Scale of Map compared

[Krishtov]

EDIT: To make it clear for people coming to this thread... I believe PS2 has larger maps, bigger scale, and thus BETTER... I am not saying otherwise.

I did this just cause... Indar's map from stream last night with Oshur 4km square pic found elsewhere on forum.

I sized it so the road sizes were the same - incidently, the Gates were the same size too... which means roughly, same scale unless both roads and gates were dropped together at the same %!

So... Indar is larger than old Oshur map, physical wise.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/JoeyY7/ps2_map_compare.jpg

[Raymac]

It's a rough and dirty comparison, but it sounds about right. Basically, the maps are huge. That's all we really have to know. The maps are huge.

[Xyntech]

Previously I estimated my own comparison. It may be off, but I did my best.

I based mine on the size I know facilities were in PS1, vs how large I know they are from the PS2 footage. From what I can tell, the AMP Station in PS2 is about 4x the size of the AMP Station in PS1, approximately. So I this is roughly based on that. You can see a PS1 AMP station and a PS2 AMP station pretty close to each other on the middle rightmost portion of the image.

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

[Eyeklops]

I would describe PS2's maps as smaller, but much more detailed than PS1's.

[Krishtov]

I would describe PS2's maps as smaller, but much more detailed than PS1's.

As an artist, I would say the maps are same size or larger... they look smaller because the buildings are much larger now. Even the towers are huge compared to the old ones.

[Malorn]

I'm still not impressed with the size of the maps. The AMP station we see is big yes, but it also take sup a significant chunk of the playable part of Indar and only takes a few seconds to fly across the map.

So yeah it's huge compared to a normal FPS map, but it still feels like the indar Amp station is roughly 1/5 of the map, which makes it feel small. It's clearly one of the larger bases, as the bio labs look much smaller area-wise.

From that it feels practically the same size as Old Oshur.

[Raymac]

So yeah it's huge compared to a normal FPS map, but it still feels like the indar Amp station is roughly 1/5 of the map, which makes it feel small. It's clearly one of the larger bases, as the bio labs look much smaller area-wise.

From that it feels practically the same size as Old Oshur.

Whoa. It is waayyyyy less than 20% of the map.

[ringring]

Surely the key is travel time? How long does it take an aircraft/tank to go East-West and North South?

The new continent is larger but the mossie (as an example) is also faster.

[Malorn]

Not really, the demo area is actually quite big. The bio lab next to it is much smaller. and that amp station's surrounding area in the demo is a good chunk of bottom-right part of the map.

If you look strictly at the central facility itself, yeah that' snot big, but the facility is sprawled out and takes up a lot of land.

[Krishtov]

Whoa. It is waayyyyy less than 20% of the map.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/JoeyY7/amp.jpg

This was where they were fighting yesterday if I recall correctly....so yeah WAY less than 20%

[Eyeklops]

Why is this so difficult? They told us the new maps are build on an 8km X 8km area. So all we need to do is figure out how big one sector is in PS1 and scale it. I agree with prior popular opinion that Indar is about the same size as the PS1 home conts (Amerish, Ceryshen..etc), and smaller than Cyssor.

[Krishtov]

Why is this so difficult? They told us the new maps are build on an 8km X 8km area. So all we need to do is figure out how big one sector is in PS1 and scale it. I agree with prior popular opinion that Indar is about the same size as the PS1 home conts (Amerish, Ceryshen..etc), and smaller than Cyssor.

I didn't mean to make this thread to bring doubt to that. I was simply putting a visual comparison up...sorry if it came across that way.

[Xaine]

As has been mentioned, its pretty hard to compare given the scale difference, move-speed difference etc etc

[Malorn]

Why is this so difficult? They told us the new maps are build on an 8km X 8km area. So all we need to do is figure out how big one sector is in PS1 and scale it. I agree with prior popular opinion that Indar is about the same size as the PS1 home conts (Amerish, Ceryshen..etc), and smaller than Cyssor.

PS did have a range indicator, so it seems reasonable for anyone willing to do the measurements could stand at sector positions and use the in-game rangefinder to determine exact distances of the edges and scale it out to do a continent comparison.

[kaffis]

PS did have a range indicator, so it seems reasonable for anyone willing to do the measurements could stand at sector positions and use the in-game rangefinder to determine exact distances of the edges and scale it out to do a continent comparison.
Except, the range indicator in Planetside 1 was highly suspect, IMO. Either that, or Auraxian-bred humans are like 3 meters tall.

What you really need to do is kill a couple dozen people in a big line head to foot, and then use the range indicator between two guys at either end of the line to calibrate, first.

[p0intman]

SOUNDS LIKE A PROJECT FOR PEOPLE WHO GET INTO BETA!

[Higby]

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

[Landtank]

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

<3333

But seriously, have you people ever ran more than 3km? That's far too far already, let alone 8km^2

[Figment]

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

Could we get an official continent size comparison between the two? :)

Otherwise this debate will go on for the next 8 years since nobody will bother to bring measuring tape and we keep getting these fish-stories. And fish smell purple.

[Xaine]

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

Bam.

Higby laying down some facts, saving us trying to work it out with some crazy maths, because lets face it. We were going to be here all night. :P

Thank you Matt.

[Xyntech]

A few things are fucking people up.

1) Aircraft speed. If we are to believe the inaccurate distance scale of PS1, the new Mosquito goes twice as fast as the cruising speed of the old Mosquito, four times as fast with afterburners. It could be an even larger difference than that, depending on how inaccurate PS1's KPH was.

2) Everything is bigger. Not only is the continent larger, but the bases are larger as well. So while the continent looks smaller because each base takes up more room on the continent, the real reason is because bases are so much larger now.

The continent is larger in more than just land area as well. The hex system means that instead of just capturing territory by capturing bases, we can capture all of the rest of the territory as well. This means that instead of 10-20ish base capture points on a PS1 map (towers didn't count since they didn't contribute to continent locks), we now have upwards of 70+ capture points.

So please stop assuming that the continent is small because the current aircraft speed allows it to be transversed so quickly. We don't currently have a 100% accurate comparison of a PS1 continent next to a PS2 continent, but Indar is clearly a big place if you look at some actual scale reference points.

I understand that the current aircraft speed makes it feel small, but there is a huge difference between it feeling small and being small. Whether the aircraft speed needs adjustment or not is a question for beta, but whether that gets changed or not, I'm confident that they won't feel small in land vehicles and certainly not on foot.

[Krishtov]

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

Good to hear! I thought it was something like that.


A few things are fucking people up.

1) Aircraft speed. If we are to believe the inaccurate distance scale of PS1, the new Mosquito goes twice as fast as the cruising speed of the old Mosquito, four times as fast with afterburners. It could be an even larger difference than that, depending on how inaccurate PS1's KPH was.

2) Everything is bigger. Not only is the continent larger, but the bases are larger as well. So while the continent looks smaller because each base takes up more room on the continent, the real reason is because bases are so much larger now.

The continent is larger in more than just land area as well. The hex system means that instead of just capturing territory by capturing bases, we can capture all of the rest of the territory as well. This means that instead of 10-20ish base capture points on a PS1 map (towers didn't count since they didn't contribute to continent locks), we now have upwards of 70+ capture points.

So please stop assuming that the continent is small because the current aircraft speed allows it to be transversed so quickly. We don't currently have a 100% accurate comparison of a PS1 continent next to a PS2 continent, but Indar is clearly a big place if you look at some actual scale reference points.

I understand that the current aircraft speed makes it feel small, but there is a huge difference between it feeling small and being small. Whether the aircraft speed needs adjustment or not is a question for beta, but whether that gets changed or not, I'm confident that they won't feel small in land vehicles and certainly not on foot.

Pretty much what I was trying to say. Minus aircraft. All I did was scale old Oshur to the scale the map was from the screen based on road width & gate size... which shows the map is bigger than Oshur...and that bases are HUGE compared to PS1...which is what is throwing people off.

Thats what I was trying to fix.

PS2 maps are huge. I am happy with the current size.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/JoeyY7/cys.jpg

[Nasher]

Planetside origionaly had 3 huge contenents. Though about 80% of the terrain was just empty space.

[Malorn]

With all do respect to Mr. Higby, he's not exactly an unbiased source. PS2 is being sold on "massive combat", so its certainly in his interests to make PS2 seem as large as possible, so he's not going to come here and say "yeah it's really not that big" - he's way smarter than that, and it would be a really dumb PR decision. So his answer above is fully expected and absolutely the correct answer that he should be providing us. I don't expect to convince him otherwise either.

However, I would hope that he reads what I have to say here and take it into consideration and get some understanding as to why I see Indar as being quite small. No comment is required on his part, just eyeballs on the post.

Numbers are easy to play with. If it's 1km x 1km that would be 1 square km out of 64, which is 1.5%, and a little big bigger would bring it to about 2% so Matt certainly wasn't lying. 1 is a special number that has all sorts of fun properties, particularly when multiplying and dividing. Seems reasonable, but it really depends on where you measure the area and it's easy to mislead. If it's 2km x 2km it jumps to 6.25%. If the "playable area" is the full map of indar, including coastlines then that too is misleading. Real combat won't be happening in those areas.

Here's my mockup of Indar. The red outline might be the "real" 8x8 boundary, but that isn't all realistically playable space.

Consider the continents of PS1 - there were lots of parts of those continents where nobody ever really had meaningful combat. A lot of those areas were close to warpgates. When you carved off coastline and warpgates and looked at the actual combat areas of PS1 it was much smaller than the full size of the continent.

http://i.imgur.com/Xl7jQ.jpg

The dark red jagged outline is the actual reasonably playable area of indar, which also includes footholds, which while technically playable aren't realistically playable. In fact any area immediately around the foothold isn't really part of a reasonable play area, just as warpgates in PS1 were technically playable area, but not really.

When you take away the coast, and the warpgates, and look at the area which people are playing in (inset in the bright red square) and compare it to the actual realistic playing area of indar, the demo area is actually quite a big chunk of it.

I don't want to hurt PlanetSide 2 here, but c'mon, the main playing area for the continent will be in the triangle between the three warp gates, and within that triangle the demo area is a significant chunk of it.

That's why I say Indar seems small, and that the demo area is actually a big chunk of it. Because when you exclude the plate and cut off the crust, the sandwich isn't all that big.

I want bigger. :( I hope the other continents are bigger and that feedback of this sort is taken into consideration when creating those continents. Its certainly too late to fundamentally change indar and they don't need to. But later continents should be bigger, or at least have more playable space with warpgates pushed out.

[Raymac]

That's still not even close to 20% even when you chop it down.

Plus, all the fighting isn't going to be just in the middle, just like all the fighting on Cyssor didn't only happen around Gunuku. And PS1 didn't even have resources scattered around to fight for.

I really don't even know why you'd want to split hairs that much anyways. The maps are freaking huge.

[Synnoc]

I may be misremembering, but PS1 continents were 2km x 2km, and Higby said Indar was 8km x 8m. So Indar could hold all 9 PS1 conts and still have about 1/2 of its area uncovered.

[Malorn]

That's still not even close to 20% even when you chop it down.

Plus, all the fighting isn't going to be just in the middle, just like all the fighting on Cyssor didn't only happen around Gunuku. And PS1 didn't even have resources scattered around to fight for.

I really don't even know why you'd want to split hairs that much anyways. The maps are freaking huge.

When you look at the actual playable area between the warpgates where 80% or more of all combat on Indar will occur, it's about 25% of it.

People move to the next nearest thing, and if one empire extends too far they get flanked by one of the other empires, so combat will oscillate around that area. Looking at geography, I'd say that Amp Station is going to see a lot of fighting daily.

[Krishtov]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/JoeyY7/PS2MAP2.jpg

19x19 Amp Stations is the general-size...also cliffs & water does count a little. Flanking aircraft etc... thats a map big enough to fit 361 amp stations from yesterday's game. The station is a big area as you can tell, not counting the surrounding terrain. So, imho, the map is huge. Bigger would be better - but by no means is it small.

[Otleaz]

Just to make clear... Size is relative. It is extremely difficult to compare two games in terms of size. Thanks to travel time, a 1x1 area could possibly be "larger" than a 64x64.

[Malorn]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v157/JoeyY7/PS2MAP2.jpg

19x19 Amp Stations is the general-size...also cliffs & water does count a little. Flanking aircraft etc... thats a map big enough to fit 361 amp stations from yesterday's game. The station is a big area as you can tell, not counting the surrounding terrain. So, imho, the map is huge. Bigger would be better - but by no means is it small.

Amp station is an interesting unit of measure, but one we can relate.

How many Amp Stations was Oshur & Cyssor?

Edit: oh, you're talking about modern amp stations, not PS1 amp stations. Sure I suppose id you carve out all of the surrounding area people were actually playing in yesterday and focus on just the central amp station, sure. But that too is a highly misleading estimate. Numbers are easy to fudge.

[Figment]

It's more like 8-10%, but yes, agree with Malorn it's not as big as some make it seem. I'm still suspecting it to be approximately Ishundar or Cyssor size, just more densily populated and considering they increase the playable area, that'd be fine.

If only those sanctuaries were possible to turn into neutral Warpgates. The feasibly attackable area (that doesn't default to an empire) will be even smaller than Malorn suggests.

I'd say 33-50% of the map is really contestable with even pops. I wish it was possible to kick empires off, but yeah.

[NewSith]

Visually Indar seems smaller then most of the original maps, but on the other hand, PS2 is going to have action all around it, not just across the lattice.

[SniperSteve]

Even if the maps were the same size, there is more area on a PS2 map that is interesting to play in, so in that way it is better.

Also realize that the aircraft are faster in PS2.

[Revanmug]

things and things

Hey man, I fixed that picture for you. No, don't thank me. I like helping and making sure both side have fair arguments

http://i.imgur.com/O2aXh.png (http://imgur.com/O2aXh)

See that vanu purple circle? That's the actual area where you see action on E3. Why am I precising this? Because right now, nobody is fighting around the base because there is absolutly no reason too. You spawn, get a vehicule and crash/bail in the middle.

That still look bigger than 2% but lol at your 20% map...

Still, wouldn't refuse bigger maps.

[Malorn]

PS1 released with 8x8 and 4x4 conts. I can dig that video up but trust me. It was from E3 2002 or 2003. Cyssor, Ishundar, Searhus and Esamir were the 8x8's so Indar is roughly equivalent to either of those. SOI's in PS1 were roughly 400m in diameter. Bases about 100 meters squared. You guys can extrapolate and overlay whatever you want from there.

I just did the math too, the grids in PS1 are 400m squared. Cyssor is 19 to 20 grids squared. SOI its roughly into a grid. Now you guys have fun with the rest.

That actually compares quite well to the "19 amp stations" metric from above.

So roughly we have Ishundar, Cyssor, and Esamir releasing for PS2, with ten times the population in each and all 3 empires represented.

I can certainly see that will be chaotic, but the staleness of the battles and the lack of perceived strategic options is a bit disappointing.

But that might be alleviated as they release more continents. Can't boil the ocean in one day.

[Sifer2]

Yeah the biggest problem is the foothold system. A lot of us don't like it to begin with. But I especially don't like it when I see how much of the playable area they consume. Plus they make fighting over territory near them seem pointless as its unlikely you will control it for very long. So yeah I agree with Malorn the majority of the time its going to be fighting somewhere in the triangle in the middle which cuts out almost half the continent.

[Malorn]

Hey man, I fixed that picture for you. No, don't thank me. I like helping and making sure both side have fair arguments

http://i.imgur.com/O2aXh.png (http://imgur.com/O2aXh)

See that vanu purple circle? That's the actual area where you see action on E3. Why am I precising this? Because right now, nobody is fighting around the base because there is absolutly no reason too. You spawn, get a vehicule and crash/bail in the middle.

That still look bigger than 2% but lol at your 20% map...

Still, wouldn't refuse bigger maps.

Congratulations, you managed to find the central structure in the amp station - but that isn't the demo area. I captured the demo area quite accurately. The central amp station you circled is just the center structure, which isn't actually all that big, so thanks for showing how you can see that small part of the demo area from orbit and put it into perspective.

[Malorn]

This is a good establishment that the size of Indar is actually roughly the size of Searhus, when you factor in the shape and the 3 footholds.

This thread has produced some valuable data. I am pleased with the results as the mystery appears to be solved.

Unfortunately it doesn't make it seem any bigger. Lot of wasted space in the indar map configuration.

[Rbstr]

I think one thing we're missing. It seems like a person is smaller in PS2, compared to PS1. Not just in relation to bases but the whole map.

Like someone said, PS1 dudes were like 3m tall. I'm not worried about continent size.

The only thing that I've really though about is that it'd be kind of odd to have nothing but 8x8 maps filled out to the edges. 6x10 or something that's irregular. Io mix it up.

Honestly, I like having all the hexes be important...but I'd also like to see places that are relatively less dense.

[Revanmug]

Congratulations, you managed to find the central structure in the amp station - but that isn't the demo area. I captured the demo area quite accurately. The central amp station you circled is just the center structure, which isn't actually all that big, so thanks for showing how you can see that small part of the demo area from orbit and put it into perspective.

Thank you thank you. I'm glad that you also have very little reading comprehension since I said that the central area of the demo is the only place where you see action/footage for various reasons that you don't seem to care about!

Again, The map seems smaller mostly because there is no reason to fight elsewhere than inside the amp station. Why? everybody spawn next to it and there is nothing to cap/fight for.

[kaffis]

Quite a bit of Indar appears unusable? Was someone perhaps doing the math on the usable part and came up with the higher number?
Nope. I did a hex-count on one of the map views from a video that showed the map (the Josh Hackney interview where he showed off the iPad app). I got 339 hexes total space colored one of the 3 empire colors.

Given that the facility they've used in the E3 floor demo was, I believe, 7 hexes, this yields a 2.03% figure of the playable landmass represented in the 7 hex area that the Amp Station controls.

Granted, the 64 square kilometers may represent that the map as a shown is 8km x 8km, and thus there's some "wasted" unplayable space represented in that figure... But Higby's being dead accurate with his 2% of the continent figure, and not misleading at all. That's one-fiftieth of the PLAYABLE space we've been shown.

[JacksonFatBack]

The new maps may be larger, but it looks like their player density is less. Recall that they will also be holding 5x as many players.

This isn't necessarily a bad thing, as the majority of space on PS1 contents was seldom utilized.

[Hamma]

Once you actually jump into the game and start running around you will understand the scale of the game. You can toss numbers around all day but nothing beats the actual experience. :)

[Malorn]

Thank you thank you. I'm glad that you also have very little reading comprehension since I said that the central area of the demo is the only place where you see action/footage for various reasons that you don't seem to care about!

Again, The map seems smaller mostly because there is no reason to fight elsewhere than inside the amp station. Why? everybody spawn next to it and there is nothing to cap/fight for.

Yes, just like how much of the map won't have a lot of fighting on it and most of it will be in the central area between the three warpgates, which is to be expected.

They also simplified that amp station for the demo. There were 6-7 capture points on it in previous screenshots. They likely disabled a few of them so it wasn't so overwhelming for the new players. 3 is easier to manage and helps funnel the fighting to make for a more compelling staged combat area.

[kaffis]

Malorn, how did you come by the placement of your boundaries in the square you claim is the demo area? It's larger than I would have eyed it, judging from where we saw spawn points and corpse-indicators on the respawn maps.

Also, who says it was a square?

In any event, I did the counting to back up Higby's 2% math. So unless Higby just meant "the facility they were fighting over controls 2% of the map, and we took out the surrounding structures and included more than just its 7 hexes in the playable area"... I don't think your rectangle has a leg to stand on.

[Revanmug]

Yup, I heard a few time during the 3 streams that there will be more capture points and/or different mechanics. There are few structures around the main amp station that I hope will be use. There is also that little camp? (don't remember name they gave) just over the ridge that I remember from the sony office tour.

Meh, smaller or bigger, it doesn't really matter if the map itself isn't useful to it's full potential. I hope they realise that.

[Malorn]

Malorn, how did you come by the placement of your boundaries in the square you claim is the demo area? It's larger than I would have eyed it, judging from where we saw spawn points and corpse-indicators on the respawn maps.

Also, who says it was a square?

In any event, I did the counting to back up Higby's 2% math. So unless Higby just meant "the facility they were fighting over controls 2% of the map, and we took out the surrounding structures and included more than just its 7 hexes in the playable area"... I don't think your rectangle has a leg to stand on.

I see aircraft flying by the bridge on the NW side frequently in the demo (which is clearly visible on the continental map), that was a big part of the bounding. Then you can make out the area of the facility itself, and then outskirts are where they set up the staging areas for each empire. The square I placed basically encompasses all of the staging areas and the facility, which is the playable area of the demo.

It's probably not a square but a radius from the central amp station, but a square is easier to measure and easier to draw in paint. The square is the approximation of the circle.

[kaffis]

It's probably not a square but a radius from the central amp station, but a square is easier to measure and easier to draw in paint. The square is the approximation of the circle.
Fair enough. You're probably overestimating the area encompassed by a bit less than 30%, then. (The area of a 1-unit radius circle being pi vs. a 2-unit square's area of 4)

It does also occur to me that my 339 hex count was counting the footholds, so it ought to be 312 contestible hexes, plus some of the foothold hexes being legitimate "play space" when/if adjacent hexes get captured, as the edge of the foothold becomes where the defenders sally forth from.

I still contend that your triangle prediction is way off, because there's no way the TR and NC will let the VS have the northern corners of the map for free.

[cellinaire]

By now, I don't have any complaint about the continent size. Should be fine with me =)

and it's highly possible that the various biome and landscapes within a continent will set PS2 apart from PS1 I'm sure about that. Furthermore, I guess future continents will be larger. They still haven't ruled out Cyssor and even said, eventually all PS1 conts will make a comeback in some form. :groovy:



(though, I just hope they start releasing some screenshots taken at Amerish and Esamir.)

[Graywolves]

I don't think the measurement is consistent between the two.

[sylphaen]

I'd compare map shapes too. Indar looks blocky. PS1 conts had nicer shapes.

[Synapse]

I'd compare map shapes too. Indar looks blocky. PS1 conts had nicer shapes.

Just think more like an optimist and you will be happier.

Indar efficiently gives you maximum space to play on!

(I know, i know, I want islands and bays too, indar only has 2 coastline features...peninsulas and big lakes would make for cool features.

[SGTalon]

I don't care how big the maps are. I just want to play the dang thing!!

Even if the maps have only slightly more area than the old ones, it is still going to be a whole lot of fun.

[Malorn]

I still contend that your triangle prediction is way off, because there's no way the TR and NC will let the VS have the northern corners of the map for free.

I don't think it's a matter of them having the corners for free so much as it is how the mindless masses will advance. We saw from PS1 that large player movements are highly predictable, and they typically pushed outward along easily traversable roads.

So they will push out from their footholds, moving from major objective to major objective (the facilities), using roads and capturing outposts along the way.

All three empires will do this and each empire will keep the others from over-reaching. The VS are in an incredibly advantageous position because the TR and NC will likely be colliding between the NC tech plant and the Indar Amp station we see so much. There's a giant pit to the north which will inhibit zerg movement, so the triangle is actually the facility to the west of the pit , to the Amp station, to the tech plant in the center. That will be where most battles occur and any deviation from that will largely be due to population imbalances.

And here's why - if the NC were to push against the VS, they could fall back to one of the side bases, but now the NC are exposed to attack from the TR, which some amount of NC forces will go defend, which weakens the VS assault, sot he VS push back out.

The reason the VS will get to keep a lot of their territory in the corners is because it is remote and any serious push by either the TR or the NC will leave them very exposed to the other.

The NC and the TR have the advantage of being in compact locations and the same is true. If the VS take the Indar amp station, they'll have pushed the TR back to either that bio lab or the tech plant to the south, and the VS now have a huge amount of territory exposed to the NC with no real threats from the TR against the NC.

Thus the battle will oscillate between those 3 central facilities. We'll see deviations when populations are noticeably uneven or there's strange behavior like two empires not fighting at all or only very little.

Edit; organized play by outfits will leave outskirts/flank attacks on side territories possible, but that won't be where the main population is.

[kaffis]

312 contestible hexes? You realize all hexes aren't contestible right? They started adopting the term regions instead of hexes. Most contestable regions are multiple hexes.
Yes, I'm aware. However, regions aren't a consistent size. Some are 1 hex, some are 3 hexes, some are 4 hexes, some are 6 hexes, some are 7 hexes... I think I spotted a few 2-hex regions, etc.

I'm using hexes as a unit of area measurement, not a unit of contesting territory.

Though, I think I heard somebody say ~75 contestible regions, which sounds about right to me. Okay, I just pulled up that screenshot I took again, and counted resource markers this time. 73 regions, is what I got.

In the shot I've got, the TR region-boundaries aren't all that clear and have to sort of be inferred by the hex grid and location of the resource marker. But a rough count shows:
9 7-hex facilities
14 6-hex facilities
11 5-hex facilities
10 4-hex facilities
18 3-hex facilities
5 2-hex facilities
6 1-hex facilities

Now, there's some guessing there based on inferred hex location (from my hex-count -- the nice thing about the hexes is that if you're marking them off, you can line up ones where the hex borders aren't clear by the surroundings since hexes stack regularly) and where the resource marker was in a sea of inferred hexes. But it's probably pretty close.

[lawnmower]

Congratulations, you managed to find the central structure in the amp station - but that isn't the demo area. I captured the demo area quite accurately.

area shown at E3 comprises about 2% of the total playable space on Indar.

ä

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Indar isn't appreciably larger than any large PS1 cont.

The TR 'area' is canyon terrain forcing short range fights and therefore suited for their vehicles, west is the NC area with a similar mechanic based on lots of tree/rock concentrations allow them to get close and deliver their upfront damage, the northern VS area is barren/featureless desert best suited for their long range.

TB's 'What's it all about video' shows him flying between Zurvan and Rashnu in about 15 seconds (middle of base to middle of base).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptGe-UplC34&feature=player_detailpage#t=30s
Infact he 'tours' most of the TR area on Indar in just under 1:30, not even flying in straight lines, rough flightplan below:

http://s9.postimage.org/6gornczgv/flightplan.jpg

He flies the blue part in roughly 15 seconds, with about 3 seconds of AB'ing, cruise speed appears to be around 230/240kph, AB'ing briefly touched 460kph after extended use but brief bursts wouldn't reach that velocity. Taking a rough 360kph average for the AB'd time gives around 300 metres travelled, with 784 metres travelled at cruise speed (235kph).

A 'total' of 1084 metres if he was flying in a perfectly straight line and being generous with AB speeds.

To compare, it took 35 seconds at a steady 119kph to fly from the edge of the SW BWG on Cyssor to the walls of Leza which was roughly 1150 metres:
http://s13.postimage.org/dbtra1nsn/cysfli.jpg

So no, the Conts aren't any 'bigger', the base footprints might be but there are also only 3 per side and the terrain is far 'busier' than Cyssor's open plains between bases with forested/mountain boundries.

[Blackwolf]

With all do respect to Mr. Higby, he's not exactly an unbiased source. PS2 is being sold on "massive combat", so its certainly in his interests to make PS2 seem as large as possible, so he's not going to come here and say "yeah it's really not that big" - he's way smarter than that, and it would be a really dumb PR decision. So his answer above is fully expected and absolutely the correct answer that he should be providing us. I don't expect to convince him otherwise either.

However, I would hope that he reads what I have to say here and take it into consideration and get some understanding as to why I see Indar as being quite small. No comment is required on his part, just eyeballs on the post.

Numbers are easy to play with. If it's 1km x 1km that would be 1 square km out of 64, which is 1.5%, and a little big bigger would bring it to about 2% so Matt certainly wasn't lying. 1 is a special number that has all sorts of fun properties, particularly when multiplying and dividing. Seems reasonable, but it really depends on where you measure the area and it's easy to mislead. If it's 2km x 2km it jumps to 6.25%. If the "playable area" is the full map of indar, including coastlines then that too is misleading. Real combat won't be happening in those areas.

Here's my mockup of Indar. The red outline might be the "real" 8x8 boundary, but that isn't all realistically playable space.

Consider the continents of PS1 - there were lots of parts of those continents where nobody ever really had meaningful combat. A lot of those areas were close to warpgates. When you carved off coastline and warpgates and looked at the actual combat areas of PS1 it was much smaller than the full size of the continent.

http://i.imgur.com/Xl7jQ.jpg

The dark red jagged outline is the actual reasonably playable area of indar, which also includes footholds, which while technically playable aren't realistically playable. In fact any area immediately around the foothold isn't really part of a reasonable play area, just as warpgates in PS1 were technically playable area, but not really.

When you take away the coast, and the warpgates, and look at the area which people are playing in (inset in the bright red square) and compare it to the actual realistic playing area of indar, the demo area is actually quite a big chunk of it.

I don't want to hurt PlanetSide 2 here, but c'mon, the main playing area for the continent will be in the triangle between the three warp gates, and within that triangle the demo area is a significant chunk of it.

That's why I say Indar seems small, and that the demo area is actually a big chunk of it. Because when you exclude the plate and cut off the crust, the sandwich isn't all that big.

I want bigger. :( I hope the other continents are bigger and that feedback of this sort is taken into consideration when creating those continents. Its certainly too late to fundamentally change indar and they don't need to. But later continents should be bigger, or at least have more playable space with warpgates pushed out.

Poke your screen with a thumb tack and call that you. That's big.

You aren't comparing the size of Indar to the size of a single soldier. You are comparing the 2% mentioned to the rest of it. You won't give yourself an accurate comparison between maps using this method.

[Landtank]

Saw this is Malorn's Sig, thought he should see it.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. ...this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Look at the maps of Cyssor and Forseral etc, they are 40% water. Indar is 10% water. It's really that simple.

[cellinaire]

Saw this is Malorn's Sig, thought he should see it.

People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. ...this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it.

Look at the maps of Cyssor and Forseral etc, they are 40% water. Indar is 10% water. It's really that simple.

+ the attention to detail and various biomes within a single cont.

+ more emphasis on urban fight and interior implementation.

And hell, why Skyrim and Just Cause2 are soooo small compared to Daggerfall? I'm disappoint :cry:

[Saintlycow]

Its all going to be fine

[Landtank]

+ the attention to detail and various biomes within a single cont.

+ more emphasis on urban fight and interior implementation.

And hell, why Skyrim and Just Cause2 are soooo small compared to Daggerfall? I'm disappoint :cry:

HAH! HAHAHAHA thats such a great post. I wish I could favorite that like on twitter.

[capiqu]

Yo can kill this argument by introducing one of the PS1 maps into PS2. :)

Who works for the US geological survey? :\

[Haro]

I think, regardless of actual map size, we need to take a few things into consideration: things like army flow, population density, and ground usage.

For example, Malorn points out that there are some zones that are not realistic combat areas (the edges, for example.) the specifics of that argument are up to debate (I think that's totally valid for fast aircraft or stealth forces.) But compare that to an old planetside map, where most of your population was likely to be fighting between, or more likely in and around 3, maybe 4 bases at most on a map. There are large expanses of land that are nowhere near bases, nor do they have any strategic incentive. Therefore, the vast majority of players could be found in only a few areas, and the majority of the map went unused.

Compare this to the map of Indar from PS2. The majority of the map is comprised of contestable hexes that encourage combat. A more fair comparison of size across maps from the original and PS2 would be to compare all the hexes from current Indar and the immediate areas around bases in PS1 maps.

Which brings up my next thought on how people perceive density, and how that affects how the empires may accrue territory. First, let me tangent into a little story of my own.

A few weeks ago, I was involved in a rather large paintball game. How large? Around 1,500 people, actually, playing on one field that was around 1-2 square kilometers. Granted, we weren't all in tanks and dropships (did have a couple modified trucks) but we still managed to fit lots of people in, and move around. All 1500 at once, maybe not, but certainly a LOT.

If we were to divide the continent into (very) rough thirds, each empire would have roughly 6km of border with the other two empires, and distribution of forces along these lines will probably be anything but uniform. If a lightning tank is, say 5m long, then it would take 1200 tanks, end to end, to take up one of those borders. Similarly, if you took a max, and let's say he's 2m tall (6 foot 5, approximately) and lay them end to end, foot to toe, then you'd need 3000 of them to completely fill up one border. Both of these are absurd scenarios, but they go to show the difficulty of maintaining a frontline. It's a very large amount of space, and it is likely to be very permeable.

We also cannot underestimate the importance of many more territories of varying size and value. In Planetside, bases were the only real estate that mattered. You only capped towers to get to bases, and therefore territorial gain only came across a few, easily visible routes. Not to mention, the process was gated by cap timers. With smaller zones likely capping faster, if not instantaneously, I could easily see empires "leaking" into enemy territory via smaller outposts and territories. From their, maybe they flank or even encircle bases, or proceed ahead to other, small areas.

If the population density of the demo is anything to go by (around 100 people for every 1-2 square km) I think that's going to create a very enjoyable and pretty fluid environment. No way to tell until beta, though, SO LET US IN HIGBY!

[Landtank]

I think, regardless of actual map size, we need to take a few things into consideration: things like army flow, population density, and ground usage.

For example, Malorn points out that there are some zones that are not realistic combat areas (the edges, for example.) the specifics of that argument are up to debate (I think that's totally valid for fast aircraft or stealth forces.) But compare that to an old planetside map, where most of your population was likely to be fighting between, or more likely in and around 3, maybe 4 bases at most on a map. There are large expanses of land that are nowhere near bases, nor do they have any strategic incentive. Therefore, the vast majority of players could be found in only a few areas, and the majority of the map went unused.

Compare this to the map of Indar from PS2. The majority of the map is comprised of contestable hexes that encourage combat. A more fair comparison of size across maps from the original and PS2 would be to compare all the hexes from current Indar and the immediate areas around bases in PS1 maps.

Which brings up my next thought on how people perceive density, and how that affects how the empires may accrue territory. First, let me tangent into a little story of my own.

A few weeks ago, I was involved in a rather large paintball game. How large? Around 1,500 people, actually, playing on one field that was around 1-2 square kilometers. Granted, we weren't all in tanks and dropships (did have a couple modified trucks) but we still managed to fit lots of people in, and move around. All 1500 at once, maybe not, but certainly a LOT.

If we were to divide the continent into (very) rough thirds, each empire would have roughly 6km of border with the other two empires, and distribution of forces along these lines will probably be anything but uniform. If a lightning tank is, say 5m long, then it would take 1200 tanks, end to end, to take up one of those borders. Similarly, if you took a max, and let's say he's 2m tall (6 foot 5, approximately) and lay them end to end, foot to toe, then you'd need 3000 of them to completely fill up one border. Both of these are absurd scenarios, but they go to show the difficulty of maintaining a frontline. It's a very large amount of space, and it is likely to be very permeable.

We also cannot underestimate the importance of many more territories of varying size and value. In Planetside, bases were the only real estate that mattered. You only capped towers to get to bases, and therefore territorial gain only came across a few, easily visible routes. Not to mention, the process was gated by cap timers. With smaller zones likely capping faster, if not instantaneously, I could easily see empires "leaking" into enemy territory via smaller outposts and territories. From their, maybe they flank or even encircle bases, or proceed ahead to other, small areas.

If the population density of the demo is anything to go by (around 100 people for every 1-2 square km) I think that's going to create a very enjoyable and pretty fluid environment. No way to tell until beta, though, SO LET US IN HIGBY!

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/didnt-read-darth-vader.gif

Except for the last part, which I agree with! Well said.

[Haro]

http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/didnt-read-darth-vader.gif

Except for the last part, which I agree with! Well said.

Yeah, lol, lost track of things.

Major points:

1. Much larger playable, contestable area. Compare the areas of and just around all the bases in a ps1 map with all the hexes in a ps2 map. Biiig difference. PS2 looks to use space much more efficiently.

2. Not limited by the lattice. Various small bases can be captures, not just a few big ones. behind lines captures are possible as well. Small bases will likely capture very quickly, which could prevent stagnation and stalemate.

3. A solid, defensive line along a border is likely to be impossible. Heavy vehicles like galaxies and Sunderers will likely be able to bypass some of the main combat areas to flank, encircle, or do other sneaky things.

4. Let us in Higby.

[meiam]

Well people were only fighting in the base because the pop density was lower than what it will be in actual game, when 200 people will be fighting in that area, people will start moving toward the road and smaller structure. Also the respawn point was only added for the E3 demo, in game it'll will be farther.

Also 90% of fight will happen along the border, so making huge continent won't really matter if 50-60% of the area are never fought over. Now I do hope that the other two continent aren't box shaped and we get some more variation, maybe huge mountain/sea/island, stuff to change the gameplay.

[LordReaver]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=568079#post568079

That's where the Oshur with the red box came from.


I went back for a more slightly more accurate (though still rough) measurement, and under PS1 units, Oshur has 24.4km² of area within the coastlines and Ishundar has 33.4km². Don't put too much weight into the units though. Time taken to fly across the cont, is probably the best way to compare the difference, as there is currently not enough information to make a conversion.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

fluid environment.
Except the whole purpose of the original lattice was to give the fight some 'form', since everyone just played musical bases without it.

PS1 had large areas between bases with not much going on, this gave people opportunities to actually get around without running into people. PS2, TR area for example, just look at the proximity between the bases and the fact that the terrain actually funnels forces even more. The oft quoted 100 people is 2/3rds of ONE Empires old poplock, PS2 each Empire now has the equivalent of 4 old poplocks now and they're going to be concentrated in territory closest to their foothold.

How is anyone supposed to successfully hit rear area targets when you have to:
1.) Fly right over the enemy 'frontline' to do so.
2.) Get any ground vehicles past their frontline and through 'difficult terrain'
3.) Match enemy reinforcements closer to their foothold
4.) Prevent every 'resecure squad' from rushing your target 20 seconds after the alert goes out

Please tell me how you think you're going to 'spec ops' past 4 poplocks worth of troops defending 1/3 the area of an old PS cont?

http://s16.postimage.org/zfbkm6slh/4zergs.jpg

Why wouldn't you just have an old poplocks worth of troops at each base with another poplock ready to just zerg the bejesus out of anything that somehow got by?
Why would you want to bother with deep strikes if the enemy only has 3 bases and you can hurt them more by denying their use... then would an Empire collapse if they lost 1 base? If Bases are not essential for an Empire to keep, why have so much real estate dedicated to them? If Hexes are more important than bases, why would you ever not just have as many 'teams' as there are hexes and fight that way, which then raises the question, is that then any better than just a mass team death match?

It is funny though, the TR do look pretty screwed since the VS and NC both have ways of getting the high ground advantage on the majority of the TR area, VS having it slightly harder since Rashnu Biolab is on the top of the hill, NC are fighting downhill all the way.

[TeaReks]

Well if you have 4x pop-lock too I assume you would bring 4x the troops you used to. Maybe 4 gals full of people instead of one? Or hit 4 targets at once. Or because bases are not the only targets maybe spec ops will be used to hit resource points. I mean in real life spec ops does not capture things as important as bases. That would be like delta force capturing a city.

Just food for thought.

[PsychoXR-20]

I know this is by no means the most accurate assessment, but I took the map of Indar and overlayed a layer of hexes roughly equal to the size of the current hexes used for territory.

It came out to a total of 313 hexes that had a portion (even if only 1 pixel) of Indar inside it.

I then cut out all hexes that are "used" on the continent and counted the remaning unused hexes.

The result was 112 unused hexes (unused in this example were hexes that I felt had more unused space than used space, so some of the hexes in this count were indeed partially playable).

This equates to roughly 35% of Indar that is either inaccessible or uncontrollable (and if it's uncontrollable, than it's unplayable since it serves no purpose).

Now, since they have said that every inch of the map is controllable, I will assume that these outside boarder hexes are "out of bounds" and thus unplayable, which means this 8km x 8km continent is in reality about 6.5km^2.

Edit: If all 3 continents are like this, than that results in more than an entire 8x8 km region, or, an ENTIRE fourth continents worth of playable space that's not. That's pretty huge.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

1. Well if you have 4x pop-lock too I assume you would bring 4x the troops you used to.

2. Or because bases are not the only targets maybe spec ops will be used to hit resource points.

1.)Except it's not a 2way fight, you bring more people to that particular fight, you lose troops to fight against the 3rd Empire, so you maybe gain one TR hex but you lose one to the VS.

It really does just appear to promote a 3way grindfest or complete mayhem with no form whatsoever.

2.)The whole problem with hitting those other Hexes is that they're no more than 15-20 SECONDS flight time from any base or foothold.

You not see a problem with Hexes being cappable within that sort of time frame?
Just send out one person per hex, ghost them, a bunch might go through, then what? Now that Empire is down a f*ck ton of resource income and as a result, they can't replace their vehicles and then they get overrun in short order.

They've made this amazingly hard for themselves to try and balance.

[Eyeklops]

I think one thing we're missing. It seems like a person is smaller in PS2, compared to PS1. Not just in relation to bases but the whole map.

Like someone said, PS1 dudes were like 3m tall. I'm not worried about continent size.

The only thing that I've really though about is that it'd be kind of odd to have nothing but 8x8 maps filled out to the edges. 6x10 or something that's irregular. Io mix it up.

Honestly, I like having all the hexes be important...but I'd also like to see places that are relatively less dense.


I wouldn't mind seeing an ocean type map with about 15~20 or so scattered oil rigs/platforms (for resources) and 5~6 large island complexes. More of an air and infantry map with dense urban areas, less tanks. Sparse spawn points on the island complexes could force respawns at ocean rigs or galaxys. Semi-secure landing areas for Galaxy's that can be guarded will be defense points to push out from. I imagine some massive A2A fights would ensue.

[T-Ray]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

[Bags]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

And 2x prettier.

[Synapse]

And 2x prettier.

You must be looking at the vanu one.

[Sabot]

I say it doesn't matter how you spin it, theorize or math-up... 2% is 2%, and there's no telling what pople will do on the maps in game... 'cause fact is, most of the map IS playable area... it's not "out of bounds" territory, there are no invisible walls. So if you want to zerg in the middle and not utlize the whole map, that's up to you... but the winner will use all of the map to their advatage. Rush to the middle for a cluster askdjfh, must be the dumbest tactic a faction acn go with imo....

[AlManiak]

it's not "out of bounds" territory

Is it not? I do remember there being some [WARNING! Get back to the battlefield soldier!] stuff implemented. So you always have to stay near contestable area's.

I remember one of the team members saying they'd prefer you have to sneak through populated areas instead of doing the old "evade in a big circle around all the combat" tactic. I'm not 100% sure on this tho.

[ThermalReaper]

You must be looking at the vanu one.

Every empire has it's own style of warp gates? :D

[Coreldan]

Been actually wondering about the map for a while.. why exactly is there that fairly large areas on the outskirts that at least have no hexes? Can you still enter them or does the out of bounds hit as soon as u cross the last hex?

Would be cool to at least be able to see the sea.

[SurgeonX]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

Good stuff.
That means they should be big enough to act as massive staging areas, and we'll still get spectacles like this... :D

ps galaxy raid nc - YouTube

[Red Beard]

I think, regardless of actual map size, we need to take a few things into consideration: things like army flow, population density, and ground usage.

For example, Malorn points out that there are some zones that are not realistic combat areas (the edges, for example.) the specifics of that argument are up to debate (I think that's totally valid for fast aircraft or stealth forces.) But compare that to an old planetside map, where most of your population was likely to be fighting between, or more likely in and around 3, maybe 4 bases at most on a map. There are large expanses of land that are nowhere near bases, nor do they have any strategic incentive. Therefore, the vast majority of players could be found in only a few areas, and the majority of the map went unused.

Compare this to the map of Indar from PS2. The majority of the map is comprised of contestable hexes that encourage combat. A more fair comparison of size across maps from the original and PS2 would be to compare all the hexes from current Indar and the immediate areas around bases in PS1 maps.

Which brings up my next thought on how people perceive density, and how that affects how the empires may accrue territory. First, let me tangent into a little story of my own.

A few weeks ago, I was involved in a rather large paintball game. How large? Around 1,500 people, actually, playing on one field that was around 1-2 square kilometers. Granted, we weren't all in tanks and dropships (did have a couple modified trucks) but we still managed to fit lots of people in, and move around. All 1500 at once, maybe not, but certainly a LOT.

If we were to divide the continent into (very) rough thirds, each empire would have roughly 6km of border with the other two empires, and distribution of forces along these lines will probably be anything but uniform. If a lightning tank is, say 5m long, then it would take 1200 tanks, end to end, to take up one of those borders. Similarly, if you took a max, and let's say he's 2m tall (6 foot 5, approximately) and lay them end to end, foot to toe, then you'd need 3000 of them to completely fill up one border. Both of these are absurd scenarios, but they go to show the difficulty of maintaining a frontline. It's a very large amount of space, and it is likely to be very permeable.

We also cannot underestimate the importance of many more territories of varying size and value. In Planetside, bases were the only real estate that mattered. You only capped towers to get to bases, and therefore territorial gain only came across a few, easily visible routes. Not to mention, the process was gated by cap timers. With smaller zones likely capping faster, if not instantaneously, I could easily see empires "leaking" into enemy territory via smaller outposts and territories. From their, maybe they flank or even encircle bases, or proceed ahead to other, small areas.

If the population density of the demo is anything to go by (around 100 people for every 1-2 square km) I think that's going to create a very enjoyable and pretty fluid environment. No way to tell until beta, though, SO LET US IN HIGBY!

Do you agree with Higby's 64 sq km? If so, your estimate for the continent would range between 3200-6400 players per continent if I'm understanding you correctly.

[Red Beard]

Good stuff.
That means they should be big enough to act as massive staging areas, and we'll still get spectacles like this... :D

ps galaxy raid nc - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deul2Bfb98g)

By the way; this group of galaxies would not be able to fly un-attacked to that first waypoint like they did in the video...When the flies spot them, I have no idea how a group of galaxies would get past a front line unless they were flying at a high flight ceiling with partial invisibility; otherwise they will just get swarmed until they're all dead...I really don't get how Gals will be able to go anywhere unnoticed, with visibility ranges what they are, and the amount of aircraft that will be in the air above the front line...?

[Dagron]

Is it not? I do remember there being some [WARNING! Get back to the battlefield soldier!] stuff implemented. So you always have to stay near contestable area's.

I remember one of the team members saying they'd prefer you have to sneak through populated areas instead of doing the old "evade in a big circle around all the combat" tactic. I'm not 100% sure on this tho.

I remember TB discussing this with someone, they said the out of bounds warning is only going to be around the continents.

What you're thinking of is when he asked "why so close to the coast?" and the answer was they didn't want people flying far out over the ocean to avoid patrols and whatnot.

It doesn't mean you have to stay near contestable areas, it just means you can't go out to international waters to bet on a monkey knife fight. :p

[SurgeonX]

By the way; this group of galaxies would not be able to fly un-attacked to that first waypoint like they did in the video...When the flies spot them, I have no idea how a group of galaxies would get past a front line unless they were flying at a high flight ceiling with partial invisibility; otherwise they will just get swarmed until they're all dead...I really don't get how Gals will be able to go anywhere unnoticed, with visibility ranges what they are, and the amount of aircraft that will be in the air above the front line...?

Yeah, good point.

We'll have to see how things play out in beta, but I do have a bit of a worry myself at how much epic co-ordination will be possible with the new continent/WG structure.

[AlManiak]

I remember TB discussing this with someone, they said the out of bounds warning is only going to be around the continents.

What you're thinking of is when he asked "why so close to the coast?" and the answer was they didn't want people flying far out over the ocean to avoid patrols and whatnot.

It doesn't mean you have to stay near contestable areas, it just means you can't go out to international waters to bet on a monkey knife fight. :p

That makes sense :). Good to know that at least we can have the monkey knife fights in a sleazy bar somewhere way behind our front lines :p

[Dagron]

Good to know that at least we can have the monkey knife fights in a sleazy bar somewhere way behind our front lines :p
qft

[Krishtov]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Yne7mXqoTu0/T0ZlTNRE8aI/AAAAAAAADA4/0nDGrvrccZQ/s1600/George-Takei-oh-my.jpg

That is good news... so if I scale the old map's gate appropriately...?

I know this isn't an accurate science guys, I just like doing something until beta.

[basti]

By the way; this group of galaxies would not be able to fly un-attacked to that first waypoint like they did in the video...When the flies spot them, I have no idea how a group of galaxies would get past a front line unless they were flying at a high flight ceiling with partial invisibility; otherwise they will just get swarmed until they're all dead...I really don't get how Gals will be able to go anywhere unnoticed, with visibility ranges what they are, and the amount of aircraft that will be in the air above the front line...?

Easy: Air Cover

[Xyntech]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

Wow. Then Indar is actually even bigger than I was guessing.

Here's a new comparison I made based on the 2x bigger warp gate info.

He did say it's "about" 2x bigger, so don't take this scale as definitive either, but considering that this is coming from the mouth of a dev who actually worked on both games, I think we can consider this scale comparison as being as close to accurate as we're going to get unless we see an official comparison released by the devs:

http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/8273/mapsize.png

This means that purely on size alone, Indar is more than double the size of Cyssor, with Indar coming in at 64 square kilometers, and Cyssor coming in at approximately 25 square kilometers.

Also, as always, don't forget that there is more contestable land on Indar. Cyssor has a lot of waterways, as well as that big useless mountain in the middle. Indar has a few corners that seem to be unused, but beyond that it's all being hand crafted to be fought over.

Additionally, Indar has more capturable terrain locations than Cyssor. Remember that while you could capture a tower in Planetside, it provided no territory control, as can be seen in the fact that you didn't need to capture all towers to get a continent lock. Cyssor had a total of 17 bases that could be captured. Indar has 70+ hex areas that can be captured. Towers are bigger in PS2, and they can spawn vehicles. Tower fights will probably be a lot more like base fights were in the first game.

So in raw scale, Indar is around 2x larger than Cyssor. In terms of playable game space/contestable territory capture points, Indar is around 4x larger than Cyssor.

Let's average it out and say that the practical scale increase is about 3x more effective playable area than Cyssor.

3x more playable space multiplied by 3 continents = 9 continents worth of space at launch.

Planetside 1 could hold 3600 to 4500 people on 9 continents (4000 to 5000 on all 10 continents), while Planetside 2 will be able to hold 6000 players on 3 continents (assuming they hit their 2000 people per continent goal).

The biggest difference is that instead of 10 separate continents, we have multiple continents slammed up against each other. Instead of getting kicked off a continent, we will get kicked off of a portion of a continent. Kicking one empire off of a continent will still be possible, but it will be the equivalent of kicking them off of one of their home continents. Taking control of an entire continent will be the equivalent of keeping both enemy empires off of a single one of each of their home continents.

So it will be a different dynamic than we are used to from the first Planetside, but not smaller.

[Landtank]

By the way; this group of galaxies would not be able to fly un-attacked to that first waypoint like they did in the video...When the flies spot them, I have no idea how a group of galaxies would get past a front line unless they were flying at a high flight ceiling with partial invisibility; otherwise they will just get swarmed until they're all dead...I really don't get how Gals will be able to go anywhere unnoticed, with visibility ranges what they are, and the amount of aircraft that will be in the air above the front line...?

Us Gal pilots will have to make use of fighter escorts, just like in WW2.

[Xyntech]

Did you see the video of the SOE guys stating the largest cont in PS was 8k x 8k? Cyssor I believe would be it.

The scale in the first game was wrong. This is a known problem from the first game.

TRay worked on both games. He says that warpgates are about twice as large as they used to be. My comparison has the warpgates being just about exactly twice as large on the Indar map versus the Cyssor map.

If you want to disagree with TRay, be my guest, but I'm going to believe him over any random person who doesn't have access to an accurate scale comparison, considering how broken the first games scale was.

Obviously there is some room for error with the whole "approximately 2x large" statement, but that could go either way. Either Cyssor is a little bigger than my comparison shows, or perhaps even a little smaller. Either way, it's close, and either way, Indar is still at least 2x larger.

[Landtank]

Well his old boss said Cyssor is 8k X 8k so something isnt adding up. I tell you what. I can get in game and setup a stopwatch while I cruise across Cyssor at a set KPH (or are you saying KPH isnt really KPH).

Hes saying set KPH isn't really KPH :P The people in planetside 1 were 3 meters tall, or master chief sized.

[Krishtov]

Well his old boss said Cyssor is 8k X 8k so something isnt adding up. I tell you what. I can get in game and setup a stopwatch while I cruise across Cyssor at a set KPH (or are you saying KPH isnt really KPH).


I can tell you right now, the KM distance and speed in PS2 is not accurate.

100KMPH is 62 MPH for those who don't have a reference. I can tell you right now that is not 62 miles per hour... PS1 scale is wrong compared to 'real life.'

Ontop of that, the aircraft in PS2 move much faster, at a different scale. The 'best' way to compare would be using structures.

In this case, we know the warpgate is about 2x the old wargate scale. So if we scale a map based on that we get an approximate value that is way more accurate than measuring numbers in a inaccurate game.

[kaffis]

Do you agree with Higby's 64 sq km? If so, your estimate for the continent would range between 3200-6400 players per continent if I'm understanding you correctly.
Except the density of 100 people per 1-2 sq. km only holds near the front lines.

Again, falling back to Josh Hackney's demo of the iPad app for Gamespot, looking at the borders there, if we assume that each facility on either side of the border between empires has combat at it... and using my guesstimated breakdowns for facility sizes in that map (guesstimated, in case you missed where I was using it before and explaining, because the divisions between regions don't appear very well for the TR and some of the VS territory), 112 hex's worth of facilities are bordering the front lines.

So if 7 hexes were represented by Higby's 2% remark (which jives with my hex-count and knowing that Zervan Amp Station governs a 7 hex territory -- note that because we're judging it by facilities under conflict, it doesn't matter if the actual play size was limited to that 7 hexes or if it spilled over into neighboring regions; in such case, it would just spill deeper away from the front lines proportionately in our front-lines metric), ~70-80 players on 7 hexes (since there were 12 floor demo stations, a few stations that Higby and cohorts were using back where they were giving press floor interviews, and reportedly ~60 QA testers back at the Sony offices) extrapolates out to 1120-1280 players over my estimation of the front lines represented by the screenshot of Hackney's demo.

So my guess is that the battle they were showing was actually somewhat light, and that it only represents the player density of ~60% of the target continent population being actively engaged on the frontlines! So that could represent either a non-peak time, or a VERY generous allowance for people doing back-hacking conflicts or messing around unproductively.

[Raymac]

For me, the important point is that the "actual used" playable space in PS2 will be much larger than in PS1 because in the original, we just jumped from 1 SOI to another with almost zero fighting happening anywhere else on the map. If you add up the space of the SOI's and compare it to the hexes, even if you want to exclude the hexes near the warpgates, you are left with FAR more terrain.

That's why I find this debate to just be splitting hairs and really losing the sight of the forrest through the trees.

[Krishtov]

That's why I find this debate to just be splitting hairs and really losing the sight of the forrest through the trees.


That has me dismayed too..I started this thread as an "omg yay its big!" and found out it is even BIGGER than I thought... and yet in the end it still became hair splitting.

Then again this is the internet.

[Xyntech]

At this point, if anyone can't understand that Indar is bigger both in scale and especially in playable space, they are deluding themselves and there is no other way to explain it to them other than playing on the continent for themselves.

I'm confident enough in TRay's indication of the relative scale that, extrapolating from his statement about warpgates being about 2x larger in PS2, I now pretty much take it as official word that Indar is twice as large as Cyssor. This scale is not in conflict with what we have seen of the gigantic size of bases in PS2, compared to how relatively small bases were in PS1. Seems clear enough to me.

I'll be taking that as fact at least until beta starts.

But even if you can't be convinced that Indar is twice as large as Cyssor, there is no denying that Indar has over 4x as many capturable terrain locations as Cyssor has.

The real key here is how hard it will be to capture hex areas behind enemy lines. Remember that you could do this in the first Planetside as well. Just drain the base and then hack it.

If you had all 500 (later reduced to 400) players evenly spread out over every base on Cyssor, that would be 29 (later 24) players per base. Right about in the same ballpark as 2000 players spread across 70+ capture points.

But despite the fact that you could drain a base and hack behind the lattice front line, we didn't see this all the time in Planetside (especially when populations were decent). The reason was that it was a lot harder to take and hold that base during the longer and more difficult draining process. The enemy had more time to react. Even when populations were lower, there was never an even spread among all bases. Groups would go from one base to another to drain them. There was never an even spread of players among every base on a continent in the first game, and there will never be an even spread on every hex in Planetside 2.

So as long as it is significantly harder to back hack than it is to take and lose territory on the front line, the system will be pretty balanced, surprisingly close to the way the first game was.

The biggest difference is that it's like 3 or 4 continents all shoved into one. That, along with the towers being like PS1 bases and the PS2 bases being like mega bases, are where the change lies. We just don't yet know what it will be like to be fighting over the equivalent of 3 PS1 continents smashed into a single playing space, because we don't have any game experience to compare it to.

[Xyntech]

In PS1 the BWG was same size as base SOI. If you look at this picture of Indar the footholds are the same size as a base. I recall T-Ray saying a while ago that a base in PS2 was the size of an SOI in PS1. So T-Ray saying foothold is 2X BWG and base stays to same scale then yes Indar is roughly the same size as Cyssor. And that's fine with me.

http://i.imgur.com/tmJOW.jpg

If a PS2 base is as large as the entire SOI from the first game, then my comparison on the previous page is pretty much accurate. So Indar is roughly 2x the size of Cyssor, not the same size.

Indar is approximately 64 square kilometers on my image, with Cyssor being approximately a little over 25 square kilometers. But even if my scale is slightly off, Cyssor would have to be 32 square kilometers to be even half as large as Indar.

But like Raymac said, it's really splitting hairs anyways. Planetside certainly didn't use as much contestable land as Planetside 2 does.

[Marinealver]

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

Is that because the warp gate is going to be what replaces the sanc?

If not I really don't see any reason to make a warp gate any bigger than it already is (a full SOI/HEX)

They took forever to run around the circumfrence and also those warpgate in and out fights were too big. Why would we need 2 times the "NO FIRE" zone on a combat contenant?

[Xyntech]

Is that because the warp gate is going to be what replaces the sanc?

If not I really don't see any reason to make a warp gate any bigger than it already is (a full SOI/HEX)

They took forever to run around the circumfrence and also those warpgate in and out fights were too big. Why would we need 2 times the "NO FIRE" zone on a combat contenant?

Yes. Warpgates act as the empire footholds on a continent, which replaces the sanctuary.

In practice, it's like a home continent lattice link, except that you don't have an extra loading screen to sit through, and all three empires have a link on the same continent.

Fortunately, the continent is larger than a PS1 continent. But we'll have to see how it actually plays out in beta.

[Xyntech]

If the SOI and BWG are equal in PS1, in PS2 base = 2 X SOI, in PS2 BWG = 2X PS1 BWG, in PS2 base (SOI) = BWG. Doesn't that not indicate to you linear scaling. Higby said Indar is 64 square km, it is a square map so 8km X 8km. Your only weak argument is that in PS1 a kilometer is some arbitrary value, even though Higby's equivalent at the time said is Cyssor is 8km X 8km. T-Ray is right Foot hold is 2X BWG but so is base SOI from PS1 to PS2. We have Malorn and Bobby putting in time analyzing time vs. movement over PS2 map as well. Not exactly splitting hairs you saying 2X just because T-Ray said Foothold is 2X BWG. Just bad math.

I give up.

Dude, the size of a base SOI in planetside 1 is the size of the ACTUAL BASE in Planetside 2.

That doesn't mean that the size of a PS1 base is the same as a PS2 base.

It also doesn't mean that a PS1 SOI is the same size as the hex area that a base sits in.

It means that the actual SOI of a PS1 base, that huge circle surrounding that actual base, is only as large as the actual base itself in PS2.

Compare it yourself. Make a more accurate representation based on the reliable information we know. Scale it based on the warpgates, or based on the SOI of a base vs the area of a PS2 base footpring

Better yet, let me make another comparison where I compare the SOI to the PS2 AMP station footprint. I'll make sure to get the walls to be within the SOI. That should give us an upper limit of how large Cyssor may possibly be compared to Indar.

[Xyntech]

Per Tray A base in PS2 = SOI in PS1. There is no SOI in PS2. If there was an SOI in PS2 2X the foothold then bingo you got it. Wrong.

Could you point me to where TRay said this? I'd like to see his exact wording. I skimmed through his PSU posts and twitter, but I couldn't find it. If it's in one of the E3 streams or another video, I'd like a link and timestamp. I think the wording is important here.

Because my understanding of that statement is that the size of a PS1 SOI = the size of a PS2 base. SOI's were a lot bigger than bases in PS1. There are no SOI's in PS2. So the only logical conclusion I can come to is that it's merely a scale comparison, not an indication that PS2 is the same size as PS1. If it's a scale comparison, then Indar is around 2x larger than Cyssor.

The word for word quote I do have handy is from this very thread:

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

Which both of my comparisons fully take into account.

This second comparison also takes into account the PS2 base = PS1 SOI factor:

http://img269.imageshack.us/img269/7605/mapsizeb.png

Based on this more generous comparison, Cyssor is 36 square kilometers. That's only 4 square kilometers larger than being half the size of Indar. Pretty much half the size.

Either you are wrong, or TRay is wrong. I'm going with TRay on this one.

[PsychoXR-20]

Cyssor is indeed 8km x 8km

Not only was it stated many times in early development, but is also easily provable in game, get in a vehicle, find your current speed, time yourself from point A to point B, extrapolate. The result is damn close to 8km squared.

[Malorn]

Xyn, your incorrect mockup fails to render the indar warpgates to scale. You made them smaller than they actually are to delude yourself.

Simy make the cyssor bwgs twice the diameter and the scale looks about right.

Wild's fly test shows cyssor is 8x8. We know indar is 8x8, and we know the gates on indar are twice the size, which explains why indar appears smaller than cyssor when it is in fact the same size.

It isnt all that difficult to grasp.

[Landtank]

Xyn, your incorrect mockup fails to render the indar warpgates to scale. You made them smaller than they actually are to delude yourself.

Simy make the cyssor bwgs twice the diameter and the scale looks about right.

Wild's fly test shows cyssor is 8x8. We know indar is 8x8, and we know the gates on indar are twice the size, which explains why indar appears smaller than cyssor when it is in fact the same size.

It isnt all that difficult to grasp.

The KPH in game is not correct, at all, so you have to take that into account. Cyssor could be 8x8km in planetside 1 scale, but soldiers in planetside 1 were 10 feet tall sooooo

[Malorn]

You are over thinking it. The scale is 8km x 8km. Does 1km in PS1 map to 1 km in PS2? There is no way of knowing that. We have multiple sources showing a consistent cyssor measure of 8km, from a flyover test to early statements.

And extrapolating 2x sized warpgates to 2x sized continents is flawed logic. The warpgates are not directly tied to the size of the continent. And the warpgates on indar are quite large.

If we cared enough we could use the warpgate comparison Tray provided to actually do a direct comparison. When i get home tonight, assuming i still care enough I will do that.

[Xyntech]

Xyn, your incorrect mockup fails to render the indar warpgates to scale. You made them smaller than they actually are to delude yourself.

Simy make the cyssor bwgs twice the diameter and the scale looks about right.

:huh:

Dear god. What the fuck are you going on about?

Firstly, in my second (very generous) comparison, the old and new warpgates are closer to being the same size. If I doubled the diameter of the Cyssor warpgate (even on my old comparison), it would make the PS1 warpgates be at least twice as large as the PS2 warpgates.

That would clearly be exactly the opposite of what was said in this post from the very esteemed Mr. Isaac:

The new warp gates are about 2x bigger than the old ones

Secondly, why the fuck would I double the diameter at all? You double the area if you want to make something twice as large. That's what I did in my first comparison. I doubled the area so that the PS2 warpgate was twice as large as the PS1 warpgate.

If you double the diameter, you get something 4x as large, not 2x.

You are over thinking it. The scale is 8km x 8km. Does 1km in PS1 map to 1 km in PS2? There is no way of knowing that. We have multiple sources showing a consistent cyssor measure of 8km, from a flyover test to early statements.

You are over thinking it. We know PS1 considered humans to be around 3 meters tall, therefore we can throw the entire measurement system out since we don't know which ones are accurate or not. At that point, it doesn't matter if PS2 is accurate or not either, since we are forced to compare them based on relative feature size. That is unless they both are using the same flawed measurement system, which doesn't seem to be the case.

And extrapolating 2x sized warpgates to 2x sized continents is flawed logic. The warpgates are not directly tied to the size of the continent. And the warpgates on indar are quite large.

Warpgates are static features. As long as they remain the same size across all Indar screenshots (they remain pretty close to the same size, I checked a few), then we can use them as a measurement.

We know that all of Planetsides warpgates were the same size. We can use that as a measurement.

So if TRay states that the PS2 warpgates are about twice as large as a PS1 warpgate, then we can compare. I believe my two comparisons give a pretty fair range of how big or small it probably is within that tolerance of his approximation.

If we cared enough we could use the warpgate comparison Tray provided to actually do a direct comparison. When i get home tonight, assuming i still care enough I will do that.

Go for it. But remember those two important points.

1) PS2 warpgates are aproximately twice as large as PS1 warpgates. If you want to refute TRay on this without some very compelling evidence, then you are beyond reason.

2) Remember to compare the area, not the diameter. If you make PS1 warpgates half the diameter of PS2 warpgates, you will end up with an inaccurate result that would actually make Cyssor look even smaller than in my first comparison.

[Saifoda]

Figured this was the best thread to put this in.


I took some rapid screenshots of the map in-game (at E3 presentation, thanks TB) and it gives a pretty good idea of the scale.


The first image (the one without the empire color coded hexes) is the most zoomed in of the 5 images. I'm sure for most of you it won't be difficult to make a visuo-spacial(sp?) connection giving you a general idea of the scale. The images following it are the zoom out, and it should give you a clearer image of how big the maps actually. We all know it's 64km^2, but the real question is what does that LOOK like. Hope this helps!

[SgtMAD]

what ppl need to do is watch the flyover that went on during the TB/Higby interview and watch the horizons as the mossie flies around on the cont.

the bases are a lot closer together and i wonder if you can see all three gates from the center of the map hovering up high with max draw,

I was trying to compare how fast he flew from one base to another with the map to get a feel for how big the map is

another thing i noticed was the altitude of the mossie as he flew over the ground and in the NC sector(sw) he was at 600+ in a few spots, that means you have about 350m to work with over the NC bases while you have an 500m altitude to work with over the north region of the map,it will make AA ground units much more effective for the SW sector.

its crap like this that make rotating footholds desirable,we are going to find that some regions have features that make them much easier to defend

we are going to have the answers to these and a bunch of other questions in "a few weeks"

[Xyntech]

Bases seem relatively closer due to how large they are (and how fast aircraft now fly), but in reality they aren't much closer than in PS1. They are actually further apart on average. See my scale comparison for reference (even if it's not 100% accurate it is damn well close enough for this purpose).

Personally, I hate the idea of rotating footholds, but I love the idea of footholds being capturable. All of the beauty of persistence, none of the downsides of permanent footholds. Not that there wouldn't be some kinks to work out, but I think that breaking a continent up into regions would help make it very possible very easily.

We do need to find out how large a role altitude will play in defensibility of course. Personally, I'd like to see the flight ceiling raised high enough that several hundred meters of difference wouldn't make that big of an impact on defence. But that's not the only defensive concern with differing geography an layouts of course.

As you say Sgt, it will be good to see it hands on in "a few weeks."

[GuyFawkes]

While Ive no doubt 8x8km of ps1 and 8x8km in ps2 will be proportionate , what really matters to me is the amount of content within that 64km2.

The amount of work gone into making almost every inch of map have advantages/disadvantages in ps2 compared to the original is breathtaking .

The new version has much more x,y,z axis type of strategy. Ive looked through all 3 days of the e3 TB footage and Ive seen very few if any points inside or out that haven't some vulnerability.

So, physically , the new maps could be 2-10 times as large as the old ones simply down to total surface area , not just square footage of the map.

The size physically is one thing, the new game has it in droves. Whether or not tactically ( beyond just the fighting area and variety) the new game has more has yet to be seen . We will have to see in a years time whether the game has enough to sustain the more tactical overview players or we just left with a very large cod map.

[Malorn]

The "closeness" of bases is not something you can accurately compare, because closeness is relative to the means of transportation. We know aircraft are much faster in PS2, and Galaxies also appear faster. The bio lab east of the amp station in the PS2 demo area was roughly about 10 seconds of ES aircraft flight away. A galaxy is going to be, what, 15, maybe 20 seconds? The flash looked pretty fast and I don't think these bases are all that far apart except perhaps by vertical geography.

By my entirely non-scientific gut estimate, the time it took to even drive a lightning across the demo area meant that you could likely go from one facility to another in less than a minute of ground travel, assuming relatively straight roads.

Actual distance or not, the higher speed of vehicles certainly doesn't make things feel any farther apart. World seems small to me. Perhaps that's due to larger warpgates and more rapid transit. And perception is reality. It took me a long time to fly across Cyssor, even in a mosquito it took considerable time. At 240kph, a mosquito will take exactly two minutes to cross Indar, which doesn't make it feel any bigger.

[Xyntech]

Perceived scale is important, but it's easier to manipulate and tweak as well. If the devs (or a huge outcry from the community) decided that vehicles were getting around to fast, it may get reduced and the perceived scale would go up.

There is no quick and easy way to tweak actual scale though, which is why I'm glad that the actual scale of the continents is as large as it is.

But I'm not too worried about perceived scale or vehicle speed. I'm most interested in how much territory can be captured. As long as back hacking isn't the end all be all tactic, as long as battle lines are an important fixture of gameplay, I believe that we will see every hex zone on the map get a significant amount of fighting at one time or another, more frequently than not if they add some systems that encourage this (such as regions).

Does the real world seem smaller now that we can fly all over it in a matter of hours? Yes. Has it gotten any smaller, or is there any less amount of contestable land on the earth because of that? No. All that's changed is how quickly we can move around and respond to situations around the globe. I believe that the same will hold true for Auraxis. We'll be able to respond quicker (to match the devs overall intended quicker game pacing), and the continent may even seem smaller, but none of that matters too much as long as there is still a huge amount of important, contestable land.

[Hamma]

One thing that will happen in PlanetSide 2 is combat will be more spread out. Since there are outposts all over the map in addition to bases you are going to see people fighting over little pieces of the map all over the place. It won't be like PlanetSide 1 where a mass of folks move from base to base to tower then to the next.

[Novacane]

Something else that I didn't see anyone mention, which is possible I missed since I skimmed through all 9 pages in the thread in less than 5 minutes, is that the view distance seems to be vastly improved in PS2.
If you can see farther, it appears that things are closer. From the various fly around videos that have been released in the last few weeks, it appears you will be able to see the next base from the previous one if you have line-of-sight on it. The base structures in PS2 also appear to be more spread out compared to PS1 bases again making the relative scale seem smaller even if the actual distance between the centers of each base is the same or even more.

[Pillar of Armor]

For some reason I read through this entire thread and I have a few comments based on what I saw. First, I see a lot of nostalgia for the hot drop spec ops... When people are talking about sneaking behind enemy lines and capturing bases, it sounds cool, but it was often miserably boring... The continents were big but much of the playable space was empty with no activity to be seen. Half the time, hot drops on bases behind the lines involved 30+ people killing 3 people and some afk guys in a base to hack it and wait 10 minutes before a zerg came in and and overwhelmed us, or wait 15 minutes bored to tears... and it usually took 30 mins to an hour just to get gals filled up and plot routes. In an average night you would be staring at trees and consoles for about 4 hours and actually fighting for about 30 minutes. It's easy to remember the 30 minutes of awesome combat... but don't forget all of the drudgery in between.

The continent layout and sheer density of capture points will require different tactics for spec ops teams that will result in more combat time and less downtime. Instead of just flying 4 gals, you are going to need mixed units to punch through enemy lines (because facilities are so close together). Your team might look like 3 gals 6 air interceptors and some libs to take care of ground AA, which to me sounds awesome. More action = more risk = more satisfaction and less time with your head against your desk waiting for your CO to say the magic word (drop).

When it comes down to it, the size of the map doesn't matter. The amount of contestable area matters because that's where the fight is. Most of the space in PS1 continents went unused and it took way to long just to get to a fight. Now it looks like the combat space is huge (that amp station at E3 was massive) and the fight is wherever you want it to be, but it's going to require real strategy (mixed units, heavy use of medics and engineers, careful use of geography and weather) to get there.

Well that's just my 2 cents... In short: YEEEEEAAA BETA

[Xyntech]

Something else that I didn't see anyone mention, which is possible I missed since I skimmed through all 9 pages in the thread in less than 5 minutes, is that the view distance seems to be vastly improved in PS2.
If you can see farther, it appears that things are closer. From the various fly around videos that have been released in the last few weeks, it appears you will be able to see the next base from the previous one if you have line-of-sight on it. The base structures in PS2 also appear to be more spread out compared to PS1 bases again making the relative scale seem smaller even if the actual distance between the centers of each base is the same or even more.

Can you imagine if we could have seen Mt Cyssor from the entire continent? I can't wait for Cyssor 2.0. It's going to look amazing. Maybe they can tweak it a little so that it's not such a constant 3 way. The rare 2 way fights on Cyssor were fun as well.

I do hope we eventually get to see some 100% accurate side by side comparisons of things like PS1 vs PS2 bases, towers, warpgates, continents, MBT's, etc. But really, it's more of a curiosity thing at this point. Contestable area is king, and perception of scale is a distant second. Actual scale is still important in some ways, but in most ways it's just a fun bit of trivia

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

280 Hexes on, they were fighting in 7 Hexes at E3, so 2.5% of Indar.

[kaffis]

280 Hexes on, they were fighting in 7 Hexes at E3, so 2.5% of Indar.
There are more hexes than that by my count. I think I got 313 not counting the foothold hexes.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

I used https://docs.google.com/file/d/0BySgzSLghsLMc2hlUWc1Z1ZxemM/edit?pli=1 for my count, and if there is more then 280, it is even closer to 2%.