A Problem I Forsee With 4-Continent Lattice

[NewSith]

I'll try to be short.

The problem:
What I forsee is that with 4 continents and 3 warpgate standard there's going to be a lot of repetitive play. To illustrate:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1259&stc=1&d=1393470795

Empire A (Red) and Empire B (Blue) will always dominate Hossin, while the underpopped or landscape-disadvantaged Empire C (purple) will be attacking Empire A or Empire B, then their link will get cut, they'll be purged from Empire A's continent, then they will retake the link, and it'll repeat itself again.

My proposal is:

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1258&stc=1&d=1393470865


Make 1 warpgate on Amerish/Indar/Esamir uncapturable.
Disable 1 warpgate for each of the three.
Redesign the middle tower of Hossin to be a contestable Warpgate, setting the total count of warpgates on Hossin to 4.
Empire who hold the middle of Hossin, get one one-sided link to one of the three original continents chosen at random, their homecont included (this is optional, but I think a bit of luck factor will add to the system)
Once 5th continent is revealed and implemented into the game the central warpgate can be rebuilt back into a simple base and proper lattice can be represented.



Here's something to couple the idea with:
(based on PS1 capitol designs)

http://www.planetside-universe.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=1257&stc=1&d=1393470865


Add outpost designs into each warpgate, so it's not just an open shooting range.
Add spawnroom protection for spawns.
Keep triple adjacency rule for the warpgates.
Once a WG is link-opened, disable the shield.
Add 1-3 CPs on each warpgate that activate only after warpgate shield goes down.
Empires compete for control of a warpgate.
Once captured on one side, the other side of the warpgate loses the warpgate shield, points activate and spawnroom changes ownership (along with spawnroom painfield).
(Optional) 20-30 Second delay is issued when WG loses ownership as it then becomes neutral, but the shield remains. After that delay an instagib pulse destroys every enemy inside the warpgate, before shield goes down.*
(Optional) This is all assuming there isn't going to be vehicle zoning, otherwise area where vehicles are teleported to should also get some kind of spawn protection.

*There has to be some visible notification of it. Also the warpgate shield should go up for that delay even if the three bases on two sides belong to non-controller empires (Like 3 NC bases on one side and 3 TR bases on the other side of a VS warpgate)

[AThreatToYou]

i like this idea

it does rely on Hossin being a popular/fun cont, tho!

[NewSith]

i like this idea

it does rely on Hossin being a popular/fun cont, tho!

They can always do that to The Crown instead of Hossin's middle tower... :D:D:D

[bpostal]

Stale fighting due to static links isn't something I had thought of, but I can see how it can happen.

One of your suggestions seems a bit 'bleh' to me and that is your proposal of a random WG in the middle of Hossin. My unease isn't over the idea of having an extra WG (and thus, link) on the cont, but the randomness.
Wouldn't it be better to have the link change on a fixed schedule, similar to the geowarps? It would just seem frustrating to push onto and claim that WG, only to have the link be to somewhere stupid (not that I can think of a specific example off the top of my head).

Or perhaps making that WG similar to a broadcast gate that gives you a second link to any cont that you currently have only one link to? That may, however, put too much importance on that gate since you'd be unable to remove anyone from the cont without controlling Hossin.

As a side note, I'm fairly sure the cont to get worked on after Hossin will be Searhus. Which sounds like it's going to be awesome, with lava and everything (no idea if they're going to keep the crater in the middle).

[NewSith]

One of your suggestions seems a bit 'bleh' to me and that is your proposal of a random WG in the middle of Hossin. My unease isn't over the idea of having an extra WG (and thus, link) on the cont, but the randomness.
Wouldn't it be better to have the link change on a fixed schedule, similar to the geowarps? It would just seem frustrating to push onto and claim that WG, only to have the link be to somewhere stupid (not that I can think of a specific example off the top of my head).

I thought about that, and it works too. Just to enhance your vision, though - an Empire controlling middle of Hossin, may aswell be an empire losing their homecont at the very same moment.

But this particular thing is just a matter of what's better for PS2 - rewarding randomness or controlled rotations that can be countered and denied by organized outfits.

I prefer the first one, only due to the fact that timed warpgate rotations will have to be very frequent (game session paradigm devs frequently refer to, especially in day/night cycle talk), and it'll end up having more negative effects, rather than positive, on strategical fights.

Or perhaps making that WG similar to a broadcast gate that gives you a second link to any cont that you currently have only one link to? That may, however, put too much importance on that gate since you'd be unable to remove anyone from the cont without controlling Hossin.


This suggestion would only cause deterioration of any situation where Empire X holds its both homecont and Hossin. Since it's going to be 2 warpgates versus 1 for each of the remaining empires

[bpostal]

I suppose you're right. With only one WG to change, it'd have to be random or it would lead to the 'top WG of Indar' effect, with population shifting depending on where the central WG on Hossin is pointing. Not to mention, it'd keep everyone on their toes once the WG changes links.

I'll have to sleep on it, but the idea sounds like it'd lead to a change of pace (and allow for some proper maneuver warfare), rather than smashing ones head against the same set of bases. (like trying to take Igaluk on Cery with only a link from Solsar)

[Dougnifico]

Does the inclusion of Battle Islands change this at all? I don't feel like braining right now. lol

[bpostal]

Does the inclusion of Battle Islands change this at all? I don't feel like braining right now. lol

It shouldn't, because you don't get any new links from the BI. Think of them as pitstops along the lattice.

[Calista]

Warpgates aren't going to be warpgates for a long time. They will just be footholds like we have now. I believe Higby said warpable warpgates are way off in the future so I don't know how global lattice will function without them unless footholds will be capturable.

[Dougnifico]

It shouldn't, because you don't get any new links from the BI. Think of them as pitstops along the lattice.

Yup. Thanks. Long day of work. lol.

I propose this, make even more contine.... haha. Sorry. I could't even get that out. At least it moves the fighting from Indar for someone, and this my friends is progress.

[Blynd]

The main issue I see with this is that if your the under popped empire you are going to be stuck on your home continent all the time making you board and making the game crap.

[Blynd]

Sorry for double post but

The first pic is incorrect as purple has a li k to the center cont too and the dependant on the fight on that continent it will make the like off it what ever colour so if red went to both middle cont and blue cont and took the blue warpgate on middle cont they would have 2 wg on the blue cont.

This allows much more interesting and varied fights then your one way off home cont to hossin and to 1 other cont. So one cont is always safe from attack until the wg resets.

So I think your idea needs reworking. I can see you were trying to combat a certain senario but that leads to massive restrictions. But at least its an original idea we just need to expand it a bit :)

[NewSith]

Sorry for double post but

The first pic is incorrect as purple has a li k to the center cont too and the dependant on the fight on that continent it will make the like off it what ever colour so if red went to both middle cont and blue cont and took the blue warpgate on middle cont they would have 2 wg on the blue cont.

This allows much more interesting and varied fights then your one way off home cont to hossin and to 1 other cont. So one cont is always safe from attack until the wg resets.

So I think your idea needs reworking. I can see you were trying to combat a certain senario but that leads to massive restrictions. But at least its an original idea we just need to expand it a bit :)

Take a closer look at conditions I describe with the first pic. After learning the Indar lesson, I think we must understand, that unless maps are completely equal on three sides and pops are 33%x3, one empire can and most likely will be at a disadvantageous position, while another empire will be dominant over the other two.

The main issue I see with this is that if your the under popped empire you are going to be stuck on your home continent all the time making you board and making the game crap.

It's going to be like that in BOTH cases. But we should never forget that trinity always helps balance out single Empire dominance/underpopulation. Hence the underpoped empire will suffer in either model if two empires decide to double-team one.

However, with 1 static link from, and 1 unreliable link from Hossin, only one empire can set foot onto a an enemy homecont. The only way a threeway can happen in this case is if second enemy gets the link from Hossin's middle base. And that's part reason why I propose middle link to be random.

[Blynd]

That is a very specific scenario. S I said your idea of forcing everyone to fight on hossin to get access to another continent. That just creates hossinside for everyone as they fight over the central wg. Much like the old crown. Sorry but this suggestion will not work

[NewSith]

I said your idea of forcing everyone to fight on hossin to get access to another continent

As you wish, but having everything linked to everywhere simply removes the whole point of intercontinental lattice.

PS: as a sidenote - you can still access the other two continents, by going around the center, since my idea takes Hossin design into consideration. But that's not related to what you are saying.

[bpostal]

That is a very specific scenario. I said your idea of forcing everyone to fight on hossin to get access to another continent. That just creates hossinside for everyone as they fight over the central wg. Much like the old crown. Sorry but this suggestion will not work

And just like the old Crown, he who holds The Crown loses Indar. I think it'd add some dynamicsim (is that a word? Feels like it should be a word but Google tells me it isn't) to the lattice and break up any static fights.
Besides, given the choice between Indarside and Hossinside... I choose the continent that has the Interfarm.

[Rivenshield]

Why the hell are rotating warpgates so difficult (along with much else we had a decade ago)...

[NewSith]

Why the hell are rotating warpgates so difficult (along with much else we had a decade ago)...

Because after 7th rotation... Well, they lose their innovativeness.

[Baneblade]

Intercontinental locks should't even be attempted until Searhus.

[Timithos]

Hey guys! I see a problem! There aren't 10 continents like in Planetside 1.

Four continents is not going to work very well probably no matter what they or we think up.

Intercontinental locks should't even be attempted until Searhus.

^ Bingo ^ Even with Searhus, locking continents is silly still until there are more continents then that.

[typhaon]

I don't think challenge is really the # of continents - it's the mechanics and pace with how territory is taken and held.

[Baneblade]

I don't think challenge is really the # of continents - it's the mechanics and pace with how territory is taken and held.

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

[typhaon]

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

Why does the number of continents matter?

[bpostal]

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

I agree with your points and I don't think new players (meaning those who haven't experienced Planetside) have grasped the simple fact that just because you have half a dozen (or however many) continents, doesn't mean that you need 2000 players (or whatever) on each continent.
The way I figure it, only three conts will have active fighting on them at any given time.
Any less and you run into problems shifting the population and creating enough of a ruckus when you start up the third cont assault to get anyone to show up.
Any more and you end up with a few squads fighting each other on every cont.

To respond to Typhaon, the number of continents is important because each new continent provides the possibility for another link between every continent. That's not to say that every WG will link to every WG, but it could. It's that potential for maneuver that stops Indar (or Cyssorside) from being the only continent that to fight over.

Ideally, like I said above, you want One cont to be pop locked, one overflow cont that has enough people on it to make playing on that continent enjoyable and you need the third continent to allow for the outfits to maneuver on a strategic level.

[Blynd]

I agree with your points and I don't think new players (meaning those who haven't experienced Planetside) have grasped the simple fact that just because you have half a dozen (or however many) continents, doesn't mean that you need 2000 players (or whatever) on each continent.
The way I figure it, only three conts will have active fighting on them at any given time.
Any less and you run into problems shifting the population and creating enough of a ruckus when you start up the third cont assault to get anyone to show up.
Any more and you end up with a few squads fighting each other on every cont.

To respond to Typhaon, the number of continents is important because each new continent provides the possibility for another link between every continent. That's not to say that every WG will link to every WG, but it could. It's that potential for maneuver that stops Indar (or Cyssorside) from being the only continent that to fight over.

Ideally, like I said above, you want One cont to be pop locked, one overflow cont that has enough people on it to make playing on that continent enjoyable and you need the third continent to allow for the outfits to maneuver on a strategic level.

i agree with the dirty TR guy :D

4 conts will not make a workable latice system so there has to be more then that to make any intercontinental latice work.

[bpostal]

i agree with the dirty TR guy :D

4 conts will not make a workable latice system so there has to be more then that to make any intercontinental latice work.

Thanks, let me see if I can muddy the waters so you can get back to hating (as is proper!).

I think a 4 cont lattice is viable. It wouldn't be pretty and you'd have, at minimum, the issues brought forth in this thread crop up but we would have a lattice and hopefully proper WG functionality. I still think that the solution, with a rotating/randomized WG would help alleviate any 'staleness' while we wait on Searhus.
Creating a setup with 4 continents, however, would get people used to the idea of intercontinental lattice. My fear, if that does happen, is that people will get used to the 4 cont setup and be unable to take the next logical leap for when the global lattice is fully implemented.

[Mordelicius]

They have to flesh out the Battle Islands first (they were supposed to be the continental connectors). They said there would be multiple BIs. I also proposed a different system: http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=55871

But without seeing the other BIs, it's really hard to try to fit all the puzzle pieces in.

If they say what kind of Battle Islands are they doing:
- 2 link type.
- 3 link type?
- 4 link type or more?
Basically, the question is what kind of modular design will they apply to the Battle Islands with regards to the intercontinental lattice as they add new continents?

I do understand your point that players will gravitate towards their 'home' continent. The chief reason for this is population. In Waterson, players are going back to Indarside. There's not enough players for Amerish, especially with those major chokepoints all close to each other, the fight becomes either a population steamroll (other empires won't join) or ping-pong between Techplants or major 4-link chokepoint. Imo, they erred with the 2-concentric rings design lattice. They need to open it up some more links between the rings. That or they have to nerf the Bastion and Auraxis Firearms.

[Blynd]

Well as battle islands seem to be a thing of the past atm we can only speculate but again they would need more then just one to make any use of them between continents possible.

[Rivenshield]

I still think sanctuaries with one fixed and one randomly rotating WG would help immensely.