Let's do 4-way continent locking before battle islands release

[Rolfski]

Disclaimer: This topic is based on the assumption that we have to wait a lot longer after Hossin release before seeing any intercontinental metagame.
I also didn't play PS1, so I don't know how intercontinental systems work in that game.

The latest dev AMA session on reddit (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=57485) felt depressing. Because according to SOE's schedule, with the first new Hossin map out by summer 2014, we're probably not seeing any meaningful game until very late 2014, when we have finally 4 continents plus battle islands and an intercontinental strategic layer (https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/unscheduled-continent-locking.82996/) in place.
This annoys the heck out of me, seriously. This game has such an amazing and unique strategic potential but the devs seem to have serious problems delivering it in a timely matter. So here's a short cut idea: 4-way continental locking until the battle islands are released.

It looks like this and the arrows show Warpgate connections that can be captured:

http://i.imgur.com/QWyWJ5z.png

How does this work?
When you lock a Warpgate (capturing its surrounding bases) it becomes yours. But here's the twist: The Warpgate connected to it on the other side becomes yours as well PLUS the surrounding bases on that continent. This means the moment you lock a Warpgate, you will instantly gain a foothold with starting bases on the other continent.

Here's how that would look:

http://i.imgur.com/WK6wUqc.png

Example: TR Indar lock
If TR would capture all bases on Indar it will then flip the connected Warpgates on Esamir, Hossin and Amerish to the TR, PLUS the bases directly linked to it. So for Esamir, TR will automatically get a foothold that consist of the North Western Warpgate PLUS the connecting bases Haven Outpost, Crystal Ridge Comm Array and Palos Solar Array.


Why doing it this way?

Adding depth while waiting for battles islands not only is a fresh angle for the players, it gives devs a good learning/tweaking ground as well.
Does not require a Warpgate design overhaul: Deliberately leaving out Warpgates as a contestable place means devs can spend their precious time on more important things.
This system allows for only one empire to have a continent lock at any given time, which means enough maps for everybody to fight on. With this set up you can be pretty much assured to fight on multiple continents unless you're getting ganged upon.
It has potential for interesting dynamics. It encourages factions to drive out the "invaders" on their home continent to open up new continents to fight on. While at the same time, it gives options to bring the fight to the enemy doorstep by going "the Hossin route".


Bonus rule: Locking someone's home Warpgate will have these two emirpires switch Warpgates.
People are complaining all the time about not having access to their favourite Warpgate for a long time. Now, you have to fight for it.

[Carbon Copied]

Instantly capping territory on a continent you're not on seems wrong as the opposition could start capping this back before you've even zoned through or simply camp it out leaving a never ending bounce of control over 6 zoning territories? Even worse if populations are skewed it gives the winner; more "win" and initial steam roll momentum surely?

The use of the Sanctuary model ala PS1 battle islands or not should definitely be considered - even if it's a basic cookie cutter muster point like the VR environment in it's initial incarnation.

[Sledgecrushr]

I love the idea Rolfski. All I would do is not give adjacent territory for a warp gate capture. We want to have to fight for every inch of territory.

[Rolfski]

I love the idea Rolfski. All I would do is not give adjacent territory for a warp gate capture. We want to have to fight for every inch of territory.
So how would you do it then?

The whole idea here is to get us already deeper game play when Hossin is released without having to wait another fricking half year for stuff that takes ages to develop like battle islands, Sanctuaries, contestable Warpgates, etc.

The best idea I could come up with to make that happen is instant territory grab on the other side because it has two important advantages:

It doesn't change the current Warpgate lock mechanic = no developer effort.
It prevents multiple empires to have a lock at the same time. This is an important mechanic because the last thing you want with a 4-way system is for every empire to lock its own home continent, forcing everybody to fight on Hossin all the time.

[Qwan]

Nice idea, but I have would leave the warpgates open. I mean just let the lattice run threw the warpgate to a connected base on the other side. And if you take said base this will stop the enemy from having a link on your continent. More or less like the PS1 capture system when it comes to warpgates.

[ringring]

That's pretty much he PS1 system with the exception of there warpgates didn't have buildings and spawnpoints etc. it was a warpgates and nothing else. What happened was that you simply got a lalink to the warpgate and then to the first connected base that you could then attack.

Instead of warpgates with spawnpoints and terminals we had sanctuaries which still seem to me to be the best idea.

With regard to your lattice you need to consider what happens if and empire is kick out of all continents and back to their initial warpgate. How are they able to fight back.

In ps1 we had sanctuaries and two permanent links to two 'home continents' so at least in the worst case scenarios the empire can fight back on two fronts.

At sometime someone will try to zero base another empire, and at sometime it will happen, probably in low pop times, ie during the early hours. In general this is a good thing, but with too few continents it is also a problem.

[AuntLou]

So here is the deal... you can't have 2 warpgates connected to 1 warpgate.
If you have 2 connecting to 1 then you would have the potential of 2 factions sharing the same warpgate. So here is how I think you would have to do it:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/picture.php?albumid=204&pictureid=528

*Each colored(not green) warpgate is a faction's home warpgate.

P.S. I tried to make the continents look like the actual continents in game but I couldn't get them squarer.

[Rolfski]

Nice idea, but I have would leave the warpgates open. I mean just let the lattice run threw the warpgate to a connected base on the other side. And if you take said base this will stop the enemy from having a link on your continent. More or less like the PS1 capture system when it comes to warpgates.

How would that work? Let's use the example in this topic: TR captures all connecting bases to the Indar SE Warpgate and thus opens up a lattice connection to Esamir NW Warpgate.

What would happen if you leave these Warpgates open? TR could walk from Indar to Esamir to capture Haven Outpost in order to lock Indar, right? But what could NC do in the meantime? Could they walk over to Indar as well until Haven Outpost is capped? Would they fight TR within the Warpgates? Who gets the spawn within these Warpgates? And what if NC has all surrounding bases capped on Esamir while TR has them capped on Indar? Stalemate? NC and TR camping eachothers exit teleporters?



With regard to your lattice you need to consider what happens if and empire is kick out of all continents and back to their initial warpgate. How are they able to fight back.

In ps1 we had sanctuaries and two permanent links to two 'home continents' so at least in the worst case scenarios the empire can fight back on two fronts.

At sometime someone will try to zero base another empire, and at sometime it will happen, probably in low pop times, ie during the early hours. In general this is a good thing, but with too few continents it is also a problem.

I hear you worries, therefore my bonus rule: Home locking causes an instant Warpgate switch between the two empires involved . It could either mean a full territory switch as well or otherwise a reset of some form.
Btw: My experience so far in this game is that it is pretty hard to keep an empire completely locked in his Warpgate. With this new system that would be almost impossible. If in this example TR would home lock NC, it means that the total TR population on that server would be spread out over multiple continents where all of NC population on that server would be at the home Warpgate. They would certainly break out with a huge zerg because they have nowhere to go.

So here is the deal... you can't have 2 warpgates connected to 1 warpgate.
If you have 2 connecting to 1 then you would have the potential of 2 factions sharing the same warpgate. So here is how I think you would have to do it:


Actually, you can have 2 Warpgates connected to one. The trick is that if a Warpgate gets captured, the other connection to it gets lost. In my example the Esamir NW Warpgate loses its connection with Hossin the moment it gets capped from Indar.

How would your example work btw if we have only three Warpgates per continent?

[AuntLou]

Actually, you can have 2 Warpgates connected to one. The trick is that if a Warpgate gets captured, the other connection to it gets lost. In my example the Esamir NW Warpgate loses its connection with Hossin the moment it gets capped from Indar.

What happens when they are capped at the same time? Why would you want to cap it right before another is about to cap? You want to play the game of WAIT WAIT WAIT don't cap this last base yet cause they are about to take the warpgate so if we take it seconds after it will be ours instead?


How would your example work btw if we have only three Warpgates per continent?

Devs would have to move/add. If you look at Indar the areas to do such a thing are already in the out of bounds areas.

[Rivenshield]

I still say we need sanctuaries with rotating warp gates. That way we can attack anywhere, at any time. We will have to think strategically. It will be possible to sanc-lock an enemy. It will give us a hidey-hole to retreat, regroup, and counterattack from.

Or we can just go with the same boring game of continental ring-around-the-rosey we have now, with custody of a given warp gate changing hands at regular boring intervals in a regular boring counter-clockwise direction. Introducing a continental lattice is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.

[Rolfski]

What happens when they are capped at the same time? Why would you want to cap it right before another is about to cap? You want to play the game of WAIT WAIT WAIT don't cap this last base yet cause they are about to take the warpgate so if we take it seconds after it will be ours instead? This idea actually works the other way around and for the better imo. If in this case TR is about to cap Indar, while NC is doing the same on Esamir, they're both going to rush who locks it first. Because if TR locks it first, NC immediately loses 3 bases on Esamir and their locking work has been lost for a big part because they now they have to cap back these 3 bases again.


Devs would have to move/add. If you look at Indar the areas to do such a thing are already in the out of bounds areas.
Besides the question of a complete 3 continent overhaul being realistic (I definitely think it's not), it would defeat the purpose of this whole idea which is getting strategic intercontinental play as soon as possible.

I still say we need sanctuaries with rotating warp gates.Whether Sanctuaries are the best solution or not, we would have to wait at least another year for that to happen. This idea is about adding strategic depth in the meantime.


Introducing a continental lattice is a means to an end, not an end unto itself.True but the same goes Sanctuaries. I'm just looking for (temporary) solutions to provide us more meaningful Risk-like game play sooner rather than later, which is the core promise of this game that is still not delivered to us.

[Carbon Copied]

Sanctuaries wouldn't really be that much work though would they as mentioned above there is the VR model that could be adjusted in mere minutes (balancing isn't exactly the requirement is it) not a year of "development" to accommodate a warp gate gate zoning spire - 2 break out routes to the accompanying continents have links to the prime warp gate from one and the "hardest" on the other for asymmetrical continent balance cross factions. If they want to rotate the sanctuaries on a per month basis after it'd mean no one empire still gets "the best or worst" warp gate just a change of starting scene.

[AuntLou]

This idea actually works the other way around and for the better imo. If in this case TR is about to cap Indar, while NC is doing the same on Esamir, they're both going to rush who locks it first. Because if TR locks it first, NC immediately loses 3 bases on Esamir and their locking work has been lost for a big part because they now they have to cap back these 3 bases again.

Lets say TR is about to lock Hossin and NC lock Esamir. Both want to head to Amerish and fight the VS right after. TR locks Hossin first and heads to Amerish. NC now has to recap the bases lost from Hossin capping, takes them 15 minutes and they then cap Esamir. TR looses 3 bases adjacent to a warpgate on Amerish, a continent they just entered 15 minutes earlier, not good. On top of that wouldn't they loose their resource connections?


Besides the question of a complete 3 continent overhaul being realistic (I definitely think it's not), it would defeat the purpose of this whole idea which is getting strategic intercontinental play as soon as possible.

I think "complete 3 continent overhaul" is quite the exaggeration but yes I agree it would take more time. Considering the time it's taking them to get continents out it might be worth it. It doesn't seem worth the time to you because you favor your idea more obviously.

[Rivenshield]

Sanctuaries wouldn't really be that much work though would they as mentioned above there is the VR model that could be adjusted in mere minutes
Yes, yes, YES. I've been pushing this idea since the VR areas came out. Stick a fixed WG and a rotating WG on it, drop it on a smallish island in the ocean, and call it good.

If they want to rotate the sanctuaries on a per month basis after it'd mean no one empire still gets "the best or worst" warp gate just a change of starting scene.
Hell no. ROTATE THE WARP GATES. That's another proven mechanic that seems to have fallen by the wayside. Rotating WG's let you fight different opponents over the same ground. It also lets you fight them in different directions, thereby making it *new* ground. On top of that, it lets you choose when and where to attack. It forces the zerg to think strategically, which is a helluva lot of fun and part of what makes Planetside a cut above the FPS crowd.

All of which is effectively new content, for free, rather than plodding through gametime as we do now with the same empire perpetually on our right and the same on our left, fighting through the same channels in the same portion of the lattice against the same enemy every. Frigging. TIME. Just in one- or two-month increments.

[Carbon Copied]

I don't know if you read my post wrong Rivenshield but what I was attempting to say is to rotate the starting sanctuaries: thus the initial warp gate links would change regardless because you've "moved".

[GeoGnome]

I would say the easiest way to allow for warpgate capture is already IG right now: The Nexus warpgate facilities. Basically you have a building infront of the warpgate, and that is where you spawn in. If you capture this facility you get access to That warpgate, and you can warp accross to the facility to the warpgate your warpgate connects to, so now you must capture it before you can spawn there and get a foothold on another continent.

So the events progress like this:

Capture warpgate nexus on the SE corner of Indar.
-You can now transport to the NW warpgate on Hossin.
Push out from the Hossin warpgate shield dome and capture the warpgate nexus on Hossin, now you have the ability to spawn on Hossin in the nexus.


Also this brings back the 100% capture means 100% capture thing, whereas 75% capture means getting access to the continent's bonus... Which makes sense again.

[NewSith]

It eludes me why wargates should be capturable, really. Why not just make it so that if you have all the adjacent bases to a warpgate, you can hack the adjacent bases on the other side of the said warpgate. No need for buildings and spawns inside it, if we are going to have 3 uncapturable warpgates on 3 separate continents.

[kubacheski]

It eludes me why wargates should be capturable, really. Why not just make it so that if you have all the adjacent bases to a warpgate, you can hack the adjacent bases on the other side of the said warpgate. No need for buildings and spawns inside it, if we are going to have 3 uncapturable warpgates on 3 separate continents.

Isn't that the truth. So with only 4 conts, how can you lock a cont other than your own and the one that's in the middle? Can't happen. Which is why Sanctuaries make sense. They're on the opposite side of a warpgate. The Sanctuary had 3 Warpgates to 3 different continents, so if one of the adjacant cont's was locked, you could easily spew out the other 2.

I think there was only once that I can recall where any faction was pushed back to it's sanctuary and that was TR when there was a spawn bug. If you died, you couldn't get back in so it was a bug anyway.

Now listen, all of these continent locking and intercontinental lattice ideas that are being tossed around have been implemented in PS1 for a decade. The process is well known to vets and SOE. Is it just me or is it odd that this thread is discussing mechanics that have been used for the past 10 years.

The trouble isn't with any kind of lock or what constitutes a controlled warpgate. The trouble is that every continent is instanced. Even if you connect the conts, there simply isn't any way to flow around them on multiple fronts that eventually will intersect into a 3 way battle for a base or continent. There simply aren't enough continents.

Heck why not take each of these 3 conts and flip them on an axis so its inverted or some such thing to create the illusion of another place until more can be created. 4 continents with a faction Warpgate on each isn't anywhere in the same ball park as 12+ continents, 6 caverns and 3 proper Sanctuaries.

Compare this image to the ones of 4 continents earlier in this thread:
http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/NewAuraxianMegaMap_Lattice.jpg

Considering the continental lattice is mulitple also, how many possible pathways do you suppose there are between any two factions's Sanctuaries?

When SOE says "Size Always Matters", it's true, they just dont always apply that to PS2 like they should.

[Rolfski]

Lets say TR is about to lock Hossin and NC lock Esamir. Both want to head to Amerish and fight the VS right after. TR locks Hossin first and heads to Amerish. NC now has to recap the bases lost from Hossin capping, takes them 15 minutes and they then cap Esamir.
Except it doesn't take them 15 min. If TR locks Hossin, they are going to heavily defend it.


I think "complete 3 continent overhaul" is quite the exaggeration but yes I agree it would take more time. Considering the time it's taking them to get continents out it might be worth it. It doesn't seem worth the time to you because you favor your idea more obviously.
Adding an extra Warpgate to the existing continents can be considered a complete overhaul, no matter how you look at it. You literally have to create a new game flow, move everything and design a new 4 way lattice from scratch.

I would say the easiest way to allow for warpgate capture is already IG right now: The Nexus warpgate facilities. Basically you have a building infront of the warpgate, and that is where you spawn in. If you capture this facility you get access to That warpgate, and you can warp accross to the facility to the warpgate your warpgate connects to, so now you must capture it before you can spawn there and get a foothold on another continent.
You would need to design such a base on the current continents, so no quick solution here after Hossin release while waiting for the battle islands.

[kubacheski]

Adding an extra Warpgate to the existing continents can be considered a complete overhaul, no matter how you look at it. You literally have to create a new game flow, move everything and design a new 4 way lattice from scratch.


Any intercontinental connection will require this whether it's 3 or 4 the game flow will change and need to be looked at for balance. I do agree 4 would be more difficult than 3 to implement, but both are going to require some serious development time to balance and adjust anything they need to.

[AuntLou]

Except it doesn't take them 15 min.

True it actually would take less time if they prepare themselves to take the bases lost.

If TR locks Hossin, they are going to heavily defend it.

Doesn't matter whether or not TR wants to heavily defend Hossin or not. Not going to sit here and debate if a whole faction wants to sit at a continent's warpgate and camp for hours on end since it has nothing to do with my point. Like I said they are heading to Amerish after they are done capping Hossin.

Not sure if you didn't read my example correctly or just avoided the problems because you don't have an answer to them. Going to past it here again:

"Lets say TR is about to lock Hossin and NC lock Esamir. Both want to head to Amerish and fight the VS right after. TR locks Hossin first and heads to Amerish. NC now has to recap the bases lost(on Esamir) from Hossin capping, takes them 15 minutes and they then cap Esamir. TR looses 3 bases adjacent to a warpgate on Amerish, a continent they just entered 15 minutes earlier, not good. On top of that wouldn't they loose their resource connections?""


Adding an extra Warpgate to the existing continents can be considered a complete overhaul, no matter how you look at it. You literally have to create a new game flow, move everything and design a new 4 way lattice from scratch.


Complete continent overhaul would include EVERYTHING and obviously it would require everything changed. I could sit here and list everything that wouldn't have to be changed if you really want. For example the whole southern half of Indar wouldn't have to be touched. That's just 1 example of how your wrong yet your saying "no matter how you look at it".

Listen man I'm not saying my idea is perfect, yes half of each continent's lattice would have to be reworked. If you could figure your way without having multiple gates connecting to 1 I'd be all for it.

[Wahooo]

Sanctuaries and WG's that are not foot holds need to come back for cross continental warfare.

All I see with 4 continents and capturable foothold style warp gates is 1 faction is constantly going to be double teamed on their home continent. This will only change when both of the other two empires collectively lose interest in fighting on that continent. I look at the possible examples by both Rolfski and Louey on the first page and I think, you know on Waterson VS will almost never see Hossin.

The difference in battle flow with the limited number of continents just highlights how hard it will be, similar to the PS1 with low population number, only in PS1 when the pop numbers became silly low you could at least group up and travel through the WGs to get to a fight you didn't actually have a connection to, drain a base and start a fight.
With footholds, it doesn't much matter the actual links and rotations the low pop empire is going to get pushed back and double teamed. Not 100% of the time, but enough that it will be un-fun and hurt the low pop empire's population even more.

[Rolfski]

Not sure if you didn't read my example correctly or just avoided the problems because you don't have an answer to them. Going to past it here again:

"Lets say TR is about to lock Hossin and NC lock Esamir. Both want to head to Amerish and fight the VS right after. TR locks Hossin first and heads to Amerish. NC now has to recap the bases lost(on Esamir) from Hossin capping, takes them 15 minutes and they then cap Esamir. TR looses 3 bases adjacent to a warpgate on Amerish, a continent they just entered 15 minutes earlier, not good. On top of that wouldn't they loose their resource connections?""

The answer to this varies on the question: On which other continent besides Esamir does the NC already have a foothold the moment Hossin gets locked?
Because Warpgate connections get lost once you capture them (to prevent 2 empires sharing a single warpgate), there are variable outcomes.

Let's discus this situation for instance:

NC has a foothold on Indar and Hossin but Esamir NE is in hands of the VS. NC are about to cap it so they can lock Esamir and go to Amerish.
TR has a foothold on Amerish NW and is about to lock Hossin by capturing Hossin NE and Hossin S.

The situation would look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/sYxnuBr.png

Now if TR takes Hossin S from the NC and Hossin NE from the VS first (Hossin lock), the situation is going to look like this:

http://i.imgur.com/RTXIuaQ.png

Notice that footholds on Indar (NC) and Esamir (VS) are now isolated (both Empires can still spawn there but the connection is lost).

The NC has a though job now if they want to go to Amerish, because locking Esamir is not going to give them access to Amerish back as is illustrated below:

http://i.imgur.com/3G4DTfx.png

For NC to go to Amerish now, they need to cap Hossin NE.

Now if NC would have locked Esamir first before the TR Hossin lock, they would have been in much better shape because they would already have a foothold on Amerish:

http://i.imgur.com/pEotHh3.png

The TR is in worse shape now with their Hossin lock because Esamir was locked by NC first, which means they missed an opportunity for an extra Amerish foothold.

http://i.imgur.com/rXP58bo.png

I hope this addresses your concerns and also illustrates that there is a intriguing potential in this system that encourages empires to race for a lock first.

Btw: There's also a more indepth discussion about this idea on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/1sb28a/strategic_intercontinental_warfare_after_hossin/), that explains various aspects in great detail and addresses some concerns.


All I see with 4 continents and capturable foothold style warp gates is 1 faction is constantly going to be double teamed on their home continent. This will only change when both of the other two empires collectively lose interest in fighting on that continent. I look at the possible examples by both Rolfski and Louey on the first page and I think, you know on Waterson VS will almost never see Hossin.

If you're "stuck" on your home continent because your faction sucks and you have a lower pop, you are still likely to break out because of sheer numbers. If you're VS waterson with Amerish as home continent and stuck on it with a population of 450 players out of the 1500 on the server (only 30%), those 450 players have only 3 lanes to push. That's a whopping 3+ platoons per lane on average. If on the other hand you are dominant TR (550 players or 37%) and find yourself fighting on 3 continents, you have on average 9 lanes to push/defend or only 1+ platoon per lane.

Long story short: You will zerg your way out of your corner, even if you're under-popped. There are 9 Warpgates in this system that can be captured. Numbers wise it should almost always be possible to get a hold on at least two of them, which means you will be fighting as VS at least on two continents most of the time.

[kubacheski]

If you're "stuck" on your home continent because your faction sucks and you have a lower pop, you are still likely to break out because of sheer numbers. If you're VS waterson with Amerish as home continent and stuck on it with a population of 450 players out of the 1500 on the server (only 30%), those 450 players have only 3 lanes to push. That's a whopping 3+ platoons per lane on average. If on the other hand you are dominant TR (550 players or 37%) and find yourself fighting on 3 continents, you have on average 9 lanes to push/defend or only 1+ platoon per lane.

Long story short: You will zerg your way out of your corner, even if you're under-popped. There are 9 Warpgates in this system that can be captured. Numbers wise it should almost always be possible to get a hold on at least two of them, which means you will be fighting as VS at least on two continents most of the time.

Rubbish. The examples are silly. The problem is simply not enought continents. You can't make the necessary circuits for armies to travel in this small space. The idea of "lanes" doesn't hold water as armies don't simply travel back and forth, they follow the path of least resistance forward. A 4 continent system with a foothold for each faction on one of the 3 outlying conts will only result in defending your lock on your cont and skirmishing over the central cont. It excessively promotes the 4th faction when a serious push starts for pushing a faction to it's warpgate.

Think of the path of least resistance. The 4 cont system will only go so far and then the resistance will become unsurmountable and suddenly you're only option is to defend the bases you've captured. And that translates into boring. You've advanced yourself into a position where you can't advance anymore so you have to dig in. You have to have a real incentive to compensate for this. PS2 doesn't have it, PS1 didn't have it either, but they didnt' get into the "push til you have to defend" position as there was enough landmass for all 3 factions to move around successfully moving forward and occasionally crossing paths with a sizeable force. Or occasionally when 3 factions' circles intersected, a large free for all. The trouble is that the path of least resistance is always there. When people feel they're not having fun, they bail for another location (or faction). The 4 cont system will only have so few places to go.

And remember, there are not 9 warpgates to capture, the gates are connected on either end. there's only 6 connections between the 4continents:
A-B,A-C,A-D,B-C,B-D,C-D
B-A is the same as A-B and is already counted. So your example of thin spread armies isn't as bad as illustrated. Also, when you're at 30%, that means 70% of the pop can come after you. And since you're pop is low already, armies will follow the path of least resistance and go for the disadvantaged faction first. In practice, the factions don't fight 50% against one and 50% against the other, when one faction is low pop and unable to resist the press, they tend to attack in tandem from 2 fronts and the low pop faction will move elsewhere. With 4 conts, you have nowhere to move, you get backed into a corner with only 1 way out of your warpgate and its surrounded by opposition forces.

Anyone (TR or VS) remember when Indar came out and NC had all the bases and it was a circle of turrets and vehicles around your warpgate? People were jumping to other conts to build up resources to buy vehicles to try to push out.

So thats another rally cry for sanctuary continents with 3 exits so that when pressed on one or two, you can exit on another. and also illustrates the need for back hacking and other ways to break lattice links behind the lines to disrupt the main front attacking you. It pulls troops to deal with the trouble or breaks the flow of resources. None of which can strategically happen in such a small space on 4 continents.

Zerg till you break through? Yea right, try doing that when you're depleting resources faster than you earn them. Eventually the seige will end with you having no ability to spawn comparable weaponry to use against an opposing force that has no issue with resources so they can kamakazi if they so choose. People will get pissed about not being able to make forward progress, hell not even able to pull a vehicle, and log off. Or jump to the "winning" team.

TOO FEW CONTINENTS. There is no question about it.

[Rolfski]

A 4 continent system with a foothold for each faction on one of the 3 outlying conts will only result in defending your lock on your cont and skirmishing over the central cont.
You apparently didn't understand my solution, because it just doesn't allow every empire to have a foothold on all other continents or for multiple empires to defend a continent lock at the same time. This prevents everybody always fighting over the central continent.

And I just don't believe in one empire locked in at his home continent all the time. Numbers wise, it's just impossible, even in your example. And in case something like that happens, I'm fairly sure that off hours game play will regularly turn around a status quo. Also don't forget that the upcoming resource overhaul will shift things drastically for cornered empires.

What is true though is that with this system, you won't always have the option to fight on every continent, but that goes for every continental lattice. In my proposed temporary solution, this is compensated with the "foothold rule" that can drastically turn around the strategic situation on the map on a dime, as is (visually) illustrated.

Imo it's an interesting dynamic that at least compensates for the lack of continents. Because don't forget, we're already fighting on too few continents. Besides Alerts, it's always Indar and Esamir atm. Amerish is just a ghost town.
Therefore, I rather have a temporary system that throws additional continents into the mix on these few continents I'm fighting on, than to have to wait another fricking year fighting on Indar and Esamir almost all the time.

[AuntLou]

I get it now however still quite confusing at first glance. Good luck to your idea!

[GeoGnome]

You would need to design such a base on the current continents, so no quick solution here after Hossin release while waiting for the battle islands.

Or you could just take the base from Nexus, and put it somewhere in the massive warpgate territory and adjust the ground surface.

[Baneblade]

Here's a thought: why make the solution worse than the problem?

We don't need dynamic warpgate ownership or 'free' territory to invade a continent.

Not to mention the entire idea that says you have to lock a continent to invade another... why should the TR need to lock Amerish to invade Hossin? All that should be required is a link. Which is simple, add a link between the gates, then the lattice that is already in place doesn't even need to change.

The only major change needed is to fix Amerish up and cut 30% of the outposts from Indar.

[Rolfski]

Not to mention the entire idea that says you have to lock a continent to invade another... why should the TR need to lock Amerish to invade Hossin?
You don't need to lock a continent to invade another, you only need a foot hold, which in my idea is at least a Warpgate plus a connecting base. In the example in this topic, the TR actually doesn't lock their own home continent Indar but still manages to lock Hossin.


All that should be required is a link. Which is simple, add a link between the gates, then the lattice that is already in place doesn't even need to change.

That's unfortunately not as simple as it sounds. A single link system between 4 continents requires at least 4 Warpgates on the continents that are not in the middle. If Hossin would be in the middle, the other 3 continents would need to be seriously overhauled to support 4 Warpgates, which defeats the purpose of this idea (easy to implement temporary solution). You would get the idea then that was made by Auntlou in this topic:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/picture.php?albumid=204&pictureid=528

Another simplification of my idea was done in a reddit discussion (http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/1sb28a/strategic_intercontinental_warfare_after_hossin/) though:

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

My issue with this system is this:
What would happen in this example if the TR from Indar are capping the Esamir NW Warpgate from the NC? The NC also lose their ability to fight on Hossin then, which would make cutting off empires way too easy imo.

I made these two connections per every Warpgate so that empires can still fight on multiple continents if they happen to lose a Warpgate.

[Baneblade]

Cutting off empires is part of the PlanetSide Metagame... always has been.

In any case, you only need to have 4 gates if you insist on keeping warpgates for 'footholds'. The foothold idea should be revised into an actual base to act as the empire's HQ. Just make it have no cap point, generators, and protect all exits with shields. It can even be a redesign of an existing facility.

[kubacheski]

Cutting off empires is part of the PlanetSide Metagame... always has been.

In any case, you only need to have 4 gates if you insist on keeping warpgates for 'footholds'. The foothold idea should be revised into an actual base to act as the empire's HQ. Just make it have no cap point, generators, and protect all exits with shields. It can even be a redesign of an existing facility.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply mirror image the existing continents. Flip the continent on an East-West and a North-South axis. This will vary the warpgate locations and mirror image the existing lattice lines for variety. with 4 continents and 2 "mirrors" each, this will allow for 12 continents with variety of biome, lattice and warpgate locations.

Thrown in a few sanctuary conts and you're off and running.

I haven't drawn it out or anything, but you have 4 variants of continents and 3 warpgates so it can be dispersed in such a way to minimize interconnectivity between "same type" continents. you don't really want Amerish to connect to the "mirrors" of itself.

I understand it can get confusing with so many conts looking so similar, but is it any less convoluted than a solution of Warpgate ownership and Warpgate swapping with other factions?

[Rolfski]

Cutting off empires is part of the PlanetSide Metagame... always has been. It's not so much the cutting off that is the problem in that solution. Imo, it is the increased danger of players being too limited in the continents they can fight on, most of the time.


In any case, you only need to have 4 gates if you insist on keeping warpgates for 'footholds'. The foothold idea should be revised into an actual base to act as the empire's HQ. Just make it have no cap point, generators, and protect all exits with shields. It can even be a redesign of an existing facility. You mean go with Auntlou's idea but just add a HQ base, right?
Interesting idea but you should be able to Warp from your HQ base. Not designing your HQ as a Warpgate would be confusing then to the average player. Which brings us back to the 4 Wargate overhaul challenge.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply mirror image the existing continents. Flip the continent on an East-West and a North-South axis. This will vary the warpgate locations and mirror image the existing lattice lines for variety. with 4 continents and 2 "mirrors" each, this will allow for 12 continents with variety of biome, lattice and warpgate locations.

Thrown in a few sanctuary conts and you're off and running.

I would actually prefer a solution like that or that they just would copy Nexus two times as placeholder battle islands, in order to finally get some real meaningful conquering going.

I'm afraid it won't be happening though. And tbh, I don't have high hopes for other temporary solutions, like the one I'm suggesting here, either.
Next year around this time, we're probably still stuck playing the same continental game as we're doing now, which kinda depresses me.

[Baneblade]

Calling what we have now 'warpgates' is more confusing. I also reject the notion that we should be able to go directly to the continent of choice (from the HQ) outside of instant action or squad spawning.

[Rolfski]

Not being able to warp from your HQ to any connected Warpgate, but instead being forced to travel their first in order to switch continents, would be frustrating game design. It would force you into an ESF to fly to your connecting Warpgate and after you switch continents you have to waste resources again on another ESF to get where you want to be.

That would be unacceptable for most players. Your HQ needs to have warp capabilities and therefore needs some sort of Warpgate design. Not to mention that it would also need parade/ safe area terrain, which forces it into a shielded dome design anyway in your solution.

[ringring]

Not being able to warp from your HQ to any connected Warpgate, but instead being forced to travel their first in order to switch continents, would be frustrating game design. It would force you into an ESF to fly to your connecting Warpgate and after you switch continents you have to waste resources again on another ESF to get where you want to be.

That would be unacceptable for most players. Your HQ needs to have warp capabilities and therefore needs some sort of Warpgate design. Not to mention that it would also need parade/ safe area terrain, which forces it into a shielded dome design anyway in your solution.
Ps1 had similar at first. Of course there was no resource restriction and your could mount up in sanc and fly all the way without losing the vehicles between warping.

The fact you maybe had to traverse several continents in order to reach the continent you intended to attack did give a much greater sense of scale.

However they introduced broadcast warpgates which would allow to to warp from one BCW to any other provided there was a link. That was much better.

BTW, in PS1 you could travel through any warpgate no matter who owned, this meant that you could travel by roundabout routes if you really wanted to. I don't see why PS2 shouldn't also be able to do this.

[capiqu]

WE NEED MORE CONTINENTS!!!!! I see no reason for SOE not being able to develop 1 new continent every six months. especially when Planetside launched with 10 continents. I'm sorry but SOE is failing.

[kubacheski]

WE NEED MORE CONTINENTS!!!!! I see no reason for SOE not being able to develop 1 new continent every six months. especially when Planetside launched with 10 continents. I'm sorry but SOE is failing.

As much as I want to agree with your logic, the comparison of continents with PS1 isnt exactly fair as the quality of the terrain (in elevation gradients as well as graphics) is so superior in PS2.

But yea, SOE needs to put a small team together that is focused only on continent design.

[Rolfski]

WE NEED MORE CONTINENTS!!!!! I see no reason for SOE not being able to develop 1 new continent every six months.

Amen to that. There needs to be a solid balance between improving current stuff (good for keeping players happy) and adding new stuff (good for attracting new players) to keep the game fresh. Right now, this balance is way off the mark.

In a market where players just expect 4 DLC's/map packs a year, releasing a continent every 6 months is just the bare minimum.

[igster]

I don't understand why SOE can't even implement some of the far simpler stuff that in my eyes are actually bugs in the game right now - without putting in continent locking. The two things I'll mention have been holes since the beta and I can't believe they've not been sorted.

- Taking your vehicle from continent to continent.

OK This is the simplest of all of the issues with the game now. Only way between continents is the 'bodge job' of a terminal at the warp gate. Tell me what is the concept of a 'warpgate' which warps sod all.
The game is a resource game. I've just pulled a scythe... my sl wants me to move to resecure on another continent... oh I've not got the resources - I cant go.

- Respeccing your vehicle at a vehicle terminal

I've just pulled a tank and accidentally pressed the wrong loadout / scope. Oh I can't pull another since it will put me on a timer or it will use resources that I don't have. Oh .. ok .. i'll have to sit in the wg until I get the timer ticking by or enough resources.

This is also a pre-requisite for moving from different temperate zones - I go from indar to esamir and I've got a grassland coloured camo. What should I do?

Apparently it's difficult to do? Er.. how is that difficult to do it's not any new major features it is just instancing objects in the game world - it is being done for the infantry.

If that is difficult to implement then there is some code here in a shocking state.

BTW I am a professional coder so I do understand when some things are deemed difficult that don't appear at first sight. However, there is no new functionality here - and if this is difficult to do then something is very wrong.


..
Not putting these gameplay features in is an indication that the real gameplay issues that get identified when you actually play the game for real
These type of features are building blocks of the current game that have been overlooked and some of these are foundation stones for continental lattices and moving the fight around from continent to continent.

For me, these gameplay issues are not being spotted or actioned - perhaps the guys setting the priorities for what gets done are the marketing guys and the design team who are actually not playing this game.
It's obviously low on the priority list because it's not shiny and headline grabbing but is a fundamentally massive hole in the gameplay.

I'm going to cross post this to the planetside forum in the vain hope that someone setting priorities for what gets changed notices.