Question about Safe-Zones

SniperSteve · 2012-01-12, 11:37 AM

Hey all.

So I was watching Miir's video, and it showed a visualization of the capture system including the safe-zones and Hexes based on the information we have had to-date.
(Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUp1z...ature=youtu.be)

However, I did not realize until I looked at it that there is almost no Hex area to play around with. What I mean by that is if you did want to go behind enemy lines, for example, you are looking at only a few Hexes that would qualify.

If this pattern of three safe-zones are repeated on each continent, it seems to me that the feel of battle progression would be lost, and it would feel rather like battles instanced on different maps, as they would never interact with each-other. (IE: none are entirely capturable, loosing the feeling of progression from one continent to another.)

Does anyone know if the three safe-zones per continent idea is correct, and how will that lead to battle progression and continent capture as we knew it in PS1?

Crazyduckling · 2012-01-12, 11:42 AM

There are safe zones like in the video, but I don't think we know how big the hex's are.

Too me, those seem way too big. It has been said a base will be comprised of multiple hex's. That being said, you will have much more hex area to play around with behind enemy lines.

Raymac · 2012-01-12, 11:43 AM

There's almost no info on the size or configuration of the hexes at this point. Miir's video is really awesome, but I think his hexes might be on the larger side just to clearly demonstrate the concept.

SniperSteve · 2012-01-12, 11:52 AM

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

basti · 2012-01-12, 12:05 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good

Tasorin · 2012-01-12, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good

I feel the same way about beach head safe zones on each continent. Until they actually start revealing the core game mechanics and ample information to explain how it works the verdict is still out.

SOE has a lot of explaining to do about how most of the core game mechanics are going to work.

If I were to list them out in no particular order:
1) Capture/Control System
2) What does F2P really mean
3) Implementation of the Cash Store
4) Freemium Account structure
5) Resource allocation and acquisition
6) BETA ... BETA ... BETA

Raymac · 2012-01-12, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by basti

Continents cant be captured 100%.

Yes, it sounds awful, and i dont understand this as well, but higby told me to just wait till they reveal it all, and that i would like the new system. He may be an NC, but i trust that guy. If he says i propably like it, then the devs have something good

I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I always felt the biggest downtimes in the game were around the continent captures. Most of the time, the losing empire saw the writing on the wall and would abandon a contient for another fight leaving the winning empire a huge 9:1 pop ratio to clean up the last few bases. Then you had a bunch of downtime as the CRs bickered on where to go next. Then many times when you attack a new continent, the enemy wouldn't put up any sort of resistance until you took a couple bases.

All in all, there could easily be over an hour of boring as shit downtime around a continent capture, all for just making it change a color on the global map. I think it's highly overrated.

Vash02 · 2012-01-13, 07:56 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

I think I'm in the minority on this one, but I always felt the biggest downtimes in the game were around the continent captures. Most of the time, the losing empire saw the writing on the wall and would abandon a contient for another fight leaving the winning empire a huge 9:1 pop ratio to clean up the last few bases. Then you had a bunch of downtime as the CRs bickered on where to go next. Then many times when you attack a new continent, the enemy wouldn't put up any sort of resistance until you took a couple bases.

All in all, there could easily be over an hour of boring as shit downtime around a continent capture, all for just making it change a color on the global map. I think it's highly overrated.

I think this is more of symptons of low population rather than a flaw with the mechanics.
When the game is released and there are thousands of people on per server you probably wont get that long downtime.

CutterJohn · 2012-01-13, 08:34 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

HUA on the Hex size.

Second question is that what's up with the safe zones. Does that mean a continent can never be captured? Won't it be a pain constantly stationing troops outside their safe-zone base to babysit them from taking the continent back?

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?

They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

acosmo · 2012-01-13, 09:55 PM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?

They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

well, it'll be fun to figure out how to rape the entire map until the playerbase is unconscious.

ringring · 2012-01-14, 06:38 AM

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

Did you station guards next to a warpgate in PS? Even when they had a lattice link?

They've already said that links to surrounding bases would make the capture time go up, while enemy links to that base would make it go down. Capping a base with no friendly links(and I doubt the uncappable base will count) will take something like 30 minutes. There could even be an additional bonus for having an entire continent capped, meaning it would take even longer to take. Meanwhile the previous owners could cap it back in 30s.

Yes, we did and do even now. Not continuously but when we knew the NC/VS are looking or will be looking for a fight.

We'd also 'CE up' the linked bases.

We'd also choose our targets based on the linked bases the other two empires had to us. e.g. if we attack NC what will the VS do? Oh noes, once they cap the cont they are on presently their only option will be to attack a cont of ours!

Soooo, I'm with the general opinion on this thread in that never being able to lock a cont sounds just wrong, however I guess we need to fully understand gameplay before coming to a definative conclusion.

CutterJohn · 2012-01-14, 09:47 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

Soooo, I'm with the general opinion on this thread in that never being able to lock a cont sounds just wrong, however I guess we need to fully understand gameplay before coming to a definative conclusion.

How do you figure? I'm betting locking a continent gives some nice bennies, obviously one of which is to make it really hard for an enemy to cap a base there.

Indeed, I imagine that sometime soon after the game begins, each empire will, quite unofficially, have its home home continent or two, that they aggressively defend because that is theirs, goddammit!

Which also means it will be a great source of pride to cap it away from them.

acosmo · 2012-01-12, 12:13 PM

i think ps2 should punish factions who get pushed back to their sancs.

SniperSteve · 2012-01-12, 12:19 PM

Yeah, I don't like the sound of it. I guess it will work similarly to broadcast warpgates??

Anyway. So here is one possible reason why it needs to be that way.

The TR get their stuff together and totally own one morning while the VS and NC are sleeping. Thus they both get pushed back to one continent each by dinner time. Since they can only spawn on the one remaining continent, they are limited to 1000 people logging on for that server, but 5000 people want to play, and are locked out until they break out into the second continent.

Miir · 2012-01-12, 01:00 PM

The size of the hexes in the video were chosen for simplicity. They said some bases with be 5-7 hexes in size. So hexes will likely be closer to Dvidd's map size.

It looks like the warp gates will be the new safe zones. If you zoom in and you can structures in there. (see attached)