Uncapturable Foothold / Sactuary Hexes - Pro's and Cons

[Kipper]

Has it been confirmed (or spotted in the video) that each continent has an uncapturable foothold/sanctuary for each empire?

I just had a thought about how that could be a limiting thing - and in which case I think it would be better if they weren't included.

If, for instance, the VS foothold is in the north, the NC in the Southwest, and the TR in the Southeast, then that defines what's territory is likely to belong to each empire most of the time - because even if they get pushed back, logically, they'll try to expand back into the hexes surround their stronghold, and then the hexes nearest those, and then the base nearest to that, and so on.

In other words - each faction will nearly always retain the same territory in the same part of the map, give or take a few hexes as the front line expands and contracts.

Without uncapturable sancturaries, an empire's territory could end up being anywhere. After a few weeks, you might find TR lost everything in the southeast, but established themselves in the Northwest, for instance. The NC could be more central but completely surrounded by the other two empires and trying to push out in all directions.

Of course - I'm not advocating that an empire can be destroyed, if one loses all of the territory, I would expect to see them go back to a space-based sanctuary/dropship (or fleet of them so you don't end up with 600 people in the same location at the same time - lagdeath!) from where people can arrange a co-ordinated infantry drop into any of the hexes on the continent; the enemy won't have a clue where that's going to happen, and its going to take them completely by surprise, allowing a faction to have a chance to re-establish itself in one or more hexes/bases.

I think this would help preserve some freshness so you had a chance to be fighting over any area of the map, not just a few well used hexes that form the front line for the majority of time.

Thoughts?

[Aurmanite]

It has been confirmed, and you bring up an excellent point.

Part of the charm of Planetside (for the first year or two anyways), was that the battle always took place in a different area over a different number of bases. Sometimes your empire would be in the north, other times south, east or west.

With unconquerable strongholds you will definitely run into each empire holding the same territory.

Unless the strongholds switched once in a while like the broadcast gate system in the original.

[DManTech]

Yeah, I think this is a really good point actually. I know in PS1 there were times where we felt like we were always fighting the same battle over and over, and it does get a little annoying after a while.

The broadcast gate system from PS1 seemed to work fine, so maybe it'll be enough to somehow move the strongholds around every now and then?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by DManTech

so maybe it'll be enough to somehow move the strongholds around every now and then?

This is the most obvious solution to address the concern that maybe the fights will start to get stale. On one side, you may start to feel like certain territory is "yours" and will fight to defend it that much more fiercely, or we may end up fighting over the same strategic spots all the time.

Apart from swapping the footholds from time to time, the dynamic resources can also go a long way in keeping the "where" of the battles fresh. In any case, simply considering the territory capture system, the fights will be far more fresh far longer than they were in Planetside 1 when it was simply hop from 1 base to another with the occasional bridge battle.

[Skitrel]

Couldn't agree more with this thread, and I doubt many people will disagree with it.

[Sifer2]

Pretty much, and I don't know of too many people that actually liked the uncapturable foothold idea since it was described. PS1 had the same problem to a degree with the gateways, and continents that were closer to their Sanctuary.

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

[Alduron]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Pretty much, and I don't know of too many people that actually liked the uncapturable foothold idea since it was described. PS1 had the same problem to a degree with the gateways, and continents that were closer to their Sanctuary.

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

Do want.

[Gogita]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Pretty much, and I don't know of too many people that actually liked the uncapturable foothold idea since it was described. PS1 had the same problem to a degree with the gateways, and continents that were closer to their Sanctuary.

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

Then what if one Empire somehow loses all of its bases?

[WellWisherELF]

I think you underestimate how often fights occurred at certain bases between certain factions in Planetside 1. Of course it is to be expected that each empire will have their "home turf" which they are more apt to defend. That was always a risk you had to consider when attacking another empire's home territory: they always knew the lay of the land better than you.

That being said, I believe some PS2 staff has eluded to the fact that it will take significantly longer to capture a base which you have no connecting hexes. Taking that into consideration, I can foresee territory being exchanged in a circular fashion around the map, because recapturing the cap point that's next to your sanctuary will take an almost inordinate amount of time (maybe an hour or so). This will discourage people from constantly taking back their home foothold, unless it becomes a last resort.

[SkRiGeR]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

I would like to elaborate on this idea a bit more.

They could make it in which only certain section along side those foothold bases are capture-able if the Faction does not hold any other territories on that continent. This in turn can make multiple per say beach heads on every continent as you would with a typical assault onto a continent. This will allow the defending factions establish decent defenses to withhold attacks. Having a few surrounding zones capture-able allows the game to not have a huge static foothold battle and the factions to be able use them for flanking measures.
PS1 used The sanctuary bases and then after a lot of tweaking, the global warpagate system to use the same type of feature. Allowing each faction to already have a piece of the continent doesn't allow other nations to perform lockdowns and it also can lead to battles getting spread too thin across all the continents. Originally, PS1 had no lattice connections, Only continent specific warpgates and then the dropships. Problem as it turned out, the battles were all over the place and took people a long time to move their resources from Sanctuary to battlefronts without going through multiple continents or attempting HART drops onto one base and attempt to hold it. The other big issue was the fact that any faction could take any base on that continent which dissolved into a cluster of mini battles all over the place.

I feel that the foothold could cause the same chaotic battles in which it will cause people to not be able to work together without strict command structure in place that players can utilize easily to work out real strategy.

[Serotriptomine]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Pretty much, and I don't know of too many people that actually liked the uncapturable foothold idea since it was described. PS1 had the same problem to a degree with the gateways, and continents that were closer to their Sanctuary.

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

My last name.
I would love seeing coordinated ANYTHING in terms of taking territory back.
I wouldn't mind seeing a cooldown-able 1-3 times a week, each faction gets a "drop x people @ the border of place x within x distance of the farthest place x"

[wasdie]

Without being able to drive the faction off of a continent, I feel that a lot of the real persistence will be lost. I think right now, after a week or two, the battles are going to all play out almost identical because the enemy will always be coming from the same direction.

Beta will prove that and probably force them to make some change.

[ThGlump]

If we must have uncapturable foothold on map, let them be 6 on each map. You can have more than one, but you cant lose last one. That way you will fight for them too, and your base could be moving around.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Kipper

In other words - each faction will nearly always retain the same territory in the same part of the map, give or take a few hexes as the front line expands and contracts.

Yes, this is my prediction as well, and why I want to see those uncap locations change every few weeks or once a month so each empire gets to experience all parts of a continent and different sides of the same battle to keep the game fresh and interesting.

There are 6 potential configurations, so monthly rotation seems like it works out nicely to give two full cycles of all configurations a year.

See this post here in the idea vault where I brought the issue up before:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...ad.php?t=36782

[Raymac]

Positioning resources in different parts of the map will make different hexes more valuable at different times, greatly influencing where the fights will happen. We need to get our heads out of the old PS1 base hopping reality and imagine just how much more dynamic PS2 will be with these resources to fight over.