Sanctuaries and "Beach heads" Poll and discussion

[Peacemaker]

I wouldn't like to see Beachheads on every continent. I'd rather see home continents which had one empires beachhead (one per empire that rotate weekly), three neutral continents that have no beacheads, and the rest would rotate with more than one beach head (VS on NC, NC on TR, TR on VS, and one threeway)

[Twiggeh]

In agreement that they shouldn't be on every continent.

I'd like to keep the concept of a sanctuary, but it really depends on how beachheads are implemented.

I also think there should still be some kind of "home continent" concept. For some people there was a sense of pride in keeping your homeland safe. God I miss Forseral.

[Captain1nsaneo]

The fear that beachheads brings is that conts will be uncapturable. If the goal is to keep a presence of all 3 empires on all conts then the territory near the beachheads will rarely be fought over. For example the sanc gates in PS mean that bases like Horus and Mulak are hardly visited. I'd recommend that all beachheads be capturable and allow for there to be an actual LOSS by one side. Having the knowledge that there is no safe haven can be a wonderful motivator. If a side does lose everything let them spawn in at any tower and be able to hack any base. I know the 'hack any base' rule was a fall back of a side lost all its bases in PS at some point.

[NCLynx]

I went with the beachhead concept, but I don't think every empire should have one on every continent.

Now of course on launch and in Beta (unless something has changed) we'll only have the one continent (maybe 2?). However as they release more it wouldn't be hard to say "This empire thought it would be more beneficial to move their *sanc equivalent* to *new continent*". Over time we have ONE beach head on ONE continent and after each empire had one on a different continent then I'd like to see continents with NO beach heads.

It would have to still have a slight for of lattice to it but instead of base to base you would simply have to own something like 85% of the continent before moving onto one with no beach heads?

I'm tired so some of this may make no sense at all.

[MgFalcon]

Originally Posted by NCLynx

I went with the beachhead concept, but I don't think every empire should have one on every continent.

Now of course on launch and in Beta (unless something has changed) we'll only have the one continent (maybe 2?). However as they release more it wouldn't be hard to say "This empire thought it would be more beneficial to move their *sanc equivalent* to *new continent*". Over time we have ONE beach head on ONE continent and after each empire had one on a different continent then I'd like to see continents with NO beach heads.

It would have to still have a slight for of lattice to it but instead of base to base you would simply have to own something like 85% of the continent before moving onto one with no beach heads?

I'm tired so some of this may make no sense at all.

This is an amazing compromise I would be willing to do. Having the pride of one or two home Continents with a single beach head for the pertaining Empire. I.e. Amerish and Esamir would only have ONE beach head each, and solely for the VS.

I just really want Home Continent pride lol!

[Raymac]

Sactuaries and Cont Locks are both waaaay overrated.

1) We don't need a whole separate zone to fulfill the role that Sancs do in PS1. It would make much more sense to have everything you need on the continent you are already on. It's a waste of space and stupid. Plus with the size of the new bases with force domes, needing a whole zone is redundant.

2) I've said it in another thread but it bears repeating here I think. Cont Locks suck. More often than not, the losing empire ditches out before it is over leaving the last 15-30 mins a lopsided 9:1 fight. This is crap gameplay.

Plus, in a war game with a persistant world, there will never be a winner. Yes, you win battles, but you never win the war. So "winning" bases, towers, and territory is enough. Cont locks actually slow down gameplay. They are the reason for most of the boring downtime in the game. Fight where the fight is.

[Xyntech]

Sanctuaries and cont locks are overrated. Cont locks made for fun pseudo "win" moments, but that can be replaced by other dynamics.

Having home continents is not overrated.

NCLynx's idea is perfect. I actually hope that we start with at least 3 continents so that each one will be a home continent. 4 would be even better, so that we start with one free for all continent.

As for cont locking, I think pushing somebody back to their beachhead will be good enough.

[CplVars]

Originally Posted by MgFalcon

. I.e. Amerish and Esamir would only have ONE beach head each, and solely for the VS.

I want Forseral and Ceryshen back. Solsar and Hossin blow.

[Sifer2]

Personally I think removing Sanctuaries is a bad call. This is an MMO after all and one feature they all share is some place for people to come together. That's what kind of worries me about most of their game changes is they seem to be trying to make it less an MMO and more Battlefield.

If I remember correctly the real thing that slowed gameplay was hack times. I don't see how replacing Sanct's with footholds will in any way speed up the process of getting your squad together. I guess they are slightly closer to their destination but meh warpgates got you close enough.

And the big downside here is it removes one of the few senses of victory the original game had where you could completely capture a continent an feel like you won. I would rather the footholds be space stations or offshore ships or something. Anything but safezones that deny you the fun of total victory.

[HELLFISH88]

Originally Posted by CplVars

I want Forseral and Ceryshen back. Solsar and Hossin blow.

Thems fighting words.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Sifer2

big downside here is it removes one of the few senses of victory the original game had where you could completely capture a continent an feel like you won. I would rather the footholds be space stations or offshore ships or something. Anything but safezones that deny you the fun of total victory.

Quoted for truth. With all three empires having invulnerable outposts on most/all continents -- which is what it sounds like they're doing, unless I seriously misunderstood something -- you certainly facilitate the process of getting people to do battle with each other. But it robs you of any sense of 'victory', even in the temporary sense.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Quoted for truth. With all three empires having invulnerable outposts on most/all continents -- which is what it sounds like they're doing, unless I seriously misunderstood something -- you certainly facilitate the process of getting people to do battle with each other. But it robs you of any sense of 'victory', even in the temporary sense.

I can't buy that at all. I get a MUCH bigger sense of victory after winning a hard fought base than I do being bored sitting around as we finish off a continent lock because it almost always ends in a hugely lopsided population advantage.

I know it looks cute when a map changes color and all, but gameplay-wise, continent locks suck and kill the flow of battle.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I can't buy that at all. I get a MUCH bigger sense of victory after winning a hard fought base than I do being bored sitting around as we finish off a continent lock because it almost always ends in a hugely lopsided population advantage.

I know it looks cute when a map changes color and all, but gameplay-wise, continent locks suck and kill the flow of battle.

Needing to go through a continent to open up another one makes the world feel like it's bigger than its parts. Otherwise you just have several very large FPS maps.

[Sifer2]

I think the disagreement there stems from another conflicting view of MMO and persistence versus FPS an just action shooting all the time. In standard shooters its just win map an then it repeats with no persistence so your always shooting people. Where as being to actually capture a continent an deny it to the enemy is real persistence that matters. Yes it might slow down the action some but personally I am all for it cause I want Planetside 2 to offer me a different experience than just any old shooter I could play.

Unfortunately it sounds like that isn't what the PS2 devs are after. Most of their proposed changes make it sound like they are gearing it to play more like todays standard FPS just with more people.

[krnasaur]

keep it like the old system in some ways, home conts+ bene conts(neutral? idk if they will give bene's this time around) and no sanc.

Homeconts: uncappable base ONLY for the empire its home to.

bene/neut conts: give more resources than homeconts, but dont have an uncappable base, and can still be "locked"

the idea of never being able to win sucks. Atleast we can win somewhat by owning all of the neutrals.