Metagame Analysis - Esamir

[Malorn]

I'd like to try to solicit some feedback on the metagame, specifically the continental battle flows using Esamir as the first study.

I'm not sure if this will get the right results, but lets see what happens. If it works out well I might do more of these.

First, I'm not interested in cross-continent stuff, you're preaching to the choir there. I dont' want to hear about sanctuaries or about how you hate footholds. What I do want to hear about is your understanding and analysis of how the battles progress, why they progress the way they do, what causes great fights, and general analysis of world design.

This thread will start with Esamir, our new continent that has some very different characteristics from Indar. It makes for a good study of design approaches.

I'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir. Below I will make some assertions and ask some questions, and I'd like your thoughts. Feel free to challenge the assertion if you observe differently.


1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?


I have some thoughts of my own on all of these and I'll share them later in the thread.

[PoisonTaco]

Haven't played too much on Esamir to answer all your questions and I'll get to all of them when I can. For now I'll stick with 3.

The outposts on Esamir are spread out a lot more than on Indar. In my opinion this is a good thing as it adds variety. It also kind of makes sense for a region way up in the north. Being someone who lives up north in Canada (not THAT far north) this makes sense. The further you go, the smaller towns get and the further apart they are.

I think that since these outposts are so spread out there should be more vehicle terminals. It's really hard to go from outpost to outpost as infantry even with the availability of flash terminals. It's also hard to keep an infantry squad together. If the outposts had access to Sunderers that would help a lot.

I don't have access to the game as I'm writing this and I don't have the Esamir map on hand to know for sure. If Mechanized resources were distributed closer to the warpgates I think that would help each empire. This is a map where you're going to want to have some transportation.

[Infernalis]

What I think is the fact there's only a few bases is the cause (nor good nor bad, just diffrent) of many things.

1: Rapid conquest because there's less outposts, so there's less defense (less spawn, less bases to attack so less time to fight/catpure, bigger hexes per base captured). A massive assault team can advance further in term of distance before being stopped.

2:More space between bases and more flat areas, most people take a tank to travel.

3:I can't say it's bad because it gives a different gameplay. I even think we can keep both a continent with a lot of bases and a continent with less bases. The flow is faster due to more hexes captured and more clear objectives.

4:Everything is too flat, we need some mountains/building in mountains very hard to tanks to progress where infantry can shine. Indar has more different type of areas it seems. Maybe I'm not used enough to Esamir though.

5:Some more compact areas with more outposts (so less hexes) and mostly dedicated to infantry. Everything is too far away, a continent need some difference in flow within itself depending of the area.

[ringring]

Esamir is friend tank-combat friendly. I mean this in a sense that the terrain is easy to travel over but it also has enough undulations and hollows to provide cover for a hidden approach.

This make tank combat occur at shorter ranges than on Indar (North) while Indar South East and West the terrain canalises vehicles. For example engagement ranges of tanks around West Highland Checkpoint are extreme.

The result is that tank fights are more fun.

The space between outposts provide space for the tank battles to occur. One outcome is that the continent feels larger, which is good.

I haven't played enough but more especially seen enough of the continent to have any opinion of which is my favourite area, other than to say I prefer it to Indar.

One thing to note is yesterday when leading our squad (TR Eurydome) we were very low on Armour resource and owned no hex providing it so I made gaining an aroumour resource outpost our priority target - this is the first time that's happened so far.

[DirtyBird]

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

The terrain of the continent plays a major factor as well as the fact that bases are fewer and far between.
And I think its only experiencing rapid conquest when the population is unbalanced.


2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

Personally I have observed many more large tank battles on Indar. On Esamir I see more tanks but that does not necessarily equate to larger battles. It seems tanks are more of form of transport on Esamir and the majority of tank battles I see on Esamir are generally one sided with a mass of tanks surrounding a post, not an actual tank v tank battle.


3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?
I think the flow is fine on Esamir and generally you get to move and hold ground faster than on Indar. Again I think the terrain also helps greatly with this. You can move to the next outpost fairly quick and leave the enemy little time to entrench themselves.
Looking forward to seeing how the new mechanics effect this.


4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

Eisa Tech Plant. Easy to get to for all factions with it positioned in the centre.
There are benefits for both defenders and attacking players with the large spread of the base including the height of the main base. Armour can sit back and attack from range or move in and try to dominate the outer spawns. But from a defenders PoV that armour push into the outer regions of the base can also benefit them as the armour bottlenecks. There are also points for pure infantry battles as well when moving into the main base.
The fun factor is in the longevity of the battle provided both sides are committed to it.
I think Eisa will be even more important with the upcoming changes.


5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?

Balance the populations and see what the next round of changes bring, then reassess.

[typhaon]

I'd like to try to solicit some feedback on the metagame, specifically the continental battle flows using Esamir as the first study.

I'm not sure if this will get the right results, but lets see what happens. If it works out well I might do more of these.

First, I'm not interested in cross-continent stuff, you're preaching to the choir there. I dont' want to hear about sanctuaries or about how you hate footholds. What I do want to hear about is your understanding and analysis of how the battles progress, why they progress the way they do, what causes great fights, and general analysis of world design.

This thread will start with Esamir, our new continent that has some very different characteristics from Indar. It makes for a good study of design approaches.

I'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir. Below I will make some assertions and ask some questions, and I'd like your thoughts. Feel free to challenge the assertion if you observe differently.


1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?


I have some thoughts of my own on all of these and I'll share them later in the thread.

Not to be argumentative, but I'd say the most important factors in any discussion about flow/consistency/etc. are going to be the raw populations of each faction on the continent AND conquest rules like the incentives for taking and holding bases and the the presence (or lack of) footholds/uncapturable hexes.

Having said that....

The terrain and frequency of outposts certainly impacts vehicle-play. Flatter (better sightlines than most of Indar)... easier to drive... necessary to drive... infantry are easier to spot and kill (ie. tanks more effecient at racking up kills).

I feel the sightlines also impact aircraft use. I wouldn't say any place in this game is hospitable to aircraft (no real clouds is a problem) - but an aircraft on Esamir is almost always 100% visible to both ground and tower AA - so I think that really shortens the life expectancy of anyone in the air... pushing more into ground vehicles.

Rapid conquest is because of fewer outposts... but I wouldn't equate rapid conquest with less FUN. FUN happens when you have competitive forces battling each other.... when that happens on Esamir, everything works fine and it seems just right. I'm pretty sure more outposts would just result in more instances of people capturing undefended/barely defended locations... in other words, not having FUN.

I've found tower fights (especially those where vehicle terms for the attacking side are not nearby) to offer some of the most competitive gameplay. Biolab fights (again when teleporters are working) are also pretty cool. The other larger bases can be OK - but I think the battles that happen are generally (almost always) too small to allow the base design (too big) to impact the battles like it they were intended... if you had 500 attacking and 400 defending, I'm sure they would fantastic. Oh! That also brings up one of the elements of Esamir - though not often on that scale - I do think the fewer outposts and general design encourages larger overall fights. Fighting at smaller outposts is rarely compelling. They usually offer no real ways to mount a defense and are generally overrun quickly by whatever force is attacking.

One thing I've noticed that is lacking in PS2 on both Indar and Esamir are fights to control natural terrain. A lot of factors... lack of water or similarly impassible terrain... Sunderers/Magrider can go just about anywhere... overall size of territory... ease of stealth infiltration/squad spawning... seems like the best decision is to just fight AT the base/outpost.

I won't say this is a specific suggestion to Esamir - but one element I'd incorporate into continent design is by making the MOST valuable spots on the map to HOLD be the hardest to DEFEND... located centrally... and I'd work an element into the game where future footholds and nearby outposts offer better benefits (more vehicles/base shields/whatever) for a specific faction --- this would create a suggested path to going about taking over a continent... and a natural path of retreat when things are looking dire.

[Whiteagle]

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?
Honestly?
It's the jumbo Hex sizes...
Really, there are what, three territories seperating the North Western Warpgate from the other two?
This... isn't good from my experience...

You see an offensive push, particularly those that would lock a Faction in their Warpgate, need to build "momentum."
The attack needs to reach that critical mass necessary to bowl over any opposition that might be mounted to stall or outright stop it.

With such huge tracks of Territory so easily taken before any real defense can be established, attack momentum just build WAY too quickly, leaving a defending faction on their back foot most of the time.

Hence Esamir is much easier to lock, not to mention how ease it is to KEEP locked with the distances between Warpgates and the next nearest base.

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?
Well it's a large, flat Continent where Infantry are easy pickings with their lack of cover...
Seriously, try walking some where some time...
With one-man MBTs, it's no wonder everyone would rather be a tank...

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?
Not good, as I've mentioned before, and too sparse...

If they were at least much more substantial, built up more to combat the hordes of tanks that wish to sit on their points, then maybe they'd work...
But still, I'd rather see the Hexes get chopped up just a bit more...

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?
Haven't really fought at a lot of places...
Half the time we're stuck in our Warpgate, the other half is usually won by whoever spams the most tanks...
By the time my cheap, not-buying-a-vehicle-if-I-can-walk ass gets there, the battle is usually over.

I do like Nott Amp Station's tunnels... but again the battle was mostly over by the time I got there...

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?
Since Esamir is Hoth... Why don't we put in some huge tank eating trenches with some turret emplacements dotting the edges?

It'd make a pretty good "Checkpoint" base, spilt up some of those longer Hexes and give us grunts somewhere to dig in.

[Marinealver]

Hey Look everyone I found a 3D Map of Esmir
http://www.ncbusinesslitigationreport.com/uploads/image/ice%20cube.JPG

If you do not get the joke, then compare the PS2 verson of Es with the PS1 verson of Es.

[Fafnir]

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

Less facilities combined with very short amount of time required to capture a facility. The former is good, because it makes battles bigger and that's what Planetside is about. However short time required to capture a facility is absolutely terrible. If an empire is pushing forward, they just have to swarm defenders though 4 different entrances and throw grenades/spam tank shells through 8 different windows. There is no way in Planetside 2 to defend a base versus even slightly higher number of enemies.

The problem with indefensible bases is present on Indar too, but conquest is slower, because there are more outposts to capture and players are waiting each time until they are captured. If the devs would reimplement SCU and remove XP rewards for capturing, conquest on Indar would be as rapid as on Esamir.

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

Amp Stations. They are easier to defend, thus battles for them take much longer. Additional objectives also make those fights more interesting.

[Babyfark McGeez]

to 1):

What i observed is that a lot of times nobody considers defending adjacent hexes to a big base, which is admittedly not very fun if nobody is attacking there.
But often that "charge to the zerg" behaviour leads to smaller enemy groups quickly taking many bases around a "named" one. And even when it was clearly visible on the map what those enemy forces were up to i often found myself completely alone in trying to stop them.
Combine that issue with the less bases / bigger hexes (and the general issue of hexes providing less direction) on esamir, and you have frontlines that can completely change within a couple of minutes by a rather small group that often nobody cares stopping.

[Tatwi]

I haven't played there much, but I was part of a really fun bridge fight one day. However, the problem was that the ground below could be driven over, so there wasn't a need to use the bridge. I would like to see some large, impassible open water areas under some the bridges, so that traveling over the bridge is a top priority. Doing this will make those bridges important assets to control.

[Galron]

Its fucking full of NC every time I log in so I get out of it as fast as possible, cant offer much feedback.

[Stanis]

II'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir.

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?



At risk of disqualifying my feedback I'll note that I play mostly on Indar.
Esamir fog. NC domination .. it's better now but everyone else in the outfit prefers Indar so that's where the squad is.

1/2/3. Rapid conquest. I'm not sure conquest is the best word.
There is a rapid advance. The enemy is not fought - they are rolled past and spawns supressed.

The larger hexes make this all the more apparent in the speed with which the map can be traversed. Blitzkrieg.

The problem is that an effective defence requires a logistical response. When the zerg is rolling tanks - that basically means a counter zerg of friendly armour. Since that can't happen at every smaller base or outpost and frequently not in a fashion to response to the existing enemy mass. The flow of battle is enemy tanks roll until they hit the friendly zerg or defensible location (usually a tower or biolab as the other facilties are swiss cheese).

3/ One aspect of the larger hexes and less of them is that holding a bugle into the enemy line should be a cause for concern as expansion from that point can happen rapidly.

4/ Towers.
These always generate the fights I like best.
They provide all tech. Most of them have a rearm tower. they are the most defensive structure - tanks can not camp the actual spawn door.
Usually there is some open space or terrain around which a combined arms battle can happen.

Most classes special abilities can directly assist the fight in their unique way without the best choice being as clearly rock-paper-scissors depending on what the enemy just pulled.

As I said in another thread I would rather most bases are towers in a courtyard, two shielded entrances and a rearm tower. From a strategy perspective they would be so much easier to defend.

[Whiteagle]

4/ Towers.
These always generate the fights I like best.
They provide all tech. Most of them have a rearm tower. they are the most defensive structure - tanks can not camp the actual spawn door.
Usually there is some open space or terrain around which a combined arms battle can happen.

Most classes special abilities can directly assist the fight in their unique way without the best choice being as clearly rock-paper-scissors depending on what the enemy just pulled.

As I said in another thread I would rather most bases are towers in a courtyard, two shielded entrances and a rearm tower. From a strategy perspective they would be so much easier to defend.
Here here!
It's sad that there are plenty of outpost that you can camp the Spawn in a tank, if not roll right up to the point without leaving it.

If Esamir is going to be a big Vehicle Continent, it should have bases that are more suited for fighting against Vehicles.
Even if they weren't all Air towers it'd still be nice if they had more obstructions for tanks and Turrets so we wouldn't all have to roll Heavy Assault when we want to actually hold an Outpost.

[Sifer2]

I think this should probably be updated to say take the Tech Plant in the center, and you win the map lol. It's like they made a new Crown only this one is actually worth the trouble people go through to own it.

[Phrygen]

Large Zones relative to the map size, very difficult to defend, momentum of large troop numbers is key and somewhat easy, open range for snipers and tanks.

[DirtyBird]

Interesting looking back on this.
I should add to mine.....Then Amerish came along.
Apart from last night just for something different, I rarely went back to Esamir once Amerish was released, even time on Indar increased.
Such a desolate, sparse, drab continent in comparison.
Small doses only.

[Figment]

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

Rapid conquest occurs from my perspective on three occassions. All have to do with lack of opposition and lack of stall time.

The three occassions where empires expand rapidly are:

South warpgate expansion: Typically a fight at Mani, which takes rather long and is the main objective for the north warpgate empires to ensure a basic frontier to keep the enemy away from the north west or north east warpgate. Control of Mani is essential in holding any ground in the north.

A fight at Mani results in 75% of the rest of the continent being completely outnumbered and ignored by both the NW and NE empires, which in turn allows the south to move unhindered up the middle and both sides. Once they got the central Tech, their march goes on.

NW/NE expansion:
After a Mani fight ends, the southern empire faces an overstretched frontline. They will not be able to hold the east especially, nor the west. Especially if they try to cling on to the tech in the middle. Both empires will quickly retake their near warpgate territories and any nearby territories. Typically they will lose one or two territories in the far north as a consequence of the Mani fight loss, however, they will need far fewer troops to retake those territories - even including Mani - because all the troops have already dispersed from it over a large amount of other territories.

The NW and NE armies after all, have after Mani no direct interest in cutting of the other warpgate completely: the concentration of enemies in those territories is simply too high and the chances of those empire retreating too great. Psychologically, the overstretched frontline is a much easier and more appealing initial prize to regain some resource breathing space for the next Mani fight.

NE expansion:
As described above, after the NW takes Mani, they will start to disperse over the territories towards the south, while NE regroups. Eventually the NW will face a heavier fight with the southern empire than the NE. This forces again a concentration of forces by the southern and NW empires - particularly due to their relative proximity in relation to south-NE distance and leaves the NE free to expand in the north, take Mani without much resistance, take the tech plant in the center and even cut off the NW empire from the warpgate.

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

There's no choice. Infantry can hold a number of ridges, but can't effectively footzerg or use small vehicles to attack because of four reasons:

1. Distance: It's simply too far (time consuming), unrewarding and unappealing to walk between outposts. You can't even see the other outposts most the time and if you do they're on the far horizon and don't invite to go there.
2. Largely open field: They get picked off too easily if they try to cross it. Fast armoured units are far more suitable for this warfare. It is also much easier to flank a position on Esamir, because you can just drive around something on pretty flat terrain and often that allows you to ignore the main defense orientations (like Jaeger's Fist whose defense is pure south oriented - it will fall immediately to any attack from the north, even if that's a flank/pincer assault from the south). On Indar, chokepoints can be used to slow an enemy down. On Amerish, high ground enhances the defensibility of a position to slow the enemy down.
3. Enemy composition: The other empire brings armour in numbers too, there are no other counters than bringing a high number of your own armour to even get close to the enemy point you want to take. When you do, you will typically swarm and swamp the entire enemy outpost in vehicles and then the defenders can do very little about it due to getting vehicle spawncamped.
4. Warpgate proximity (MBT acquisition options): Especially if a fight happens in the proximity of an enemy warpgate, the invader from the warpgate has access to heavy tanks and the other empire does not. This means that they can quickly overwhelm the highly dispersed enemies in close proximity to their own warpgate at the loss of very few vehicles and press on against an enemy that probably has more problems with heavy tank acquisition (unless they control the Tech Plant). This makes it easier to sustain a tank group and push through. Especially with the higher density of friendly and better armoured numbers near a warpgate.

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

With less outposts, the total capture time required to go from one side of the continent to the other - especially when not facing or facing only little opposition - is severely reduced.

It also forces empires to focus on the shortest routes to the enemy warpgate a lot more, because these create the risk of getting your entire side cut off from the warpgate. You can see the difference between Amerish and Esamir in capture speed in the north and on Indar in the south even though the warpgates are in roughly the same position to one another.

Regardless, more territories means more time for an empire to regroup and reposition when players on said empire see an attack coming next to a natural stalling because of increased amount of cap timers. In contrast, it only takes three to four steps to reach each other's warpgate on Esamir.

This effect is even greater due to lack of natural borders like you have on Indar.

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

Tough question to answer. There's very little effort involved in actually taking an outposts and therefore very little satisfaction to be gained out of offense or defense. That's made worse because any fun of conquest or pride of achievement is undone by the pointlessness of the capture.

If you try to defend a position you've just taken, you will be overrun by an enemy tank group. If you try to press on, your previous position will be overrun by an enemy tank group and fall even faster and cut your link to your own territory.

This is because you have to make a choice between two or three, if not four next attack vectors (four adjecent enemy territories) and one or two territories behind you that are being or have been recaptured by the enemy in the time it took for you to head over here. This is made worse because due to these territories also probably belonging to two enemy empires. Since the enemy you just defeated has the same choice as you, it is rather unlikely you will meet them half way and there's a good chance they just bypassed you to get to that other base behind or to the side of you. Strategically, it feels a bit pointless to press on and pointless to stay put.

Whatever you do, there's very little chance you can prevent an enemy from attacking your territory somewhere until you have so few territories left that your empire concentrates its forces again.

The hardest to take are the bases, because the third empire simply does not provide you with time to take them if you lost any. Particularly the middle one is often impossible to reach for the NW empire because they get flanked either in the north or west and will often be cut off.

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?

Good question.

Assuming there won't be a fourth warpgate in the south east for the eventual intercontinental stuff?

1. Changing terrain features:
Make the southern territory feel less distant to the NE warpgate by connecting the south and east rivers in the east, possibly while connecting the north east to the south east terrain directly. Currently the map shows a clear three staged obstruction from the NE to the SE. This mentally creates a big physical barrier that's unappealing to fight along.

2. Relocate the warpgates:
Possibly move the NE warpgate a little bit further south.

3. Create defensive bottlenecks to stall in between short distance warpgates:
I'm primarily thinking bunker lines and trenches to fall back to as infantry in passes, with largely impassable ridges in between. These more mountainous areas might be made more suited to ATVs and buggies than light and main battle tanks. These would control little buffer zones between the closest warpgates but would not be necessary at longer distances.

4. The implementation of a lattice to reduce options and force confrontations in the field between two enemies along a path:
This would allow for more accurate predictions, effective denial of ADJECENT territory to an enemy (which can currently be ignored).

5. Improve base defenses to ward off pure vehicle assaults:
Do not allow them to dominate the outcome of the outpost control battle, just the domination of the outpost's surrounding terrain. This would force an infantry invasion to take the outpost. It is imperative there is no vehicle spawn camping to accomplish this. Not from tanks nor aircraft.

6. More strategic high ground placed within the open fields for infantry to establish forward bases of operations:
These may consist of simple enclosures and a keep without spawns, per chance some tank traps, either way sufficient room for a Sunderer to quickly drive into and park (perhaps in a garage or an adaption of the typical base wall tower into a more fortified keep?). These could provide for more interesting field battles on foot as they would basically act much like the towers in PlanetSide 1.

7. Adjust amount of territories between warpgates:
Typically I'd increase the amount of territories if warpgates are closer to one another and have larger swaths of land be controlled if they are further away from one another. To ensure that these territories are fought over and enticing to fight over, the "long warpgate distance" bases should be relatively close to one another in the middle and control territory that leads to the proximity of the enemy warpgate: once they're taken over, they pose a bigger psychological threat.

I mean, if there's a large amount of buffer zones left, this provides the sense of "we got time" and "that takes too long/is logistically too hard". By placing the middle bases close together, one encourages the "nearest base principle" and then the longer warpgate distance also gets its zerg clash routes.

8. Stop using very square maps when using three warpgates:
Triangulation shows there's always one side that has the most easy to take homeland because it cannot be isolated into a corner as easily while the other two have a bit more playing room. A triangle would be most obvious, but you can also use bottlenecked areas, donut and "peace sign" shapes etc. Ever so slightly rectangular maps might create more proximity territory. It would also help to control corners of maps of an empire that controls a "central edge" warpgate by creating relatively sheltered and choke pointed corner areas there.

8. Lengthen the practical distance between two nearest warpgates:
By creating gaps and whirling paths in the hex grid along the nearest warpgate routes. Alternatively, islands (or territory surrounded by steep cliffs) only reachable by bridges can be used here to create a sense of ownership, easier defense and "too hard to go for every time".

9. Position the Tech Plant a bit further to the NW:
The NW empire will get flanked constantly. They will need shorter frontlines if they want to have a chance of taking the tech plant.

Main problem with doing that is this would probably increase the standard controlled area for the NE and south even more. Having a pivotal base in the center is not really fair if it's not an even shape map, like if it would be a donut shape for instance. Effectively, the double teamed empire (the double shortest warpgate distance empire) will have most issues here

[Whiteagle]

1. Changing terrain features:
Make the southern territory feel less distant to the NE warpgate by connecting the south and east rivers in the east, possibly while connecting the north east to the south east terrain directly. Currently the map shows a clear three staged obstruction from the NE to the SE. This mentally creates a big physical barrier that's unappealing to fight along.
Now that I think about you are right, it's quiet the pain in the ass to move south from the North-east.

Of course, it's been awhile since I've bother to stay on Esamir, so I haven't looked to see if the Hex layout still favors latitudinal movement in the North half of the Continent.
That usually left any territory taken in the South vulnerable to whoever was encroaching from the West, be it the Northern or Southern corners.
Oddly, it never seemed the same for longitudinal movement between the North and South West Warpgates despite a similar Hex layout... but that might be due to better initial base designs...

2. Relocate the warpgates:
Possibly move the NE warpgate a little bit further south.
Yeah, it always seems like the Northern Warpgats are squished right against each-other...
Like you said, they always seem to be putting their energy into fighting over Mani, leaving the Southern gate free to rush West.

Personally, I'd swap the North-eastern gate with Nott Amp Station, then slice up the land between it and Elsa into vertical Hex strips with the controlling Outpost at alternating ends.

3. Create defensive bottlenecks to stall in between short distance warpgates:
I'm primarily thinking bunker lines and trenches to fall back to as infantry in passes, with largely impassable ridges in between. These more mountainous areas might be made more suited to ATVs and buggies than light and main battle tanks. These would control little buffer zones between the closest warpgates but would not be necessary at longer distances.
I don't know about the ridges, but I know I'd make the trenches big enough to swallow Tanks.

Then we could ether jump them in our Buggies and Flashes, or they could bring back BFRs as four legged transport walkers so we can re-enact the invasion of Hoth!:D

5. Improve base defenses to ward off pure vehicle assaults:
Do not allow them to dominate the outcome of the outpost control battle, just the domination of the outpost's surrounding terrain. This would force an infantry invasion to take the outpost. It is imperative there is no vehicle spawn camping to accomplish this. Not from tanks nor aircraft.
Well this is just common sense, but they have shown some improvement on this front.

6. More strategic high ground placed within the open fields for infantry to establish forward bases of operations:
These may consist of simple enclosures and a keep without spawns, per chance some tank traps, either way sufficient room for a Sunderer to quickly drive into and park (perhaps in a garage or an adaption of the typical base wall tower into a more fortified keep?). These could provide for more interesting field battles on foot as they would basically act much like the towers in PlanetSide 1.
I know it's the opposite of "high-ground" but I still vote for BIGASS Trenches.
Seriously, if the larger trenches were wide enough to drive down and deep enough to conceal a Sunderer, we could have a vehicle labyrinth where you'd ether be funneled over the few bridges or forced to navigate the treacherous maze.

...In fact, screw Esamir, can we have an entire continent based on this concept?

7. Adjust amount of territories between warpgates:
Typically I'd increase the amount of territories if warpgates are closer to one another and have larger swaths of land be controlled if they are further away from one another. To ensure that these territories are fought over and enticing to fight over, the "long warpgate distance" bases should be relatively close to one another in the middle and control territory that leads to the proximity of the enemy warpgate: once they're taken over, they pose a bigger psychological threat.
Indeed, this is one of the things Indar got right.
While people claim the Northern gate has an advantage over the two Southern ones territory wise, they fail to realise that territory is spread over much larger Hexes.
Larger Hexes allow a faction to advance across the map quicker...

8. Lengthen the practical distance between two nearest warpgates:
By creating gaps and whirling paths in the hex grid along the nearest warpgate routes. Alternatively, islands (or territory surrounded by steep cliffs) only reachable by bridges can be used here to create a sense of ownership, easier defense and "too hard to go for every time".
...While the smaller Hexes between the South Eastern and Western gates slow them down by forcing them to capture every little Outpost along the way.

Take my earlier suggestion for swapping the North Eastern gate on Esamir for Nott Amp Station.
Yes, this would put it closest to the Elsa Tech Plant but, by redistributing the intervening Hexes into small vertical strips, you'd require that faction to take FOUR Outpost to get there, never mind needing to compete with the other two for the nearest one.

9. Position the Tech Plant a bit further to the NW:
The NW empire will get flanked constantly. They will need shorter frontlines if they want to have a chance of taking the tech plant.

Main problem with doing that is this would probably increase the standard controlled area for the NE and south even more. Having a pivotal base in the center is not really fair if it's not an even shape map, like if it would be a donut shape for instance. Effectively, the double teamed empire (the double shortest warpgate distance empire) will have most issues here
I have to disagree with you on this...

Best you'd get out of me is maybe moving Elsa a bit West if the North Eastern Gate swapped out with Nott.

You see, right now the best strategy for the North Western Gate is to push to Elsa; It's a straight shot straight down the path of least resistance from the other two Factions.
Considering that there are already three Major Facilities within a stones-throw of that corner, it's a bit of a hard sell to move a fourth in.

Hell, I would almost argue to swap Elsa Tech Plant with Ymir Bio Lab, but I'm not sure if having the easiest control of all three Bio Labs is equal to having to fight through the other two Factions for MBTs...

[brighthand]

I don't mind the wide open areas on Esamir as they encourage different kinds of battles that contrast Indar's, and thus offering a diverse gameplay experience. I have been in 50 v 50 stand-offs on open fields, using the berms and trenches to fall back behind, and it is great to see, and still there are areas that require your standard base raids and capping.

I also like the fights at 'The Pit' and other places that are "carved out of the ground;" fights that occur between interesting land forms. I was disappointed that their weren't any major caverns sunken into the ground; caverns so huge that highly skilled pilots could fly through them, and bases could be built into them. They wouldn't be like the caves that the vets seem to hate, but just slight, but pronounced, dips in the terrain. And some thick forest battles as well; I have yet to see a thick forest in Planetside 2 -not even Amerish presents this feature.

As for what makes a great battle? two words: CLUTCH MOMENTS.
I played BC2 rush with my squad for over 300 hours and one of the things that always made us come back for more was those last moment, 'hail mary' disarms; when the attackers are down to ONE ticket, and you guys are on the last mcom (bomb), which has been set off by the enemy. We would go in the building -or where ever it is, and shoot everyone, sweating bullets as one of us disarms to the tune of a chaotic bomb siren getting increasingly irritable. When that save was made, and the 'Your team won' comes up on the screen, there was no greater feeling in that moment; we were all just feeling a great sense of 'YESSS. I am not saying that BC2's mechanics should be copied, but that in whatever way PS2 can achieve ITs OWN brand of clutch moments, it needs to do so.

Battles in PS2 in contrast just consist of one mob rolling against another mob, with no high stakes and few limits. It never comes down to the the wire. The battles feel almost bureaucractic in their process, as one force simply advances through the stages of assembling, moving, killing, capping, reassembling, and moving again. Defenders have nothing to lose as nothing significant happens once a base is 'lost.' The defenders who just lost the base, can simply just keep trying until they get the recap.

A 30 minute lockout timer would GREATLY improve those circumstances, I believe. If I were at a base that I knew I would no longer have ANY access to if I didn't repel the enemy, that base would become all the more valuable to me, and I would probably be sweating bullets while I am trying to repel the enemy at my gates.

Also, how about having bases run on finite resources that have to be replenished, so that when the base is running low, it becomes open to barbarian invasions from the other factions? This would create yet another opportunity for clutch moments. Think about the doom and gloom looming in the air as your platoon is isolated in an amp station that is cut off from influence, and your base's local resources -some kind of power generator, or nanite generator, is running low. And if no one goes on a supply run, your base will soon be indefensible (let's say this is in the future where SOE actually gave walls to amp stations and made them NOT porous). The feeling my team would get if at the last moment, someone came speeding in with fresh supplies and ensuring a measure of continuity to our operations at that base, would be great.

[Figment]

As for what makes a great battle? two words: CLUTCH MOMENTS.
I played BC2 rush with my squad for over 300 hours and one of the things that always made us come back for more was those last moment, 'hail mary' disarms; when the attackers are down to ONE ticket, and you guys are on the last mcom (bomb), which has been set off by the enemy. We would go in the building -or where ever it is, and shoot everyone, sweating bullets as one of us disarms to the tune of a chaotic bomb siren getting increasingly irritable. When that save was made, and the 'Your team won' comes up on the screen, there was no greater feeling in that moment; we were all just feeling a great sense of 'YESSS. I am not saying that BC2's mechanics should be copied, but that in whatever way PS2 can achieve ITs OWN brand of clutch moments, it needs to do so.

What you describe here is a PS1 last ditch effort resecure with less than (one and a) half a minute on the clock, really.

With a set 15 minute timer, you needed to get a resecure hacker in there with enough time to pull it off. If successful, the defender resets the entire 15 minute timer and has a clear win even if you then still have to secure the base by getting it back up to operational status, if you can even beat the enemy out. Either way, you stalled them 15 minutes. You pulled it off.

Deadline pressure with an instant flip back isn't there in PS2. It's more likely you just give up because the task presented is not just monumental as it was in PS1 (single final push or single one chance pushes while fastly outnumbered were possible if played well), it's sheer impossible to pull of if you don't outnumber the enemy now.

Because it's not just flipping the points, which already is tricky even when guarded poorly due to the low ttk, the HUD warning on everyone's screen, influence you have no direct control over if you're at the consoles (have to hope randoms hold the adjecent terrain for you: unlikely) and the many zerglings present, it's also next to impossible to then keep on fighting for that last ditch chance due to the amount of pressure over time, the camping and the tug-o-war taking defenders out of the fight by putting them right next to cap points. The tug-o-war system is a bit more leniant than the ticket system in that respect, but I'd rather see tug-o-war apply only to attacking sides as the chances of being spawncamped are so damn high and logistics vs time after a retreat do not match extremely well.

Especially for a team that's smaller than the enemy, it's typically pointless and even hopeless to even try. :/


In PS2, we've had whack a mole, we've had tug-o-war, but we don't have LLU ("capture the flag with a convoy escort from base to base") or a plain hack (timer) and we don't have CCs where you get the feeling "we could dig in around here to hold out for minutes".

Tbh if the base timer was ten minutes hack and hold, with one CC in a defensible position, like in PS1, rather than 15... I wouldn't have a problem with it. Would be a bit tight to spot and mount a response in time, but eh... It'd be doable if we had an active command chat. Not saying "do this or else", I am saying, look at more alternatives.



In the case of Esamir, putting an LLU in the central Tech Plant, probably wouldn't be a bad idea (and less work than moving the entire base around).



What I don't like about outposts around bases in general is that they have no adjecency rules and typically get captured behind your back and again and again even if you try to retake them. Especially true for Bio Labs. You can say "well defend them!" Well sure... we try. But if you do, you die and respawn and walk back to it, it's already taken and you now have people spawning in the spawn behind you while you're in the wide open and trying to get back to a CC that's also being defended: you're in a crossfire with no backup. Those CCs of such outposts should be in buildings you have very little travel time to from their spawns and ideally should be part of a lattice to force a flow through them to get to the next area. There's so many of them, I'm not sure if that's really viable though. Either way, it's too chaotic and disconnected to organise a fight to and from a Bio Lab in particular. The other buildings are on the ground, so ther's a bit of direct flow and terrain to inch forward on. But with the Bio Lab, you can't both advance on the outpost and hold the teleport at the same time!

The teleports should be a time saving advantage you can conquer once you fought your way to the other outpost or infiltrated the facility to get reinforcements there - but it should be possible to regain control of a teleporter too. You shouldn't be handed control over both ends of it on a golden platter, that just benefits the attacker while it traps the defenders between two evils: either you can't counter-attack or you can't defend.

[MrSmegz]

This continent should be embraced as an armor map, but the bases need to be re-arranged to make it a bit more fair than, "Rule the Tech plant, Rule Esamir"

Each faction should be given a tech plant near their warpgate, providing each faction w/ easy access to Tanks to wage all out armor war with.

[Whiteagle]

What I don't like about outposts around bases in general is that they have no adjecency rules and typically get captured behind your back and again and again even if you try to retake them. Especially true for Bio Labs. You can say "well defend them!" Well sure... we try. But if you do, you die and respawn and walk back to it, it's already taken and you now have people spawning in the spawn behind you while you're in the wide open and trying to get back to a CC that's also being defended: you're in a crossfire with no backup. Those CCs of such outposts should be in buildings you have very little travel time to from their spawns and ideally should be part of a lattice to force a flow through them to get to the next area. There's so many of them, I'm not sure if that's really viable though. Either way, it's too chaotic and disconnected to organise a fight to and from a Bio Lab in particular. The other buildings are on the ground, so ther's a bit of direct flow and terrain to inch forward on. But with the Bio Lab, you can't both advance on the outpost and hold the teleport at the same time!

The teleports should be a time saving advantage you can conquer once you fought your way to the other outpost or infiltrated the facility to get reinforcements there - but it should be possible to regain control of a teleporter too. You shouldn't be handed control over both ends of it on a golden platter, that just benefits the attacker while it traps the defenders between two evils: either you can't counter-attack or you can't defend.
Aye, there in lies the rub...

The domes of the Bio Labs are great as since they are an Infantry-only battlefield (unless someone is crazy/skilled enough to pilot a fighter in there) but, because they are off the ground away from the tanks, you are limited in ways to assault them on foot.

It's especially noticeable when the teleporters aren't working...

The is double troubling for defenders as well, since you'll only be able to exit from the air-pads in that situation if you want to retake the satellite spawns.

This continent should be embraced as an armor map, but the bases need to be re-arranged to make it a bit more fair than, "Rule the Tech plant, Rule Esamir"

Each faction should be given a tech plant near their warpgate, providing each faction w/ easy access to Tanks to wage all out armor war with.
Actually, that wouldn't be a bad idea...
Switching the Bio Labs with Tech Plants would make the South Eastern corner much more valuable while making the constant struggle for the Major Facilities standing between the North Western gate and the other two actually worth while.