Footholds Archetypes: "Food for Thought"

[NewSith]

ATTENTION: The following pictures are the archetypes of the possible foothold layouts. The lattice and the Warpgate Owners may vary.

Instead of sharing a full report on what I think about the said lattice layouts, guys, I'll just give them louder names. Feel free to discuss/commend/rebuke/vote for any of the following layouts:



-----------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Foothold Setup Unmodified aka "All Hail the Stalemate":
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/FootholdsMk1.jpg


2. Single Lattice Homeconts aka "Lock the Attack Angles":
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/FootholdsMk2.jpg


3. Single Lattice Shared Homeconts aka "Prescribed 2-way Path":
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/FootholdsMk3.jpg


4. Multiple Lattice Homeconts aka "PlanetSide Original Mini" aka "How can we fit here?":
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/FootholdsMk4.jpg


5. Single Lattice Double Homeconts aka "Always On the Run":
http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/FootholdsMk5.jpg


More Notes:

Esamir and Amerish BWGs are of random placement.
These examples explain quite clearly why the devs went with the #1 archetype. Compared to all others (with absence of sanctuaries taken into consideration) #1 option gives the highest amount of people per server.
(666+666+666) + (666+666+666) + (666+666+666)
Please have a crystal clear mind about the neutral warpgates handling method. We can have several choices for the way they operate: Non-contestable, always open; Non-contestable, accessibility is based on adjacency; Contestable, effectless hex; Contestable, adjacency-effecting hex.

[Dart]

I don't think the foothold locations look quite right on the two 'blacked-out' Continents but I suspect your first attempt is the closest to the mark.

[Ghryphen]

I suspect your first attempt is the closest to the mark.

Of course it is, that is the point, it appears the rest are alternate suggestions rather than using #1 to help alleviate the possible stalemate of having all three empires having a foothold on every continent.

[NewSith]

Of course it is, that is the point, the rest are alternate suggestions rather than using #1 :p

I think he means the warpgate positioning.

[Hmr85]

Personally, I am a fan of #4

[NewSith]

Personally, I am a fan of #4

And What if I rename it?

[Meriv]

If you follow the concept of Indaar where TR terrain is canyons with just one way trought then the foothold of TR will be probably in the 2 islands(since the only way trought will be the bridges), more than that i cant try to guess.

[Hmr85]

And What if I rename it?

I would still like it. It gives each faction their own continent/home territory. It also allows for multiple fronts on a continent to be contested at any given time. Compared to the way they have it now where you are always fighting in one preassigned area.

[Dart]

Of course it is, that is the point, it appears the rest are alternate suggestions rather than using #1 to help alleviate the possible stalemate of having all three empires having a foothold on every continent.

Sorry I guess I wasn't very clear. When all is said and done, I suspect #1 is what we will end up with because solutions 2, 4-5 would simply result in a lot of WG camping and each Empire holding/maintaining their 'own' Continent and 3 would effectively limit each Empire to (mostly) fighting on only two of the Continents. It is also not scalable if the Devs wish to add more Continents, one at a time, in the future. Does that make more sense?

[NewSith]

Added a note:

These examples explain quite clearly why the devs went with the #1 archetype. Compared to all others (with absence of sanctuaries taken into consideration) #1 option gives the highest amount of people per server.
(666+666+666) + (666+666+666) + (666+666+666)

[Dart]

Added a note:

These examples explain quite clearly why the devs went with the #1 archetype. Compared to all others (with absence of sanctuaries taken into consideration) #1 option gives the highest amount of people per server.
(666+666+666) + (666+666+666) + (666+666+666)

It is also more easily scalable than certain others.

[kaffis]

Wow, okay. Now that I read the comments at the bottom of the pictures, I realize you weren't seriously proposing 2-4 as legitimate options. Whew!

Yes, I think you've done a good job of setting people up to illustrate why footholds work best for what we've got and the target to get as big a fight as many places as possible.

Let me just point out that I would NEVER be in favor of any warpgate links that allowed one warpgate to link to multiple destination warpgates. That just removes any strategic significance to them at all. "Own this one on your 'home continent' so you can attack from ANYWHERE!!!!" Blech.

Similarly, I would hate any system that had any fewer than two factions' permanent footholds on any continent with a permanent foothold. Otherwise, you're just inviting a continent lock, which means that continent's capacity goes unused by the server, resulting in a WAY smaller practical server cap. And that goes against the point of MASSIVE.

Finally, 1-linkable warpgate per continent is boring, if you abide by my 1:1 warpgate links rule above. Thus, the only way to make warpgate links work interestingly at all without crippling server capacity would be to offer two warpgates and two faction footholds per continent, perhaps mixing up the warpgate links later on as you add continents to allow for adding foothold-less continents in the future. That *could* work, but I don't see it as any more compelling than having 3-foothold continents, and perhaps adding neutral, captureable, warpgates on top of that to link between continents and have a method to break up the T-stalemates from time to time.

[dsi]

I would still like it. It gives each faction their own continent/home territory. It also allows for multiple fronts on a continent to be contested at any given time. Compared to the way they have it now where you are always fighting in one preassigned area.

This. Planetside Mini is an apt term, but if it's as close as we're going to get to a good system (based on gameplay not F2P) then I'll take it.

[Resolve]

anything but 1 will not work until they add more continents.

[Zolan]

#4 is the way to go once they add more continents.

I honestly don't care what is in at launch, but if they make every new continent a foothold stalemate, this game will simpy become a glorified assortment of BF3 maps on a large scale. Hopefully they recognize this after launch. :doh:

[Khrakhan]

What difference does it make where footholds are located on other continents? How do the different continents affect the others?

Forgive my ignorance, i just never played ps1 and all those lines on the maps are kinda confusing me lol

[Malorn]

The reason they went with #1 is as NewSith says, it maximizes players on all continents. It also gives players the most combat options at any given moment instead of being forced to fight on 1-2 continents.

Take #4 for example. If they used #4 then the default configuration would be each empire has a locked continent and are struggling to attack other continents. The pressure to double-team will be high, and typically battle will only be occurring on 1-2 continents. With option 1, you can have battle raging on all 3.

Options #2 and #5 will have the same pattern as #4, only with even fewer tactical options.

#3 is the most interesting of the suggestions because it is highly similar to one of the early PS1 beta configurations where Esamir, Cyssor, and Ishundar each had 2 sanctuary links. #3 is deceptive though, because the two locked footholds on each continent will basically make each continent a 2-way fight with the occasional 3-way depending on how the lattice links up. As a result I think it'll be very boring with not a lot of diversity. I think that's ultimately why they abandoned that design in PS1 beta.

So 2, 4, and 5 are effectively the same with varying degrees of tactical options. The fewer options the more boring it will be. Number 3 offers a different playstyle where there's 3 2-way battles, but each one is going to be largely the same fight every day against the same opponent and the same bases. Also there will be 1 of the three continents that each empire will not see very often becase they are deeply engaged in their 2-ways.

Option 1 (the one the devs chose) ends up being the option with the most player options. All three empires can play on all three continents at any time, but it is prone to have 3-ways. What might end up happening though is that across the 3 continents populations differ, so mostly-two-ways might happen more than we expect.

I would propose option 1a - same configuration, except who owns the footholds on each continent rotates every month or so. With 3 continents not every continent needs to rotate. So you could rotate 2 of the 3 each time. Adds a lot more diversity in continent and options, maximizing player enjoyment of the content where all the other options do not.


Were I to rank them, I would prefer 1a > 1 > 3 > 4 > 2 > 5

That ranking is most interesting from a player options/tactical perspective to least interesting. #5 is incredibly dull and uninteresting.

[Madlaps]

I think #1 is the only option for the amount of continents currently up for launch. If we had more continents, something in line with what PS1 had - with faction home continents and benefits (+xp, +resources, -respawn, tech, etc) for capturing an entire continent.

This gives commanders (those making missions) or organised outfits a reason to aim for a continent or a reason to defend a continent. Given equal numbers, generally if you go defend a continent for resources - you will lose resources either way because you're abandoning what you're currently fighting over or splitting forces.

If you get benefit A for Amerish and benefit B for Searhus - there is a strategy in "A is more beneficial to us, so lets attack/defend here and give up B" or "if we attack NC for benefit B, they'll be inclined to defend it and give us a better chance at taking benefit A on Amerish"

[OutlawDr]

#1
I agree, there are just not enough continents to promote any sort of lockout or have home cont.

[Malorn]

I agree with the two gentlemen above me - #1 is the best for the number of continents we have at launch. It'll maximize freshness of the game and provide good gameplay while more continents are created.

It'll be a while before those first three get really stale and while I love the metagame as much or more than the next guy I don't think it needs to be fully in place at launch and there's plenty of time to see how #1 plays out and get new ideas as new continents come along.

[Dagron]

I haven't played PS1 so i'd like to know: how would more continents affect the warpgates configuration?
I mean, can someone throw together something like the OP did, but with more continents on the mix, please?

I'm sure a lot of newcomers, like me, would like to hear about the experiences people had with the several-continents domination game in PS1 (and theories on how to improve it).
It might help us understand what the future holds so we can give more informed opinions/ideas on the subject.

I for one keep chiming in on foothold alternatives threads and i'd like to know more so my suggestions might actually be at least viable.

Thank you.

[Malorn]

I haven't played PS1 so i'd like to know: how would more continents affect the warpgates configuration?
I mean, can someone throw together something like the OP did, but with more continents on the mix, please?

I'm sure a lot of newcomers, like me, would like to hear about the experiences people had with the several-continents domination game in PS1 (and theories on how to improve it).
It might help us understand what the future holds so we can give more informed opinions/ideas on the subject.

I for one keep chiming in on foothold alternatives threads and i'd like to know more so my suggestions might actually be at least viable.

Thank you.

If you want more insight on PS1 metagame & global strategy and how continental layout and linking affects battles, check out the manifesto link in my sig. See Chapter 2, Metagame & Global Strategy :). I give a historical overview, an explanation of the patterns and strategy, as well as a deep-dive into on particularly effective strategy for holding land.

[Dagron]

Cool, will do. Thanks!

[Malorn]

This is linked in my manifesto but may be easy to overlook.

Here's a detailed breakdown of why we chose to defend a certain set of continents, purely because of how they linked and what type of bases they linked to. It also explains double team situations and was a great moment in NC history when we were all united under the same idea of global domination. I think the first world lock was not long after that time.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/posts/preList.m?topic_id=1300000528&post_id=1300000528

Whole thread is a good read if you have the time to work through it. Quite the step back in time to 2004 when PS was really in its prime.

[Dagron]

This is linked in my manifesto but may be easy to overlook.

Just finished reading the OP, still working on the manifesto... a little much to absorb at once, but it'll sink in. :)

So far it gave me some insight on home continents and continent connections. More than 3 continents would make a significantly more interesting meta-game, i can't wait for them to start being released.

I'm starting to get why people are suggesting that all 3 factions shouldn't have footholds on every continent... and how much fun it could be to push empires back, kick them out of one continent after another, making their territory shrink until they're cornered into their homes. :lol:

[RedKnights]

I think th biggest presumption this thread is making is that there NEED to be links between the foothold gates at all. From what I've seen so far the continents do not appear to effect one another.

[erunion]

Nice graphics.

I'm curious about a fifth option: All 3 factions have a foothold on the same one continent(just like now), with all additional continents(to be added) connected by warp gates(possibly make each warp gate connect to several others).

[Malorn]

Nice graphics.

I'm curious about a fifth option: All 3 factions have a foothold on the same one continent(just like now), with all additional continents(to be added) connected by warp gates(possibly make each warp gate connect to several others).

I think that would play out like option #4. What you describe is similar to the sanctuaries of PS1, which connected to continents and then the continents connnected to each other. Only difference there is that instead of 3 separate sanctuaries you have one sanc with combat enabled.

The general idea that I believe people like is that idea that you start off on different continents, but they all connect in various ways and you meet int he middle and fight across different landscapes. This is appealing because it's a front and gives a sense of real conquest and helps drive home the persistence aspect of the game, as well as the scale of the game.

I hope we move to something like that, but it does require a lot more continents before you start seeing the rich gameplay. With a small number of continents the strategy is extremely basic and likely boring.

[Dagron]

From what I've seen so far the continents do not appear to effect one another.

That's what i was thinking too before my 1st post here, i wasn't sure why people were so into linking warpgates one way or another. That's why i asked for more info before i started suggesting stuff.

Though after reading some of Malorne's tales of old (mostly from the post he mentioned above), i'm starting to think that completely unrelated continents will not be so entertaining, from a strategic gameplay point of view.

I still have a lot of reading to do, but i already got that making transitions between continents unrestrained allows for more players at the same time in each server... but it completely isolates continents from external influences, effectively turning them into different "servers" and not a part of the same world.

When there are a few different paths your army could take to reach a specific continent, that makes things a little more unpredictable and fun.

Empires have to make tactical decisions: which path they take when expanding their territory into other continents, which continental entry point should be defended and which one should be abandoned when they're attacked from two sides, which continents should they take as their own and make a priority to defend, etc.

[Malorn]

Just finished reading the OP, still working on the manifesto... a little much to absorb at once, but it'll sink in. :)

So far it gave me some insight on home continents and continent connections.

I'm starting to get why people are suggesting that all 3 factions shouldn't have footholds on every continent... and how much fun it could be to push empires back, kick them out of one continent after another, making their territory shrink until they're cornered into their homes. :lol:

Glad it's helpful in understanding. They're difficult concepts, especially without playing the game!

And yes people really liked that dynamic, and it was fun. I personally really liked it. It's why a lot of folks around here want to see home continents again and better lattice linking. I wanted that at first also, but after a while I came to conclude that it won't work out with the current 3 continents.


However, there is a darker side to it which I dont' go into in the manifesto that has become apparent to me more recently - downtime & staleness.

It created a lot of stalemates and had downtime. People would leave continents that were being lost, and many times the last several bases that you took on the continent were uneventful. It would waste quite a lot of play time. It was also very hard to crack into a continent without a full invasion force staged from sanctuary.

And it also led to only seeing a small portion of the game world without a lot of variety. It was the same battles, same bases, same opponent, same continent, day after day. We mostly only saw 4 continents and small pieces of the others. Only seeing that small portion of the game world made the game seem stale. Day-night will help a lot with that, but so will having a presence on every continent. Always something different to do and if you want to change things up you can.

The footholds help alleviate those challenges and make it easier to attack. It also allows you to see more of the game world, which is particularly important when you only have 3 continents. PS1 had 10 continents at launch. If we only had 3 continents and a locking mechanism, the game world will be very small, the global strategy would be simple with so few continents, and I don't think it would pan out well.

But once we get more continents down the road...well, maybe we can revisit PS1-style continent invasions and locks and linking. I'd like to take a new stab at it with the PS2 mechanics and see what works out, but as other posters in this thread have indicated...we need more than 3.


If you're curious about more, I had a few threads in the Idea Forum where I discussed some of the global & continental strategy elements and how to bring them into the current game design.


Here's the PS1 metagame & Global Strategy issues mapped onto PS2's known design:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36476


Continental benefits & domination and reasons to fight on one continent vs another:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36627

Facility Benefits and how they can make for more interesting continental strategy:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36780


So if you want to drink from the fire hose, there you go! Lot of thoughts and relation to global and continental strategy there and learnings from PS1 onto PS2.

[Madlaps]

I believe that may be the problem, Planetside 2 doesn't have the "Global domination" aspect that Planetside 1 had. It's more, BF3/MW enlarged 2000%.

What made Planetside 1 great wasnt just the continents were huge, it's that back in the day - you went to take a continent AND base for a particular reason. It had a link to somewhere you wanted or it had benefits that you wanted for your faction. PS2 loses this, by making the continents practically large individual battlegrounds. Resources are just another form of XP, which you get by fighting ANYWHERE - Sure, bases give different resources - but it is impossible to mediate the resource economy like this....

Think about it, if you HAVE to take a certain base for resources that you are required to get to pull certain vehicles... how the hell are you spose to retake bases or progress in a continent if your faction is getting dominated and is out of resources?? "It's ok guys, we got no resources for vehicles - so we'll verse this defending faction with foot soldiers verse hundreds of tanks and aircraft - as well as foot soliders"

Are foothold vehicles going to be free? If so, then it just produces more of a stalemate on continents as anything remotely near your base is many times easier to defend and forces the fight back onto "even" ground in the centre of the map.

You can't do that, so the resource economy will most likely be flooded and there will be no real reason to take bases other than "for a good fight". Which comes back to my first point. The "tactical" or "strategic" aspect that gave birth to all these military and organised outfits is gone.

----------
Yes, I have made exaggerated assumptions without playing beta. Yes, I'll happily eat my boot if SOE brings this aspect into the game. Yes, I love this game, genre and what the devs have done for us as much as anyone else here. The majority of changes to make this a modern FPS I can completely see why it's done and why we need non-PS players and why we must make sacrifices to attract new blood.

But I believe this is the greatest difference between the two games and while it might be an "epic" war. It is losing the very core of what gives this genre great potential. You need an epic war, with a greater underlying purpose to what you're fighting over.

[erunion]

The general idea that I believe people like is that idea that you start off on different continents, but they all connect in various ways and you meet int he middle and fight across different landscapes.

The concern I have about that, especially with the hex system, is it would lead to a lot of underutilized space. I get the feeling that the home continents would see little combat with the (few?) neutral continent(s) continually changing hands.

On the other hand, I don't think each faction having a foothold on each continent is a good idea.

[Mechzz]

...
Are foothold vehicles going to be free? If so, then it just produces more of a stalemate on continents as anything remotely near your base is many times easier to defend and forces the fight back onto "even" ground in the centre of the map.

You can't do that, so the resource economy will most likely be flooded and there will be no real reason to take bases other than "for a good fight". Which comes back to my first point. The "tactical" or "strategic" aspect that gave birth to all these military and organised outfits is gone.....


These points are valid, and the best way to get round them will be to introduce more continents so we can get that variety to the gameplay. And for that, timing will be everything. Too soon, and the huge new player base may not be ready for it. Too late and people will have drifted off.

Big challenge for SOE here - the first expansion could make or break the game!

[erunion]

I believe that may be the problem, Planetside 2 doesn't have the "Global domination" aspect that Planetside 1 had. It's more, BF3/MW enlarged 2000%.



My fear is that that description applies in many other ways too. From E3 it looks as if they have turned bases into a field to play a game of MW domination. And after someone wins that game...i mean battle, we advance to the next map...I mean base.

[CutterJohn]

There should be no 'home' continents. Footholds on all of the continents.

Empires can choose their own 'homes' that they defend because of tradition.

[Malorn]

The concern I have about that, especially with the hex system, is it would lead to a lot of underutilized space. I get the feeling that the home continents would see little combat with the (few?) neutral continent(s) continually changing hands.

On the other hand, I don't think each faction having a foothold on each continent is a good idea.

I think you hit the nail on the head with space utilization. With only 3 continents we don't have a lot of space, so we need utilization to be high, which the #1 option (current design) maximizes.

However it comes at a price of the metagame strategy. It is difficult to have both high utilization and high metagame, because the idea behind the metagame is securing territory and moving on - if its secured, nobody's using it anymore, until it is once again threatened.

It's like playing chess on a 3x3 board - not very interesting. But when the board is 10x10, lot more options, but not a lot is happening on most of the board.

Home continents are a fantastic strategic concept, and people really liked the idea of calling something "home" or more accurately "ours" - there's pride there, and home conts were often fought for a lot more fiercely than others.

However, home continents also created a lot of stagnation, as much of the home continent was often not utilized and battles took place largely on warpgate-connected bases (or territories if you translated it to PS2). It also meant that you typically only played in places connected to the home continent. So there was much of the game that you rarely saw, which was unfortunate. I don't think home continents work out well with low space.



Great observation about space utilization, I think that captures the issue quite concisely. Current PS has low space, high utilization. PS1 had high space and low utilization. We probably want something more like high space and medium utilization so its not too stagnant, but there are also strategic options for the metagame.

[Malorn]

I believe that may be the problem, Planetside 2 doesn't have the "Global domination" aspect that Planetside 1 had. It's more, BF3/MW enlarged 2000%.

What made Planetside 1 great wasnt just the continents were huge, it's that back in the day - you went to take a continent AND base for a particular reason. It had a link to somewhere you wanted or it had benefits that you wanted for your faction. PS2 loses this, by making the continents practically large individual battlegrounds.
I absolutely agree. However, I also believe that PS2 can ship with the current continent configuration and be successful. As they add more continents I hope we can re-evaluate the situation so we get that global domination system working.

Global domination and conquest benefits, etc - those would all make a great content patch and a compelling release for PS post-launch. Hell they could call it that "PlanetSide 2 - Global Domination Patch!" Exciting!

Very important for me for them to do that, but I recognize that it doesn't need to happen on day 1. We can wait a bit for it, but I hope not too long.


Resources are just another form of XP, which you get by fighting ANYWHERE - Sure, bases give different resources - but it is impossible to mediate the resource economy like this....


You also got into the Rich-get-Richer problem and what I'm now calling the "Free Resources" problem, both of which revolve around resource balancing.

On one end you have highly dependent resources - the territory system matters a lot, and the resources you own are very important. In this world people care a lot about territory because they have to. However, the downside is that because territory matters so much the rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. At some point they can't realistically fight back and the rich have all the resources to wage war and hold onto a continent. Clearly that wont' work, at least not without some diminishing returns which sort of defeats the purpose.

The way that PS2 appears to solve this problem is by having two methods of obtaining resources - from territories, but also from fighting. If you're fighting you get resources (that's how Higby described it, but we don't know many details more than that). This is a good idea because it helps take some pressure off the resources from territories and gives a way for the "poor" to fight back, as long as they have the will to fight.

The problem with that, and what I now call the "free resources" problem is that resources are effectively free. If you get them for fighting, then why care about territories? We've effectively gone to the other end of the spectrum from where territory was extremely important to where it isn't really important at all.

Of course they could strike a balance - a point where territory is noticeably helpful, AND you get a small to fair amount of resources from fighting. The goal would be to provide enough resources from fighting that a fiscally conservative player could get by and provide what is needed to keep waging war. However, he would still much prefer more territory so his resources aren't stretched thin.

It's very difficult to get this balance right, because one of the things they wanted to enable was resource starvation - the idea that you could take a specific territory to weaken the resource pool of the enemy for a certain type of resource. The goal would be to deprive the enemy of aircraft or tanks, or at least lessen the supply. If too many resources are awarded by fighting then resource starvation is not a viable tactic. Or if the resource pools on players are too big starvation's effect won't be seen wide-scale enough to matter. The effect we want is like capturing the only enemy Tech plant or dropping its generator - no more tanks. That really only plays well if you have a highly resource-dpeendent system.

So its a really hard problem to get this right. Once I'm in beta it'll likely be something I spend a lot of time watching, playing with, and figuring out. I'm really curious how it plays out and what other solutions we might have to help strike the right balance.

[Madlaps]

There should be no 'home' continents. Footholds on all of the continents.

Empires can choose their own 'homes' that they defend because of tradition.

Tradition has been removed to make it easier to get into a fight and not worry about defending home continents.

[Traenor]

I think people undervalue the strategitical oppurtunities there is even with footholds on each continent. As far as i hear about PS1, the metagame primarily were about locking down continents and moving on to other continents? With the foothold system, and resources, you are pushed a lot more towards aggresive strategies wherein you try to deny as many facilities as possible, instead of a "safe" route wherein you create an impregnable front. I am not saying that this will create a more diverse metagame, just that the metagame might not suffer as much as people think. With all that said, i would like to see some smaller conts with the possibility of total domination by one faction.

[erunion]

I think you hit the nail on the head with space utilization.

Thanks, Malorn. Those points are what got me thinking about the 5th option I mentioned higher up. I was looking for something that would work in the current low real-estate environment, but brings in new landscape in a meaningful way.

The advantages I think it has are 1) its ready to go, current map doesn't have be changed. And 2) when new continents are added and connected by warpgates, I think an interesting dynamic would occur. Fighting would continue to be intense on the original continent due to close proximity of the factions, but would also travel from area of high concentration to areas of low concentration as people moved into the new continents to find more easily conquered territory. Depending on how the continents are linked a sort of home turf could even be developed.

[Malorn]

Thanks, Malorn. Those points are what got me thinking about the 5th option I mentioned higher up. I was looking for something that would work in the current low real-estate environment, but brings in new landscape in a meaningful way.

I advantages I think it has is its ready to go, current map doesn't have be changed. And when new continents are added and connected by warpgates, I think an interesting dynamic would occur. Fighting would continue to be intense on the original continent due to close proximity of the factions, but would also travel from area of high concentration to areas of low concentration as people moved into the new continents to find more easily conquered territory. Depending on how the continents are linked a sort of home turf could even be developed.

The dual-foothold design where two empires have a foothold but the third does not - that's a design that existed before and it did indeed lead to a lot of fighting on that continent. It's similar to the three-foothold idea of yours.

What ended up happening with that design though is that so much fighting occured on the dual continents that you didn't get a lot of fighting on other conitnents. Some stayed locked/dead for hours, even days. So it created high utilization of a few continents, but very low utilization of others. I think we shoudl try to find a way to have moderate utilization across a large number of continents. I think that is the holy grail of planetside metagame. I'm still searching for it :)

[Madlaps]

I think people undervalue the strategitical oppurtunities there is even with footholds on each continent. As far as i hear about PS1, the metagame primarily were about locking down continents and moving on to other continents? With the foothold system, and resources, you are pushed a lot more towards aggresive strategies wherein you try to deny as many facilities as possible, instead of a "safe" route wherein you create an impregnable front. I am not saying that this will create a more diverse metagame, just that the metagame might not suffer as much as people think. With all that said, i would like to see some smaller conts with the possibility of total domination by one faction.

I agree, but I think the main point is that strategies based on resources is going to be impossible to manage. As it will either cause one or two factions to get all the resources and one to get none (or some combination there of), making it near impossible to recover (remember there is no reset or end game).

Or... it will be flooded completely with resources making the whole idea of resource starvation or targetting a base for the sole purpose of resources completely moot.

[Dagron]

However, there is a darker side to it which I dont' go into in the manifesto that has become apparent to me more recently - downtime & staleness.

Yeah, i can see those things happening.


The concern I have about that, especially with the hex system, is it would lead to a lot of underutilized space. I get the feeling that the home continents would see little combat with the (few?) neutral continent(s) continually changing hands.

On the other hand, I don't think each faction having a foothold on each continent is a good idea.
And it also led to only seeing a small portion of the game world without a lot of variety. It was the same battles, same bases, same opponent, same continent, day after day.
(...)
The footholds help alleviate those challenges and make it easier to attack. It also allows you to see more of the game world...

Actually, that's the exact same reason why i'm a little afraid of footholds: people keep talking about how a foothold siege would go, but i think they're going to be rare... which means most of the time, everyone will be fighting in the very center of every continent (we won't see much of each map, just the area from our foothold to a little beyond the center).


However, home continents also created a lot of stagnation, as much of the home continent was often not utilized and battles took place largely on warpgate-connected bases (or territories if you translated it to PS2). It also meant that you typically only played in places connected to the home continent. So there was much of the game that you rarely saw, which was unfortunate.

I guess that's why some people suggested that footholds rotated each month in one of the proposed archetypes... though i think that would effectively end the "having a place to call home" perk, they may be on to something. Maybe having an incentive to up and leave your home territory after a while could help make things a little more dynamic.


So if you want to drink from the fire hose, there you go! Lot of thoughts and relation to global and continental strategy there and learnings from PS1 onto PS2.

Damn you, i really should be working... my class project is due today and i haven't started yet! :lol:

[Malorn]

Actually, that's the exact same reason why i'm a little afraid of footholds: people keep talking about how a foothold siege would go, but i think they're going to be rare... which means most of the time, everyone will be fighting in the very center of every continent (we won't see much of each map, just the area from our foothold to a little beyond the center).

I think there will be a lot of flanking the sides, but generally I share your concern in that we'll only see maybe 40-50% of a continent most of the time due to the adjacency system creating fronts and having 3 empires keeping each other's fronts in check.

I guess that's why some people suggested that footholds rotated each month in one of the proposed archetypes... though i think that would effectively end the "having a place to call home" perk, they may be on to something. Maybe having an incentive to up and leave your home territory after a while could help make things a little more dynamic.

Yep, I've been a big proponent of the rotating footholds, probably not a big surprise there.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36782

Its more about freshness than anything else - giving us new angles on the same continent so even though we only have 3 continents we really make the most of them and have different battles against different foes in different places. T



Damn you, i really should be working... my class project is due today and i haven't started yet! :lol:
I need to sleep too, good discussion in this thread tonight. But my posts have been there for months, they aren't going anywhere. Get your project done!

[erunion]

So it created high utilization of a few continents, but very low utilization of others. I think we shoudl try to find a way to have moderate utilization across a large number of continents. I think that is the holy grail of planetside metagame. I'm still searching for it :)

While I do not claim to have any holy grails. I don't think my suggestion would have that PS1 problem much.

Likely the prime continent would see regular fighting but little movement of boundaries while the additional continents would see less regular combat but much more widely fluctuating borders. Sort of the opposite of the home continent idea, and adding much sought after diversification of game play.

The caveat is how to connect the continents. And I do still like the idea of separate home continents if given enough individual continents.

[Malorn]

The caveat is how to connect the continents. And I do still like the idea of separate home continents if given enough individual continents.

This is very true - connections are the key. Anything that is more than 2 hops is effectively out of reach of that empire. Coming up with some hypothetical continents and connections might help us see a good solution. Might be some solutions in the 6-8 continent range where all 3 empires are within 2 hops of every continent. Have to play around with that.

[CutterJohn]

Tradition has been removed to make it easier to get into a fight and not worry about defending home continents.

PS2 tradition. Not PS1.

Of course, PS2 tradition doesn't exist yet, but it will. If we have enough continents, there will eventually come a time where empires consider one of them their 'home', and they will aggressively defend it.

It won't be their home due to game mechanics or because higby or the lore writer said so, but just because the players want it.

And because there are no official game mechanics reinforcing this status as home, it can be taken away for considerable lengths of time.


Make your own homes. Make your own front lines. The game does not need to do this for you.

[Rabb]

1. Foothold Setup Unmodified aka "All Hail the Stalemate":

What some call stalemate I call constant battle on 3 conts.

In my opinion the other options encourage the empire's to lock there home conts down and moves the front lines to the area around the warp gates. So the front lines become smaller and more focused on the gates rather then the shifting large front lines we will see with option 1.

[erunion]

After playing with warp gates, I ended up with sort of a hybrid design.

I added a fourth continent, as my idea doesn't really work with 3. Each new continent has one foothold and a second neutral warpgate connected to first continent. Perhaps the outer continents could link together to make every continent more of a three-way battle, but I think I like it this way. With the hex system and since the neutral gates are in the middle of the first continent every faction should have a chance at any continent.

http://s16.postimage.org/lk03gqk8l/Footholds_Mk2.jpg

[Dagron]

2, 4, and 5 are effectively the same with varying degrees of tactical options. The fewer options the more boring it will be.

Number 3 offers a different playstyle where there's 3 2-way battles, but each one is going to be largely the same fight every day against the same opponent and the same bases. Also there will be 1 of the three continents that each empire will not see very often becase they are deeply engaged in their 2-ways.

Option 1 (the one the devs chose) ends up being the option with the most player options. All three empires can play on all three continents at any time, but it is prone to have 3-ways.

I would propose option 1a - same configuration, except who owns the footholds on each continent rotates every month or so.

Were I to rank them, I would prefer 1a > 1 > 3 > 4 > 2 > 5
Yep, I've been a big proponent of the rotating footholds, probably not a big surprise there.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=36782

Seems like making footholds more dynamic is a popular solution to how things work in each individual continent. There are a couple of recent threads around that have ideas similar to yours (naval carriers (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42841) and orbital drop-pod offensive (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=42790)).

That might be a concept worth exploring in a larger scale though...

I tried to throw together some of those ideas.
All "vacant" warpgates would be neutral. Now say each empire had only a couple (maybe more) of uncapturable capital ships total, and each would hop from warpgate to warpgate in their own individual everchanging path throughout every continent, one step every week (or every other week) like so...

Starship Seattle's schedule for the next 6 weeks:
Indar Warpgate(A) -► Indar Wg(B) ==► Amerish Wg(X) -► AWg(Y) ==► Searhus Wg(1) -► SWg(3)

Maybe they could stay somewhat near eachother (one or two steps away) or maybe they could drift apart, depends on what would be more interesting.

That way there would sort of be home continents, though they would slowly change over time.
Sometimes a faction would own a whole continent, sometimes two would dispute the same continent as a home, sometimes all three of them would. There would be times of all out 3-way war on one continent, there would be times of spread out empires skirmishing here and there.

Eventually, every empire would have called every warpgate their "home" at some point, and there would be an infinite number of permutations to provide different strategic POVs.

Basically it would be a constant random switch between the archetypes 3 and 5 (with more continents and a few more mobile footholds, it would be a random switch between 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

How's that for dynamic? :D


edit: i'm a little wired and tired, so let me know of any fundamental flaws you guys may find.

[Baneblade]

I'm still trying to figure out why the devs believe that an empire driven back to their foothold means that empire can fight their way right back out.

It is a well documented fact, static positions are easier to control offensively. The Castle Curse if you will.

[Rabb]

After playing with warp gates, I ended up with sort of a hybrid design.

I added a fourth continent, as my idea doesn't really work with 3. Each new continent has one foothold and a second neutral warpgate connected to first continent. Perhaps the outer continents could link together to make every continent more of a three-way battle, but I think I like it this way. With the hex system and since the neutral gates are in the middle of the first continent every faction should have a chance at any continent.

http://s16.postimage.org/lk03gqk8l/Footholds_Mk2.jpg

This design will lead to locked home conts and everyone fighting over the one neutral cont. You might as well just have one and get the same result.

[Mechzz]

I'm still trying to figure out why the devs believe that an empire driven back to their foothold means that empire can fight their way right back out.

It is a well documented fact, static positions are easier to control offensively. The Castle Curse if you will.

If the game is balanced and Empires play at similar skill levels both in the shooting and the strategy, then it should be very rare to get footholded.

However, when pops swing over the course of a day, it could happen more easily. So when you log on and see that your empire is footholded, you go in and sort it out, and if enough players do the same to swing the pop balance your way, you can start to recover.

I'm also hoping that specops will offer a way out of a foothold, but that's a real wait-and-see

[Boomzor]

Ideally I'd like to see #1 with a gradual transition towards #2 as more continents get added over time.

The thought of having your "home" invaded was quite the driving factor in Planetside 1. It really didn't do anything game wise except ruffle your faction pride feathers.

[Baneblade]

If the game is balanced and Empires play at similar skill levels both in the shooting and the strategy, then it should be very rare to get footholded.

However, when pops swing over the course of a day, it could happen more easily. So when you log on and see that your empire is footholded, you go in and sort it out, and if enough players do the same to swing the pop balance your way, you can start to recover.

I'm also hoping that specops will offer a way out of a foothold, but that's a real wait-and-see

In concept, that will happen. But as we know reality is a bit different. I remember a lot of whack-a-moling at sanc gates in PS1. I don't think it will change much in PS2.

[Mechzz]

In concept, that will happen. But as we know reality is a bit different. I remember a lot of whack-a-moling at sanc gates in PS1. I don't think it will change much in PS2.

Not even with the enforced gathering of forces in a foothold? The bigger outfits with some discipline will build strength and then push out in force, no? Should be fun trying, anyway!

[Baneblade]

Time will tell, I'm just a skeptic lol.

[Dairian]

Think ill stick to what the Devs are using at the moment because the use of 3 continents. Trying to play ring around the rosie wont work with 3 continents and pop lock. But I am sure when more continents are added the system will change.

[NewSith]

What some call stalemate I call constant battle on 3 conts.

In my opinion the other options encourage the empire's to lock there home conts down and moves the front lines to the area around the warp gates. So the front lines become smaller and more focused on the gates rather then the shifting large front lines we will see with option 1.

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.

[kaffis]

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.
You don't need continent locks to have moving frontlines. Having frontlines move OFF continents is a bad design, IMO. Every continent should constantly be contested, the front lines just need to be fluid enough that the whole continent gets play, without including game systems that allow for the continent to actually ever be secured.

This could end up happening naturally with tri-foothold designs, though it's unlikely. This could easily be remedied by adding in links between the continents IN ADDITION TO multiple footholds per continent. Those links become tactical options to destabilize the natural stalemate.

[Rabb]

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.

The way things are the size of the size of front lines will mean they are never going to be stable there is to much territory for that to happen.

If you try and make home continents with only 3 no mater what way you work the links you end up with fighting localized at the neutral gates which is much smaller then the front lines you will get with a foot hold on each cont.

The second you encourage empires to lock continents you start to limit the territory people will fight over.

The only way I can see a lattice system working is to bring back the sanctuary's for regrouping (making them a space station could be more fun) and make all gates broadcast gates. That way any empire can pop up any where. From there you let it play out naturally. The empire's will form there own preferences and front lines.

[The Janitor]

Maybe in the future we'll get "themed" conts instead of "home" conts. It'll be fun, it'll be epic, and very difficult given the home team advantage. I always liked the idea of having a home base for each faction, but I do see the need to have constant warfare on every cont possible. Give one "capital" for each faction that only they have a sanctuary on, but that is very much conquerable by the other factions. Perhaps some fun benefits will apply for the attackers, kinda like raiding a faction faction capital in WoW. At the very least achievements or badges or something to show off what you accomplished. Good stuff. :)

[Mechzz]

Maybe in the future we'll get "themed" conts instead of "home" conts. It'll be fun, it'll be epic, and very difficult given the home team advantage. I always liked the idea of having a home base for each faction, but I do see the need to have constant warfare on every cont possible. Give one "capital" for each faction that only they have a sanctuary on, but that is very much conquerable by the other factions. Perhaps some fun benefits will apply for the attackers, kinda like raiding a faction faction capital in WoW. At the very least achievements or badges or something to show off what you accomplished. Good stuff. :)

Good idea Mr. Janitor. The "capital" continents should be themed by faction so the VS have lots of temples to Vanu, the TR lots of bombastic Roman-esque architecture and the NC lots of mines and mining shacks.

Something like that would be really cool!

[Malorn]

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.

There is one awesome gem of insight from this thread that will help us in further discussions about this - erunion pointed out the relationship between space utilization and the amount of space and how that impacts the flow of conquest.

To have meaningful strategy, conquest, and a metagame you need a lot of space. More importantly, some significant amount of that space will inevitably be unusable. It has to be in order for conquest to happen. You take territory and then once you take it it's yours for a while and the battle moves.

In order for the battle lines to move significantly they need a place to move to - thus we need a lot of space and it can't all be used.

The reality of PS2 is that it is launching with 3 continents. With such a small number the space utilization must be High or the game will be stale and boring and not feel any different than a session shooter in terms of scale. We need to see more of that world so we see just how big it is and PS2 feels "massive"

Additionally, we need high utilization so the populations for a server are correct when they start adding more continents. Consider 3 jam-packed continents. If they add 3 more continents, server population stays the same (unless the game has good net player growth over time), and space utilization no longer needs to be so high. This opens the door for a larger metagame. Game still feels large, we see a lot of it, and conquest & battle lines move meaningfully.

The point I'm trying to get at is that the 3 continents thing is really, really important for a number of reasons and its not just good for them to maximize space utilization - it's vitally important so the game can scale well as they add new continents later. Then as space increase the metagame will have more options and we can move to a model that utilizes less space and provides more meaningful conquest and domination.

We have to accept that the metagame won't be super awesome at launch, but the important thing is why that is the case, and how we can make it better in the future.

So the new buzzword for Global Strategy, Conquest & Metagame => "space utilization"

You can also see space utilization theory in action in the mockups in the OP. The more interesting strategy configurations end up creating dead space and areas of the map that will not likely see a lot of action. Thus more strategy = less space utilization. If space is low to begin with then having rich strategy means we're going ot have most battles in small parts of the map.

You saw this with DAOC also with three factions with 3 "realms" (or "home continents" if you will). Most of the battle took place on the entranace zone to each home continent. Were we to separate the factions into each faction being on its own continent and connecting the continents then we will end up with a similar result, where most of the battles occurs in the area around the two non-faction warpgates. Very dull result. So we see how that will play out.

Thanks again erunion...you've really opened a door for me in understanding the dynamics and design of continents, connections, and strategy.

[The Kush]

#4 is the way to go once they add more continents.

I honestly don't care what is in at launch, but if they make every new continent a foothold stalemate, this game will simpy become a glorified assortment of BF3 maps on a large scale. Hopefully they recognize this after launch. :doh:

THIS,

Please document for future reference.

[kaffis]

You saw this with DAOC also with three factions with 3 "realms" (or "home continents" if you will). Most of the battle took place on the entranace zone to each home continent. Were we to separate the factions into each faction being on its own continent and connecting the continents then we will end up with a similar result, where most of the battles occurs in the area around the two non-faction warpgates. Very dull result. So we see how that will play out.
Which is why having 2-faction "home-continents" seems like a better idea. Then, the fighting can be over not only the warpgates that open up access to other continents, but also the home continents themselves (because they're never "safe" from at least one other empire).

Those warpgates, then, can lead to either other 2-faction home-continents (providing either access to that continent for the non-footholded empire or a tactical foothold that grants access to push into the opposition's holdings from multiple fronts) or to completely neutral continents, which may get locked but will never have a stranglehold by the locking empire, because they must hold their beachhead access with no special advantages of permanent access.

[Malorn]

Which is why having 2-faction "home-continents" seems like a better idea. Then, the fighting can be over not only the warpgates that open up access to other continents, but also the home continents themselves (because they're never "safe" from at least one other empire).

Those warpgates, then, can lead to either other 2-faction home-continents (providing either access to that continent for the non-footholded empire or a tactical foothold that grants access to push into the opposition's holdings from multiple fronts) or to completely neutral continents, which may get locked but will never have a stranglehold by the locking empire, because they must hold their beachhead access with no special advantages of permanent access.

Yes that's option #3 in the OP. It isn't particularly bad, but still less space utilization than #1, which I think has to be the priority. #3 would be an interesting option to consider with more continents. For launch they need to maximize player density, because that density will drop the moment a single continent is added and with each additional continent. As density drops the need for a different continental layout goes up, both to keep density high in a local area and to add more strategic depth to the game.

[Redshift]

I suspect #1 is what we will end up with because solutions 2, 4-5 would simply result in a lot of WG camping and each Empire holding/maintaining their 'own' Continent and 3 would effectively limit each Empire to (mostly) fighting on only two of the Continents.

I think you're right there, with only 3 conts you can't have warpgates in the same way as we had before, we'd be warpgate camping only. With 10 conts there was always another place to attack if you got camped in.

The only thing i worry about with this set up is you've essentially got 3 stalemates that may as well be on different servers, since the choice of where to go doesn't really matter

[DarkChiron]

I think something that can try to help alleviate the deadlocking of the 3 forces along essentially non-variant battlelines is the removal of the need to follow a set lattice in your captures. On PS1 you had difficulty breaking into enemy territory because they knew you had to try to cap 1-2 bases, and you couldn't go anywhere else. In PS2 they have introduced the ability to capture ANY hex, no matter where it is, so I think any group willing to shake things up can back-cap a base a few hexes into enemy territory and really shake things up. We'll have to see how that will work in practice. They made it sound like it would be more difficult to do back-capping, but I hope it's not SO difficult as to be impractical, because I think it will go a long way in making the battlefronts less static.

[Malorn]

The lack of a lattice adds more freedom, but the territory control system is not a free-for all by any means. Depending on how important adjacent territory is it could be nearly the same result as the lattice only not tied strictly to bases. Front lines are important and they'll move back and forth as population and attacks shift along the lines, but it won't be drastic day-to-day like we saw in PS1 where you might not fight on a continent for several days, even weeks because it was just too far away or well-held by the empire that had it. The shift will move from less about continents and more about territories on each continent.

It seems the resource system is more or less meaningless though, as you have to go through territories to get territories, and if you're progressing along a front you'll pick up resources naturally. They won't be something you can specifically target all that effectively.

[DarkChiron]

The lack of a lattice adds more freedom, but the territory control system is not a free-for all by any means. Depending on how important adjacent territory is it could be nearly the same result as the lattice only not tied strictly to bases. Front lines are important and they'll move back and forth as population and attacks shift along the lines, but it won't be drastic day-to-day like we saw in PS1 where you might not fight on a continent for several days, even weeks because it was just too far away or well-held by the empire that had it. The shift will move from less about continents and more about territories on each continent.

As I said, back-capping in enemy territory is just going to depend on how difficult they end up making the act of doing so. People seem concerned about frontlines not moving because of the idea that you HAVE to assault one of a handful of bases that exist on where two differently colored territories meet, and the enemy knowing this can always be prepared for any assault.

I'm saying that's not really the case when your attacks can happen anywhere you want (especially if you fly along the coast and attack coastal bases). AGAIN: This is heavily dependent on how difficult they make it for you to cap inside enemy territory, and is compounded by you being effectively surrounded and (depending on spawn mechanics) where you are not easily reinforced.

It is depressing to think that the hexes near an enemy's sanctuary will just NEVER be seen due to how not viable it is to even attempt to attack them. But really, it's more difficult than I care to ponder right now on how to make that not happen and still be fair to the guys who control the area when they're fighting several kilometers away.

[MrBloodworth]

I really do not like footholds at all.

I can't see them being more than server selections at that point. There just will not be global movement with this how it is.

[Inverness]

If we only have 3 continents, then #1 is the best option. If we get more continents then I would like SOE to try changing that configuration to be more like PS1 and see how that works.

The idea I have right now is for seven continents total. One continent, like Indar, would have a foothold for each empire. Three other continents would have a foothold for one empire each, and then the three last continents would be completely neutral.

Also, considering how in PS1 the neutral continents give you some kind of special benefit for capturing them all, I'm thinking maybe this can be done with PS2, but also displayed on the continent with some kind of super-base that is 3-4 times larger than a normal one, perhaps divided into multiple sections and with a unique feature that represents the benefit given by that continent.

Also, I've attached a few ideas I've had using seven continents, I like the first the most.

[Baneblade]

The idea I have right now is for seven continents total. One continent, like Indar, would have a foothold for each empire. Three other continents would have a foothold for one empire each, and then the three last continents would be completely neutral.

In PS1, Cyssor was the continent with all three empires' sanc gates. The result was CyssorSide until the devs fixed it. This may not happen with footholds, but then it might.

What I am curious about is if the capitol concept will make a return. Could be interesting having a capturable foothold in the center of the map.

[Inverness]

In PS1, Cyssor was the continent with all three empires' sanc gates. The result was CyssorSide until the devs fixed it. This may not happen with footholds, but then it might.

What I am curious about is if the capitol concept will make a return. Could be interesting having a capturable foothold in the center of the map.
I like this idea. Have a capturable foothold in the center of the map with nearby power stations used for the protective barrier around it. This might be a way to inject a bit of underground play by having the power stations be underground so different tactics are necessary to take them out. There should also be underground tunnels connecting these power stations to the capitol, which are not protected by the barrier, which could be used for both defense and offense.

It would also be made so that without all three power stations online, the barrier would no longer impervious to fire and could be worn down with bombardment and such (no OSes allowed though), and more quickly if only one station is still active instead of two.

The idea here is to allow more avenues of attack:
1. Hit all power stations to take the barrier down and move in full force.
2. If there is low population around or you're just that good, have a strike team move into one of the power stations and enter the capitol through the connecting passage and take control from the inside.
3. Take down one or two power stations and just shoot the hell out of the barrier until it collapses.

[kaffis]

Yes that's option #3 in the OP. It isn't particularly bad, but still less space utilization than #1, which I think has to be the priority. #3 would be an interesting option to consider with more continents. For launch they need to maximize player density, because that density will drop the moment a single continent is added and with each additional continent. As density drops the need for a different continental layout goes up, both to keep density high in a local area and to add more strategic depth to the game.
I completely agree. I meant it as a suggestion for down the road; clearly tri-footholds everywhere are ideal for launch.

My beef with #3 in the OP is I tend to dislike warp gate links that aren't 1:1 connections.

[Malorn]

A natural evolution of #1 is #3, with new continents splitting off. That could get very interesting if there's 5-6 continents, but I think they need at least 5 before considering it, preferably 6-7.

[NEWSKIS]

I think no matter what setup they use, there will always be a stalemate at some point, be it between 2 or 3 empires. The system they are using currently is designed so that the fights keep going on every continent and not just rotate between them. The hex system also gives a lot more ways to attack and makes defense more difficult. This might limit the stalemates. Personally I'd say wait till beta starts and see how good/bad the current system they have works. That's the only way to find out. Hopefully if some aspect of it doesnt work, they'll modify it to make it better.

[erunion]

The system they are using currently is designed so that the fights keep going on every continent and not just rotate between them.

Yes, but what kind of combat will it be?

Likely each faction would spend its time defending/retaking a very small portion at the center of the map.

[NEWSKIS]

Yes, but what kind of combat will it be?

Likely each faction would spend its time defending/retaking a very small portion at the center of the map.

There really isnt anyway to know to what extent that will happen until beta gets going for a while.

[lolroflroflcake]

Number 4 gives the best options, It allows empires to attack where ever the want so long as they have one warp gate while still letting them conquer their home continent.

It prevents warp gate camping because instead of just sitting outside the gate trying to hold an empire inside, like you would do with a foot hold, you've to carry the fight through the gate and engage the enemy on their own territory compromising the hold on your own continent.

This accomplishes the original goal of allowing anyone to fight where ever they want unless the other two empires are insanely under populated and it eliminates gate camping. Everyone gets what they want so everyone is happy :)

[Haro]

I agree with 1, at least for the beginning. Even with less meta, I think the new and improved shooting gameplay (at least according to many accounts I have read from E3) will keep people invested until new content comes, at the very least.

Of course, where we go from there is totally up in the air. I personally believe the game can be balanced completely around a foothold system without necessarily leading into a stalemate. I'm not making any predictions, but depending on how territory capture, mission systems, and population density works out, it's entirely possible that the hex system offers a measure of structure without creating impermeable frontlines that lead to the largely anticipated stalemates.

The beauty of the current system of content distribution is that it can be tailored to how the game grows. Maybe the foothold method catches on and becomes standard: given how the devs seem to really emphasize accessibility, I could see them trying to further implement it, if possible. If it is too stagnant, we have several methods they could take as they expand.

I'm interested to see how they handle server populations. Will they try to maintain the 2000 per cont model they're pushing for now? Will they let the original 6000 play on more continents? Try to find a balance in between? We haven't seen large enough gameplay to truly evaluate how conts handle their population, but I have to imagine they have included some flexibility to their population design.

[IMMentat]

#1

Else I envision 2 conts being perma locked while the third gets shafted. guard the warpgates = dumb way to do open world conquest. Forcing an army to not only travel through a "region/server" zoneline but also provide vehicles from across one is just asking for players to leave the game.

[NewSith]

Added an extra-note:

Please have a crystal clear mind about the neutral warpgate handling method. We can have several choices for the way they operate: Non-contestable, always open; Non-contestable, accessibility is based on adjacency; Contestable, effectless hex; Contestable, adjacency-effecting hex.

[Malorn]

Added an extra-note:

Please have a crystal clear mind about the neutral warpgate handling method. We can have several choices for the way they operate: Non-contestable, always open; Non-contestable, accessibility is based on adjacency; Contestable, effectless hex; Contestable, adjacency-effecting hex.

Gates are tricky, but I have a few ideas...

In order for a neutral gate to become a foothold it has to have some amount of ownership, not because of the gate itself but because the territory next to the gate. The gate needs to give the empire attacking out of it some amount of influence so they can reasonably capture territory adjacent to the gate and start pushing out.


You could have the gate behavior change depending on territory adjacency, moving from effectively "neutral" to a full on exclusive foothold.

Here's some ideas

- you can enter/ use the gate if you have non-zero influence over the gate, so only one hex is required to broadcast to either side of the gate

- if you own 51% of the influence over the gate it becomes a broadcast source and you can broadcast from that gate to other broadcast destinations you have

- if you own 100% of the gate *on both sides* it becomes a foothold *for both sides*, and you have exclusive control over the gate (nobody else can use it).

- strength of influence generated by the gate scales with amount of territory adjacent to it *on the other side* (so if you have all of the territory on the other side it gives you a strong influence bonus, making it easy to capture the territory on the other side).


The way I see this working is that as you approach a gate you want to own all adjacent territory, as that gives you the strongest influence on the other side of the gate. Once you go through it, you start capturing territory immediately around the gate, which captures faster thanks to the influence bonus from the other side. Once you secure all the territory on both sides the gate becomes a foothold on both sides and only your empire can use it.

It is then possible for enemies to uproot that foothold by attacking territory around the gate on either side to break the foothold. It only takes 1 adjacent hex for an empire to start using that gate and break the foothold, but since influence on the other side is proportional to adjacent territory on this side it will be difficult for them to simply capture 1 hex on one side, hop through and start taking territory on the other side. It'll be a gradual process to weaken the grip on the gate.


One thing I like about this is that the gates themselves and the areas around them become conflict points and they become relevant.



Also, instead of having permanent "sanctuary" footholds they could make it more dynamic where every foothold can be uprooted, BUT - each empire must have at least 2 footholds at all times (on different continents). So if they are down to their last 2 footholds they cannot be broken. Since every WG has a companion on the other side it means the most you could back up an empire to is 2 different continents (with back-to-back warpgates that are footholds).

It would allow empires to actually relocate and choose their own homes, and always guarantee two continents are available for play for any given empire.

[kaffis]

You could have the gate behavior change depending on territory adjacency, moving from effectively "neutral" to a full on exclusive foothold.

Here's some ideas

- you can enter/ use the gate if you have non-zero influence over the gate, so only one hex is required to broadcast to either side of the gate

- if you own 51% of the influence over the gate it becomes a broadcast source and you can broadcast from that gate to other broadcast destinations you have

- if you own 100% of the gate *on both sides* it becomes a foothold *for both sides*, and you have exclusive control over the gate (nobody else can use it).

- strength of influence generated by the gate scales with amount of territory adjacent to it *on the other side* (so if you have all of the territory on the other side it gives you a strong influence bonus, making it easy to capture the territory on the other side).


The way I see this working is that as you approach a gate you want to own all adjacent territory, as that gives you the strongest influence on the other side of the gate. Once you go through it, you start capturing territory immediately around the gate, which captures faster thanks to the influence bonus from the other side. Once you secure all the territory on both sides the gate becomes a foothold on both sides and only your empire can use it.
This is all pretty much exactly how I'd implement warpgates. I don't remember whether I went into this kind of detail when I first suggested using warpgate links as stalemate spoiler factors on the tri-hold continent layout; but if I did, this is what it looked like in a little less detail.

[Malorn]

I'm trying to create a road map for a good inter-continental design given the current continents and likely plan to continue releasing continents with only 3 warpgates. One thing I'm searching for is the inflection point where they could make the switch from the current model to an inter-connected dynamic model.

I was working through some different continent configurations and had some observations.

1) If continents continue the pattern of only having 3 warpgates then it will severely limit inter-continental link options.

2) With 3 links per continent and a fully capturable warpgate model (dynamic footholds) I described above, there is no valid configuration for an odd number of continents. 3, 5, and 7 do not work at all. 4, 6, and 8 work, and I have to say 6 and 8 look quite interesting with a fully dynamic foothold system. 4 is OK but is a slight loss in space utilization over the current 3-continent design.

3) Without the dynamic foothold model the continental configurations are all terrible and uninteresting. I didn't like any of them.

4) The dynamic foothold model is not only a cool sandbox concept, but it is also necessary in order to allow the game to free-flow and allow empires to reasonably see all the continents. It is also needed to create interesting inter-continental configurations because with only 3 links continents configurations lead to becoming triangular and effectively walls off multiple continents for each faction. The dynamic model allows what would have otherwise been end-points in the continental config to loop back and open up the configuration for a lot more open and flowing options. The end points are problematic in general and create some undesired characteristics. I think the dynamic foothold model fixes that.

5) It is possible to make an odd number of continents work, but only if there is one continent that is like the current model - all three empires have a link to it and it isn't connected to any other continents. It's just a one-off continent. The rest of the continents are configured as N-1. I'm not sure I like that as a solution because I think that one-off continent will draw people away from the other continents. Perhaps there are other incentives to help diversify, but the one-off continent also has some merits.




I don't have time now, but I will illustrate the above with a 4 and 6 continent configuration to demonstrate what I mean.

When I get some time I'll map this out in more detail, probably make a new thread about it. The goal is a road-map and some of the things that would need to happen if they wanted to eventually do that.

[kaffis]

Malorn, I think it wouldn't be preposterous to update Indar to have 2 footholds and 2 warpgates in the future. Take a look at some of the maps we've been shown; there's room in the North-East corner for another 9-hex diamond. Convert one of the footholds to a warpgate, and you have a two-foothold, two-warpgate continent.

Looking at the data-mined 2nd continent map, it's harder to say, since we don't have a hex grid on that one yet, but there might be a few spots to squeeze one in (or put one on/under the mountain!) if they had to. *shrug*

[Malorn]

Yes, they could modify the continents, but I think that's a lot more dangerous than it might seem and could completely screw up the balance and flow of the continent. As it is, each warpgate is designed to be roughly balanced in terms of nearby facilities and resources. The facilities might not be as big of a deal as they were in PS1 but we don't yet know what sort of value facilities provide other than resources.

If they were going to release 4-warpgate continents I think those would have to be new continents designed for that, not retro-fitting existing continents. So any mockups I do will likely have at least 4 continents with 3-warpgates. 4's configuration works with 3 gates per continent. 5 would be the first continent that might require 4. But as I said earlier, 6 and 8 work and look quite interesting. So perhaps we simply rough it out with the current design until they have 6 continents, then switch. I think 6 is the inflection point.

There's also the possibility that they release two continents at once instead of one at a time. So they could go 3, 4, 5, 6 (switch to inter-connected continents), 8 - something like that.

[Dagron]

The dynamic foothold model is not only a cool sandbox concept, but it is also necessary in order to allow the game to free-flow and allow empires to reasonably see all the continents. It is also needed to create interesting inter-continental configurations because with only 3 links continents configurations lead to becoming triangular and effectively walls off multiple continents for each faction. The dynamic model allows what would have otherwise been end-points in the continental config to loop back and open up the configuration for a lot more open and flowing options. The end points are problematic in general and create some undesired characteristics. I think the dynamic foothold model fixes that.

I won't pretend to understand most of your concepts (i'm not stupid, just not particularly brilliant either), but the ones i do get the jist of seem really insightful. This dynamic foothold model is one of them.

After skimming your stories about how home continents were (your PS1 "ASS" post and part of the manifesto), that got me thinking and i came up with a dynamic foothold model of my own.
It's definitely not as well thought out as yours (so i don't think it belongs in the idea vault just yet), but maybe it can contain some hidden knowledge that might inspire you (or someone else) to either improve upon your own or to create a whole new one.

I talked about it earlier in this thread (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=733520#post733520) just as it popped into my brain, but i made it confusing and just weird. So i'd like a do over.

I'll try to explain it better as soon as i work on it, but for now it's in no way a serious suggestion. It's just one of those half-baked ideas that you get when brainstorming late at night.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The basic is:
- Each continent has a certain number of neutral warpgates, some linked to only one other warpgate, others linked to more than one (depending on the number of continents and gates per continent). Continents can have different numbers of warpgates.

- Each faction has a small number of "gate dominator" Mobile Footholds, maybe 2 or 3 Capital Ships for just a few continents (more should be added depending on the number of new continents). There should be enough to keep every empire's population somewhat disperse throughout the world (few neutral links, no empty continents).

- Every once in a while (every other week or every month) each foothold jumps to another warpgate, either in the same continent or through the gate it currently owns.

- The direction of these movements could be a fixed route preset by the devs (to prevent the scenario where one faction would never see a specific continent) or just random. Alternatively it could be influenced by the territorial dispute over the week previous to the jump (who pushed who in the hex grid), but that would probably lead to factions getting stuck on the same place for a long while sometimes.

- If during a certain period of time a faction had no access to a continent (no direct or neutral links there), that continent's population cap should be divided among the two factions with access to it (that should help alleviate a possible low population season in that continent).

Slightly different foothold system.edit: you can watch it without the annotations and pause at each picture to get a better view of what happened.

The images don't really say it all, and obviously the number of footholds/warpgates/gate-links/continents and the time frame are all just randomly thrown in (nothing is set in stone).

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The point is:
This model is supposed to make each faction eventually see each continent in a different perspective - their home today, a three-way battle next week, a two-way skirmish field no one really owns a few months later and a year from now, a long lost home they long to return to.
And they'll almost never see them in the exact same way as before - one time they'll be invading it from the north, another time they'll own the southwestern base, etc... they'll have to fight a different faction coming from a different direction every time they own or invade it.



But before i work more on the idea, i'd like to know what are some obvious pitfalls i might be missing here, so i ask anyone interested: please watch it (it's not very long) and tell me if it's worth investing more thought into.

Thank you.

[Zenben]

I haven't read through the whole thread, so maybe someone has already posted it, but I came here with an idea to post this and found this thread, so it's going here.

What if, every week at a set time (maybe during weekly maintenance if there is such a thing in PS2) all bases go neutral and the footholds rotate? If it's not during a maintenance, make it during off-peak hours. I'm honestly not all that psyched about being stuck fighting from the same angle on each continent until the end of time. Really think this would liven up the fights, and eliminate the issue of any imbalance created by the terrain, if such an issue were to pop up.

[Dagron]

Yeah, there are some ideas about that in the thread.
Malorn in particular has some nice suggestions about dynamic foothold models just one or two pages ago, you should check them out.

One thing you said i didn't really care for though: making all the bases neutral at one point in time. This would pretty much end the game's persistence aspect, apart from character progression.

[Zenben]

Yeah, there are some ideas about that in the thread.
Malorn in particular has some nice suggestions about dynamic foothold models just one or two pages ago, you should check them out.

One thing you said i didn't really care for though: making all the bases neutral at one point in time. This would pretty much end the game's persistence aspect, apart from character progression.

Sooo, if the bases didn't go neutral but the footholds rotated, would you just have enemy footholds appear behind all your territory? Not sure how that would work, which is why I suggested the bases go neutral.

[Dagron]

No idea how to solve it, just pointing out a problem with your suggestion.

[SniperSteve]

I am really concerned that option 1, which is what they have now, will basically be a fight right in the middle of each continent.

Option 3 gives a good balance of player/server and the ability to choose tactically what continent you want to invade.

[SniperSteve]

One thing you said i didn't really care for though: making all the bases neutral at one point in time. This would pretty much end the game's persistence aspect, apart from character progression.

Yeah, we really cannot have a 'reset'. There must be some other mechanic whereby the home areas change.

[Stew]

the first one is the only way to go to ensure a (( fair )) dispersion of all 3 factions around the all 3 continents but when they will ad just 1 continents per continents this could create little imbalance in the foothold emplacement if they do not make it 33 % 33% 33% distance between eachothers

[NewSith]

I'm ressurecting the thread, so you can look at some pictures and get your brains working, so you won't turn into Zombetas saying "*Growl*Beeeetaaa... We want Beeeeta*Growl*"

EDIT: I also advise reading the topic, it has good lots of interesting discussion.

[AbysmalMax]

1. I disliked "home continents" in PS1. That way there was not too much action going on if no outfits were around on the home continents. I would like it to always be a stalemate, and for battle to continue forever. IMO.

[Tuoweit]

Two thoughts.

First, I disagree with the main complaint about the current model (#1), that being that it will lead to constant stalemates. This is only true if you think of the "front line pressure" of each of the factions as being equal in all directions, like 3 balloons expanding from their respective footholds - but in actual gameplay the situation will be a lot more fluid, I think, especially with a faction's efforts being directed and maneuvered by the Mission System (initially by the server, and hopefully in the future by players invested in commanding). The only limitation on the free fluidity of the front lines would be the "anchor" of each faction's foothold, but without (as far as I know? I haven't devoured every single bit of data that's been thrown out there) the need to trace any kind of supply line back to the foothold for resource control, even that is not an insurmountable factor.

Secondly, I disagree that equal access through footholds to every continent will kill any kind of global metagame. Although there may be less structure to it, I'm going to assume that there will always be some (hopefully substantial) headroom so that a faction can't poplock all the continents at once (otherwise - it would suck to log in and not be able to actually play!). This means that the global metagame would be more about being able to redirect and move a faction's troops quickly from one continent to another, in thrusts, feints, and counters, rather than methodically planning advances along a grid. A different metagame from PS1, to be sure, but there's still something of potential interest there. Only some significant experience playing in the new system will tell us how deep that can be, and whether certain pieces of terrain become more strategically valuable than others in the long term.

[Blackwolf]

I think #1 is the best for now. Until we get more continents into the game, the currently placed set up is probably the best.

Once more continents are involved then I think we should move into a more home-territory type with just 1 foot hold on each of the 3 primary continents (each empire getting the best defended territory surrounding their primary foothold).

[Salad Snake]

It would be interesting if they went with 1 for the first three continents, then added foothold-less continents afterward. They'd need at least two warpgates to each one though to make it dynamic.

[Marinealver]

I would go away from the new brodcast warpgate and make them the 2 way warpgate that we had in the start of planetside.

[Stanis]

I assumed that when they added more continents we'd end up with something like Malorn has outlined.

No reason warpgates can't 'open' and 'close' like the caves did in PS1.
Then you can play KOTH to gain influence over them and control/link them until the next cycles.


Can't comment any more. Re-read what I wrote and the NDA is in effect.

[NewSith]

/necrobump


This is a pre-beta thread. Half-a-year passed and. Well... The problems still exist.

PS Malorn wasn't PS2 game designer back then, btw. But shhhhh...