fighting space all slammed into one continuous map is going to be rather different than having it spread over 3 or 4 separate continents, which is why I think there would be a lot of value in having more than 3 of these giant new continents (at least 4 would be good I think), but as far as the number of captureable territory points, Planetside 2 is already poised to surpass Planetside 1.

[basti]

Very good idea, i like it!

It combats a whole lot of issues that pop up if you add new continents later, and also allows a global lattience like PS1 had it (trust me, this will come during beta once they realized what those footholds do to the game. ;) )

[Raymac]

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like this idea. Having an Indar 1, Indar 2, Indar 3, Amerish 1, Amerish 2, etc. etc. is going to make the game feel completely half baked. This would just make the game look incomplete at launch and would sour the entire thing.

If the whole reason behind this is to simply bring back the "continent lock" then it is an even worse idea. As higby recently said in the interview and as I've been saying for months, locking people out of content is a bad idea. I don't want to rehash that debate here because I've done it enough, but thankfully the devs seem to see it.

I'd much rather wait for new continents than have a copy and paste of the existing ones and give off the impression the game was rushed and incomplete.

[Figment]

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like this idea. Having an Indar 1, Indar 2, Indar 3, Amerish 1, Amerish 2, etc. etc. is going to make the game feel completely half baked. This would just make the game look incomplete at launch and would sour the entire thing.

You really should read the thread, because you're not the only one and one never is.

We all know it WILL be incomplete at launch anyway...

If the whole reason behind this is to simply bring back the "continent lock" then it is an even worse idea.

Yeah say there's 20 reasons given, pick out one and wonder if that's the only reason... Good one. As said, read the thread.

As higby recently said in the interview and as I've been saying for months, locking people out of content is a bad idea. I don't want to rehash that debate here because I've done it enough, but thankfully the devs seem to see it.

So... how are people being locked out of content instead of given better access to it? Your argument does not make sense.

I'd much rather wait for new continents than have a copy and paste of the existing ones and give off the impression the game was rushed and incomplete.

You are waiting for server merges too?

[Raymac]

You really should read the thread, because you're not the only one and one never is.

We all know it WILL be incomplete at launch anyway...

Too much to read, so I skimmed, but it seemed liked an overwhelming majority liked the idea. And I sincerely hope the game won't feel half baked at launch. I mean no MMO is truely ever "complete" but that is a far cry from a half baked launch.


Yeah say there's 20 reasons given, pick out one and wonder if that's the only reason... Good one. As said, read the thread.

Maybe not 20, but yeah, I cherry picked one because I didn't feel like writing a novel. The one I picked though, did seem more like one of the fundamental ideas behind it.

So... how are people being locked out of content instead of given better access to it? Your argument does not make sense.

I think it is debatable that simply copy and pasting is giving people "better" access, but I see what you are saying. I just think it's a cheesy solution.


You are waiting for server merges too?

Dude, every MMO has server merges. I guarantee Planetside 2 will have server merges. It's not a bad thing. It's inevitable.

Also, no need to be so antagonistic. It's not the first time I've disagreed with one of your opinions. ;)

[Figment]

Well the thing is, if you give people access from multiple directions, I'd say it's better. Assaulting a continent on routine from the same sides all the time sucks.

(I don't trust a mission system to be capable of breaking routine, instead, I expect the majority of accepted missions to eventually enforce routine because people like certain paths to glory and will want others to follow their "optimal" route to it.)


As for being half baked... I'd imagine half the units they got planned won't be in yet. A lot of deployables may have lower priority and they have said they plan to add many more maps, those will have to come on the same servers, or you still can't access them.

Btw, if I picked this up right from Hamma's interview with Higby, currently it looks like they're pondering on making a dynamic database for characters so they can play on different servers with the same character, rather than having to start from scratch all the time.

So you're going to play on multiple Amerishes anyway depending on which servers are locked.

Also, no need to be so antagonistic. It's not the first time I've disagreed with one of your opinions. ;)

It's not that, disagreeing is fine, especially if argued well. If you hadn't cherrypicked, you'd not have gotten the tone (and all in all, I can react worse tbh ;)).

It's that you don't read the thread and make random assertions and ask 'critical' questions that have already been adressed, but ignored. :/

That always annoyes me anyway. See, for a 50 pager, I can see see someone skips after say 3 pages, but this is a 2.5 pager. :) But even then people can get grumpy on having to repeat themselves, it throws the discussion back a few steps. :x

[ringring]

I disagree. The first Planetside had a screwed up distance measuring system, so any figures about it's map size are probably based on a faulty scale.

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison. It may be off, but it's generally in the ballpark. Measure base features on your own and make your own rough calculation if you disagree (click the picture to enlarge):

http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4480/comparisons.png (http://img441.imageshack.us/img441/4480/comparisons.png)

Also, there are only 17 captureable points on Cyssor (ignoring towers, which provide no direct land control benefit), while Indar has 70 captureable hex areas. Remember that much of Cyssors land mass never had extensive fighting happening over it (especially that giant mountain in the middle), while the devs intend most of the land mass of PS2 maps to be engaging battle zones.

Combined with the fact that Cyssor could only support 500 (then 400) players, as opposed to PS2's goal of 2000, and that instantly makes Indar comparable to possibly as many as 4 of the original Planetside continents, even if it's only slightly bigger than (or even the same size as) Cyssor.

Obviously having 3 or 4 continents worth of fighting space all slammed into one continuous map is going to be rather different than having it spread over 3 or 4 separate continents, which is why I think there would be a lot of value in having more than 3 of these giant new continents (at least 4 would be good I think), but as far as the number of captureable territory points, Planetside 2 is already poised to surpass Planetside 1.

You may well be right (I'm not going to get my tapemeasure out) I just recall when the continent size was first said that "about the size of a normal cont but smaller than the larger ones" was the conclusion that PSU contributors came to.

Although I have to say comparing those 2 overlapping images it looks like a new base is about the size of an old SOI, that soundslike it is in the right range.

[Raymac]

Well the thing is, if you give people access from multiple directions, I'd say it's better. Assaulting a continent on routine from the same sides all the time sucks.


Frankly that is one of my concerns too. I'd like to see the footholds be somewhat dynamic, perhaps rotating empires every few weeks, just to keep it fresh. In Planetside, we saw the routine you mentioned and it did make it a bit stale. So I think making the footholds dynamic will reach the same result for that issue without creating a new issue of having copies of the same continent.

Also, I don't often progress the conversation. Sometimes I just feel like adding my 2 cents. So feel free to just ignore my post and move on if it bugs you too much.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison.

TB's whats it all about video, I don't think Indar is any bigger than Cyssor.

[3:10 onwards] It took TB about 14 seconds to fly from the edge of Peris AMP Station to the Foothold west of it. (Not flying in a straight line and wasn't at top speed when leaving the base)
http://s16.postimage.org/s6gtxipmd/cont_size.jpg

Infact, your overlay shows the foothold being quite a bit further east than it is on the TB video.

Assuming 230km/h average speed the distance covered in the 14 seconds = 894 metres travelled. (yes he ab'd at the end but he wasn't top speed at the start either)

I just flew from the SW BWG on Cyssor to the nearest point of Leza at a constant 119km/h which took 35 seconds = 1156 metres travelled.

Yet your overlay scale seems to indicate that PS1 distance is actually 3/4 the size, despite being 250 metres further.

[Bags]

Having "Amerish 1" "Amerish 2" feels really bad, IMO. Makes the game feel unpersistent and instanced.

[Figment]

Having "Amerish 1" "Amerish 2" feels really bad, IMO. Makes the game feel unpersistent and instanced.

And seperating them on seperate servers does what aside from making the game seem smaller and cutting up the playerbase?


Look, three continents simply isn't a lot of content. So either you add or replace continents as time goes by, or you make different servers and create splits in the playerbase. You can't start with the ideal situation anyway. The benefits of replacing though is that you can do a lot more testing. Stresstesting server capacity, to intercontinental systems, whatever else we named, possibly more.

[MrBloodworth]

Planetside had the problem of too many islands which spread the population out too thin,

Not really. Only the caves did this. Otherwise it was the loss of population as a whole, that was the problem. In its peek 5+ different fronts was common.

[capiqu]

I got on a mossy and crossed cyssor from north to south and from east to west at a steady 119 kph. I cant remember the exact calculations but i got something roughly to 8x8 and if not mistaking a little bigger I did it for several conts and wrote it down, but looks like i miss placed it. But yeah indar is roughly the size of Cyssor.

[kaffis]

Having fewer continents means big fights constantly. No more people being spread over many separate continents. I imagine they will be very sparing in adding new continents, maybe even resorting to a sort of cycle, where as one continent becomes active, another closes. Either way, spreading people over wider and wider areas doesn't seem like it will do much to encourage big battles.
"Having fewer continents means big fights constantly" is only true if the per-server population remains static when comparing fewer and more continents.

We all know additional continents will be designed and added post-launch. Higby's said this time and again in dozens of different ways.

So what duplicating the initial 3 continents (and replacing them later) is about is *preventing* the situation you describe. If you have the target number of continents (with copy/paste substitutes for the ones to come later), then you design the server-count -- and thus the per-server population -- with those future continents already built-into the mix.

Otherwise, adding that post-launch content does exactly what you're describing -- spread a (relatively) fixed per-server population across more continents, reducing the population density and thus the level of action per continent.

Frankly that is one of my concerns too. I'd like to see the footholds be somewhat dynamic, perhaps rotating empires every few weeks, just to keep it fresh. In Planetside, we saw the routine you mentioned and it did make it a bit stale. So I think making the footholds dynamic will reach the same result for that issue without creating a new issue of having copies of the same continent.
But having non-foothold warpgates that link back and forth between continents is an alternative to rotating footholds. Since neither are the current design decision, one isn't more right or simpler than the other. They're two avenues of accomplishing the same goal -- adding variables that can spice up the metagame.

However, warpgates between continents kind of work better with more continents. Which is why it's entered into this discussion of a way to artificially inflate the continent-count at launch. Adding the warpgates aren't the primary reason to copy and paste continents. Making them work better is a happy side effect.


I do tend to agree that I don't want Amerish 1, Amerish 2, Amerish 3, etc.

So why not name the multiple copies differently? Instead of Amerish 1, Amerish 2, Indar 1, Indar 2, Esamir 1 (it *is* Esamir they said the third one would be, right?), Esamir 2, etc.; have Amerish, Indar, Esamir, Oshur (starts out looking like Indar; gets replaced by a real Oshur later), Hossin (starts out looking like Amerish), Ceryshen (starts out looking like Esamir), etc.

This way, it's much easier to communicate to newbies/outsiders that it's not really instancing in the normal sense, and there's more content coming to fix the duplication. It's also easier to communicate "Need help on Indar" vs. "Need help on Oshur."

[kaffis]

I got on a mossy and crossed cyssor from north to south and from east to west at a steady 119 kph. I cant remember the exact calculations but i got something roughly to 8x8 and if not mistaking a little bigger I did it for several conts and wrote it down, but looks like i miss placed it. But yeah indar is roughly the size of Cyssor.
You're making the assumption that the reported speeds correspond to other elements of scale.

It's entirely possible, for instance, that your 119 kph covers 119,000 "game units," but player models are 10 "game units" tall. This means that while your spedometer test measures the dimensions of the island as roughly 8x8km, by any true test of scale relative to a human-sized character model, the island would be less than 2x2km.

Not that I've done any tests to contradict your assumption, but it's worth pointing out that you've made that assumption so we all know how big a grain of salt to take your data with.

[capiqu]

Well I know its not 100% accurate. But that and kinda remembering Higby say that Planetside 2 continents would be roughly the size of the biggest Planetside continents. Leads me to believe this. Yes I could be wrong but so far thats what I have to go by.

[Mechzz]

A good way to measure it surely simply how many seconds it takes to cross the largest part of the continent? That gives the "feel" of the size to the player.

For what it's worth Indar "felt" very small on TB's video, but that may be misleading due to the much higher concentration of interesting features in the new maps.

[Xyntech]

You're making the assumption that the reported speeds correspond to other elements of scale.

It's entirely possible, for instance, that your 119 kph covers 119,000 "game units," but player models are 10 "game units" tall. This means that while your spedometer test measures the dimensions of the island as roughly 8x8km, by any true test of scale relative to a human-sized character model, the island would be less than 2x2km.

Not that I've done any tests to contradict your assumption, but it's worth pointing out that you've made that assumption so we all know how big a grain of salt to take your data with.

My assumption is that I don't entirely trust the numbers that PS2 is giving us, and I certainly don't believe the numbers that PS1 gave us. The original Planetside simply did not have an accurate meter scale compared to real life.

So I'm going to disregard any information that is based on how large the in game data claims Cyssor to be, or how fast a PS1 aircraft claims to travel.

We already know that the Mosquito in TB's video reported traveling at significantly faster speeds than PS1 Mosquitos could fly at. This would be further compounded if PS2 were closer to accurate in scale than PS1 was. A PS1 Mossie flying at 100 KPH in a scale where 100 kilometers was actually 66 real world kilometers would end up making the real world flight speed be a third slower than reported.

Indar only looked as small as it did in that video because the aircraft are so fucking fast. Pause a moment in those videos and look at how large the bases and landmarks truly are.

This is why I'm only interested in comparisons of known scale between the two games. We know how big bases and towers were compared to infantry in PS1. We now know how big buildings and bases are compared to infantry in PS2. We can compare those, and then look at their scale on the continental maps, and estimate how large they are in comparison to each other.

[capiqu]

A good way to measure it surely simply how many seconds it takes to cross the largest part of the continent? That gives the "feel" of the size to the player.

For what it's worth Indar "felt" very small on TB's video, but that may be misleading due to the much higher concentration of interesting features in the new maps.

The Mosquito speed on PS2 is much faster. While in PS regular Mosquito speed is 119kph and over 200 kph with after burners, i noticed the ps2 mossey travelling easy at over 200 kph and around 360 kph with after burners. He was able to get around the map much quicker.

[Xyntech]

AFor what it's worth Indar "felt" very small on TB's video, but that may be misleading due to the much higher concentration of interesting features in the new maps.

Don't forget that the Mosquito in TB's video was going at least twice as fast as a PS1 Mosquito. That right there will instantly make the map feel half as large.

It may be an even bigger gap than that, if PS1 meters are shorter than PS2 meters (PS1 being wrong and PS2 being closer to real life). It may very well be that TB was traveling at 3 times the speed of a PS1 Mosquito or more.

Again, compare the map features. Don't forget how unbelievably huge we know those bases are, despite the fact that they can still look tiny when zipping around quickly through the air.

The PS2 AMP station (and surrounding buildings and walls) looks to be about 4 times the size of a PS1 AMP station (thus the size comparison I made). It doesn't matter how it "feels," or what scale the game says. All that matters is how large they are compared to a standard unit of comparable measurement, such as the height of an infantryman. By this measurement, Indar is at least the size of Cyssor, if not quite a bit larger.

[Mechzz]

Don't forget that the Mosquito in TB's video was going at least twice as fast as a PS1 Mosquito. That right there will instantly make the map feel half as large.

That's my point. If a mozzie can cross the same size of map in half the time then the map will "feel" only half as big as all other aircraft will get to you and kill you in half the time. The planes can reach any part of the continent in half the time, so it feels smaller.

It would only feel bigger to someone on foot travelling at the same relative speed that we ran at in PS1.

Time, elapsed seconds, to get from point A to point B is what defines the feeling of size to the player.

[Zekeen]

Eventually, I think we're going to need to return to the lockout system when more maps get added. When a map was locked out, you then had fewer maps to fight, but there were always more ways of hitting that map. Generally, there were 2 or 3 maps fought on at a time in PS1, and the fun of lockouts is you had a different experience in combat each week as the battle shifted. I don't see a 3 way battle on 6 maps ever happening without killing the scale of combat.

[capiqu]

My assumption is that I don't entirely trust the numbers that PS2 is giving us, and I certainly don't believe the numbers that PS1 gave us. The original Planetside simply did not have an accurate meter scale compared to real life.

So I'm going to disregard any information that is based on how large the in game data claims Cyssor to be, or how fast a PS1 aircraft claims to travel.

We already know that the Mosquito in TB's video reported traveling at significantly faster speeds than PS1 Mosquitos could fly at. This would be further compounded if PS2 were closer to accurate in scale than PS1 was. A PS1 Mossie flying at 100 KPH in a scale where 100 kilometers was actually 66 real world kilometers would end up making the real world flight speed be a third slower than reported.

Indar only looked as small as it did in that video because the aircraft are so fucking fast. Pause a moment in those videos and look at how large the bases and landmarks truly are.

This is why I'm only interested in comparisons of known scale between the two games. We know how big bases and towers were compared to infantry in PS1. We now know how big buildings and bases are compared to infantry in PS2. We can compare those, and then look at their scale on the continental maps, and estimate how large they are in comparison to each other.

Exactly

[Mechzz]

My assumption is that I don't entirely trust the numbers that PS2 is giving us, and I certainly don't believe the numbers that PS1 gave us. The original Planetside simply did not have an accurate meter scale compared to real life.

So I'm going to disregard any information that is based on how large the in game data claims Cyssor to be, or how fast a PS1 aircraft claims to travel.

We already know that the Mosquito in TB's video reported traveling at significantly faster speeds than PS1 Mosquitos could fly at. This would be further compounded if PS2 were closer to accurate in scale than PS1 was. A PS1 Mossie flying at 100 KPH in a scale where 100 kilometers was actually 66 real world kilometers would end up making the real world flight speed be a third slower than reported.

Indar only looked as small as it did in that video because the aircraft are so fucking fast. Pause a moment in those videos and look at how large the bases and landmarks truly are.

This is why I'm only interested in comparisons of known scale between the two games. We know how big bases and towers were compared to infantry in PS1. We now know how big buildings and bases are compared to infantry in PS2. We can compare those, and then look at their scale on the continental maps, and estimate how large they are in comparison to each other.

It's not the "distance" between the points that counts, it's the time it takes a player in a given form of transport to get from point A to point B. If a mozzie in PS2 has twice the relative speed as a mozzie in PS1, the PS2 continent will only feel half as big even if it is the same size. If a grunt runs at half the relative speed in PS2 as PS1, then a continent the same size will feel twice as big.

[Xyntech]

That's my point. If a mozzie can cross the same size of map in half the time then the map will "feel" only half as big as all other aircraft will get to you and kill you in half the time. The planes can reach any part of the continent in half the time, so it feels smaller.

It would only feel bigger to someone on foot travelling at the same relative speed that we ran at in PS1.

Time, elapsed seconds, to get from point A to point B is what defines the feeling of size to the player.

Right, but the speed of aircraft (and the speed of every other unit) can be tweaked. But they can't just scale the continents and bases up or down with a slider, not without it looking stupid.

So my point is that Indar is technically big. At least as big as the biggest PS1 maps, if not bigger. How it feels is important, but not as important as the fact that there is factually more land mass in a PS2 continent. Moreover, with the hex system, there is factually more capture points to fight over. 17 bases on Cyssor vs 70 hex zones on Indar.

So we can't keep thinking of it like we're getting 3 PS1 continents at launch.

As I said, it's not the same as 3 PS1 continents, nor is it the same as 9 or 12 PS1 continents. The fact that it's more contestable area smashed together into one continuous zone means that it will play very different than PS1 in a lot of ways, and we really don't have much meaningful data to compare that to as far as guessing how it will play out. We will need beta data to see for sure.

I don't doubt that there may be some problems with the new system and/or having only 3 continents, but I also have little doubt that a single PS2 continent has the possibility to sustain multiple large and small 2 way fights even if there is a 3 way clusterfuck going on at the same time on another part of the continent. There won't be a 3 way convergence of territory at every spot on the map, and in places where only 2 empires territory butts up against each other, I strongly suspect there will mostly be 2 ways. There just won't be enough incentive for the third empire to constantly barge in on the other empires 2 way, especially when that empire has several of their own 2 ways and the clusterfuck 3 way to deal with.

[Figment]

Would anyone feel for trying multiple setups in the beta?

So one server with multiple continents inter-connected and a couple servers with just three continents? Then they can see what's more popular for launch.

[kaffis]

Eventually, I think we're going to need to return to the lockout system when more maps get added. When a map was locked out, you then had fewer maps to fight, but there were always more ways of hitting that map. Generally, there were 2 or 3 maps fought on at a time in PS1, and the fun of lockouts is you had a different experience in combat each week as the battle shifted. I don't see a 3 way battle on 6 maps ever happening without killing the scale of combat.
But you don't need lockouts if you have bigger server populations.

How do you launch with bigger server populations, when only 3 continents are done?

You copy and paste continents, so you can have fewer, bigger servers. Thus, this thread.

Copy/paste is a way to add new content (new handcrafted continents) without diluting the server's density, because the new handcrafted stuff would replace copied material.

3-way battles over 6 maps (continents) will happen *all the time* if the server-count relative to the playerbase is correctly calculated. The problem is, the only way to increase the server size after you've launched live servers is with merges. So it's better, IMO, to create dummy content by copy/pasting than releasing new content that requires merges or lockouts to retain the desired player density.

[Figment]

Yeah because mergers of servers tend to signal players "oh crap, pop is going down".

[Xyntech]

I guess that's the real debate here, between which is the lesser of two evils:

1) Start with 6(+) continents, but have half (or more) be dupes

2) Every server has one of each continent, but servers must be merged as new continents are added

Personally, I would tend to lean towards merging servers. The only reason I would lean the other way is if 3 continents ends up proving to stifling, in which case a few extra continents of breathing room would solve multiple problems.

[Figment]

Well that's another thing. Imagine that three continents are actually... simply full.

You'd need an entire new server. :/ Or a queue. Queues suck. Having a bit of overcapacity per server should solve that.

[Xyntech]

Well that's another thing. Imagine that three continents are actually... simply full.

You'd need an entire new server. :/ Or a queue. Queues suck. Having a bit of overcapacity per server should solve that.

That argument I disagree with. PS1 had 5000 players on 10 continents, PS2 aims for 6000 on 3. That's more of an issue of making sure there are plenty of servers, whether each server can handle 1000 or 20,000.

But still, having servers with more breathing room would certainly make it easier to have large battles on a lot of continents without risking getting overfilled as easily. So I don't entirely disagree.

[kaffis]

I guess that's the real debate here, between which is the lesser of two evils:

1) Start with 6(+) continents, but have half (or more) be dupes

2) Every server has one of each continent, but servers must be merged as new continents are added
Exactly.

I happen to personally lean towards duplicating continents (especially with the intention of replacing them later with originals) as the far lesser of those two evils.

Server merges have a long-standing connotation among the MMO community of being a herald of failure or impending doom. In addition, they (can) create naming collisions, depending on the naming structure. Nobody likes having to change their name, or being the guy who gets to run around with a lame appendation (that they probably didn't even get to choose!) to their name because some other guy has it.

In contrast, duplicated content yields.. what? A perception of being instanced? I just can't get worked up over that. Yeah, guys, you got us. Our world is instanced at launch. Those instances will eventually go away, and, shucks, guys, each "instance" is *only* twenty times the size of any other FPS you can name.

Way easier to downplay and deflect criticism for instancing than merges, IMO.

[Xyntech]

Exactly.

I happen to personally lean towards duplicating continents (especially with the intention of replacing them later with originals) as the far lesser of those two evils.

Server merges have a long-standing connotation among the MMO community of being a herald of failure or impending doom. In addition, they (can) create naming collisions, depending on the naming structure. Nobody likes having to change their name, or being the guy who gets to run around with a lame appendation (that they probably didn't even get to choose!) to their name because some other guy has it.

In contrast, duplicated content yields.. what? A perception of being instanced? I just can't get worked up over that. Yeah, guys, you got us. Our world is instanced at launch. Those instances will eventually go away, and, shucks, guys, each "instance" is *only* twenty times the size of any other FPS you can name.

Way easier to downplay and deflect criticism for instancing than merges, IMO.

Also the "instances" would all be part of the singular world map, and you could still freely go between Indar A and Indar B, with each persisting continuously, so it's not like an instanced fight where it goes away and resets when the session ends.

[Figment]

Or you could pre-name servers that will get merged as per the plan:

Werner becomes:

We, Rn and Er or Wer and Ner.

Ehr... scrap that. xD

[KTNApollo]

Continents alongside new vehicles are going to be the big updates that come maybe 2 or 3 times a year, with weapons and skins potentially coming out regularly. I think if SOE is really on the ball, we'll get a new continent every 6-8 months until we're back up to the original amount from PS1. Remember, each of these continents are 100% handcrafted by the team. We can't expect them to rush out new continents just because we want to fight on Cyssor NOW!

[Figment]

Continents alongside new vehicles are going to be the big updates that come maybe 2 or 3 times a year, with weapons and skins potentially coming out regularly. I think if SOE is really on the ball, we'll get a new continent every 6-8 months until we're back up to the original amount from PS1. Remember, each of these continents are 100% handcrafted by the team. We can't expect them to rush out new continents just because we want to fight on Cyssor NOW!

Kinda fail to see the point of the post since nobody is asking/suggesting they rush continents, this is about server size and planning ahead to accomodate just those updates. :)

[Xyntech]

Right. And matching PS2's number of continents may result in having 4x the number of playable space as the first game, given the new scale, density, and population caps of PS2 continents.

Presumably we will want to maintain at least a few NA and EU servers for as long as possible. Just one server housing 10 continents with up to 2000 people each would have a maximum cap of 20,000 players. That amount of space would take what, at least 3 times that number of users to keep it populated throughout the day/week? That's 60,000 players.

So just how many hundreds of thousands of players will we need? How many will we have? Very hard to say.

I think mergers are going to have to happen at one point or another, if they plan on adding new continents as an ongoing project. No amount of planning in the world will be able to keep up with fluctuating populations and increasing playable space. For all we know, they may have to occasionally open up new servers as well.

[Figment]

If they are going to add more maps, they will need that anyway. Might as well get experience with that in beta.

[Xyntech]

Yep. As I've said, if nothing else this idea is excellent for beta. We may not even have 3 continents at the start of beta, maybe only one or two, so it will be even more valuable of an idea.

But perhaps the idea could be scaled up as well.

They could deliberately put the different copies on opposite sides of the world map, having it be daytime on one Indar and nighttime on the other.

[cellinaire]

Hmm. I don't have specific proofs or data to back my argument, but I definitely can't believe Indar is smaller than Cyssor.

[Figment]

Btw, another benefit of the intercontinental lattice setup with capturable footholds, is that you can have more than three warpgates per continent and thus more diverse ways of expanding.

It also means that the fight does not become very predictable over time, because footholds can pop up anywhere are contested and change hands constantly.

[GuyFawkes]

this is ftp territory

I expect, just like with eq2 that we get bundled with 3 maps at the start . At some point in near future we will get to buy the 'new cluster access ' for 1500sc. Since the main part of the player base is over there ( just as a change the repetition of indar/ amerish/ esamir for the last 4 months) it becomes almost mandatory to get it, or lose out on the potential resources .

[kaffis]

this is ftp territory

I expect, just like with eq2 that we get bundled with 3 maps at the start . At some point in near future we will get to buy the 'new cluster access ' for 1500sc. Since the main part of the player base is over there ( just as a change the repetition of indar/ amerish/ esamir for the last 4 months) it becomes almost mandatory to get it, or lose out on the potential resources .
Given the way Higby feels about continent lock (he's stated they're steering clear of continent locks because they don't want to go and make a bunch of content (continents) that aren't available for play at a given time), I doubt he wants to create a pay wall that fragments the user-base.

[Figment]

So, almost beta, the Facebook like counter is already well over 59,000 players.


At this point with 2000 players per map and 3 continents = 6000 players, we already need a total of 10 servers, somehow spread over Pro7 and SOE servers post-Beta. Considering not everyone has facebook, let's assume there's approximately 100.000 people waiting to get in, so we'll need an additional 7.

17 or more servers to fit everyone?

With just three continents per server (and per chance one character per server), undoubtedly your outfit will be splintered over different servers. Undoubtedly there will be a lot of duplicate names with each server too.

Given the ratio on PSU, probably we'll get something like 60% USA, 40% Europe. So I'd expect around 10-12 US servers and around 7-8 EU servers.


Beta servers? Oh dear...

[maddoggg]

Now that you mention it i agree,atleast 1 continent with several island is a must!

[basti]

Planetside had the problem of too many islands which spread the population out too thin, so I doubt SOE want to make the same mistake again. When you look back at Planetside how many of them Islands did we actually need? You only need one of each type....

That is simply not true.

The issue appeared when pops dropped off below 1 poplock. Before that, when we had more than a poplock, it wasnt really a problem. Back in the day of 2 poplocks, there was no problem at all.

[ThermalReaper]

Just a question, what's so appealing about a 2 way stalemate that 3 way stalemates don't have?

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Just a question, what's so appealing about a 2 way stalemate that 3 way stalemates don't have?

That a 2 way generally wont stalemate. 1 side finds a way to gain an upper hand. In a 3-way, if 1 side starts winning the other 2 naturally gang up on them and thus the stalemate happens. We have 3 factions because you need that on the global level, but in the fights on conts, 2-way is much beter, because the fight actually moves.

[Figment]

That a 2 way generally wont stalemate. 1 side finds a way to gain an upper hand. In a 3-way, if 1 side starts winning the other 2 naturally gang up on them and thus the stalemate happens. We have 3 factions because you need that on the global level, but in the fights on conts, 2-way is much beter, because the fight actually moves.

Indeed, it makes fights more dynamic, unpredictable and open to variable paths and strategies that aren't possible in a threeway.

On the grander global level you still have the threeway however.

[outsider]

pop lock has been a concern of mine ever since E3's 15 awards, this game will go off and pop lock will be a real problem.

I do like Higby's idea of your character being able to move across multiple servers so you can still play when your server of choice is pop locked, but I don't think it's enough. your outfit may be on the pop locked continent, so playing on another server won't keep people happy for long. while you still get to progress your character, you won't be doing it with your friends.

I have been playing guild wars 2 beta ( NDA is lifted for a while now so I can talk about it ) of late, and something I really like is, when I enter a zone that is pop locked I will be taken to an instance of that zone and put in a queue for the main zone. When it is my turn in the queue to be ported to the main zone there will be a pop up asking me if I want to go into the main zone Y/N

It's much more elegant than looking at a window telling me I'm 372 in the queue with 1 hour to wait. I may not be in the big fight but I still get to play some "smaller" skirmishes for a bit and then I am seamlessly transported to where I want to be, which is fighting alongside my friends.

I do like the idea of playing around with the warpgate locations during beta, it's really nice to throw in a bit of random near the end of a long creative project, just to see what might come of it. Though I don't imagine moving things around " for the whim ( :] ) " would be easy.