Uncapturable Foothold / Sactuary Hexes - Pro's and Cons

[kadrin]

Originally Posted by Kipper

By definition, the zerg can't do anything but that - because they're a coming together of many individuals, rather than an organised group. If one of them decides to flank, he'll die, and he can't organise the rest of them so they must all stay where they are.

Its the squads and outfits that have communications that will form strategies and cooperate to actually DO stuff.

It's strange though, hardly ever saw people not in an outfit in PS, yet the zerg was always the main force. You'd think all those zerglings in their outfits would get a couple of squads/platoons together and coordinate, but they really just would rather throw themselves at the nearest base life after life. About the best you could hope for is they'd kinda listen to a CR5 and throw themselves at a base that was beneficial.

And I'm not even going to bother talking about the Chinese. That language barrier...

Anyway, that's my take on it, it's what I've noticed since beta til about a year ago when I stopped playing.

[Miir]

I'm not a fan of the footholds. But I'm willing to give them a shot.

I'd prefer something like this:

Make several larger star ship type orbital platforms that are for public and bring back the HART for outfits to own. In each case they would be instanced zones were people can ready themselves for an attack, find squads, test weapons (VR), recruit, or hang with your outfit during downtime. Then drop down from orbit.

Warp gate would become neutral and would be used to intercontinental travel.

[Figment]

I would not make "outfit only" terrains, why? Because you want people to mingle socially and that sort of interaction is more likely during down time in a shared space.

[Kran De Loy]

Zergs: So true, makes me glad that the game will not support trench lines.

@kadrin: Not all Outfits are alike. Some are no better than Gentlemen's Clubs and others are only about who gets the most kill shots.

Anyway, something as simple as attempting to take a base two or three hexes deeper into enemy territory would distract a small amount of those boneheads away from the front line. If timed right, you get the joy of fighting in an area you normally don't get to and the zerg of your faction get the footholds needed for victory at the real fight. Maybe even giving you enough time to get back to main action and help mop up if you're so inclined.

It's also possible to coordinate with several other Outfits at once to attack multiple bases. How the planning on those would go is up to the Outfits in question but all kinda of scenarios could play out.

If the enemy DOESN'T respond with enough force than they would at least lose support of that base, at worst maybe even suffer a pincer attack on their own front lines.

And besides what does being 4 hexes away from the front line have to do with being 3 hexes from the enemy foothold? They warp in wherever they want either way.

Nothing to stop them from doing the same to you at the same time tho...

Besides, the mission system that the PS2 team is cooking up probably has something to do with keeping front lines from stagnating by giving knowledgeable (and non) players the ability to set up just those kinds of situations.

[Monkey]

What about this - Instead of revolving sancs and such, what about if some Hexes provided a lattice link to a base on a continant, even if it's a different totally different continant? So instead of just flowing around a map base to base, hex to hex, it would give a much better incentive for an empire to capture that hex and defend it while others go and capture a more undefended base. It would also give defending empires something else to defend other than a base/tower.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Figment

Cutter, you are not much of a strategist, critic or designer, are you? You almost always don't see the underlying reasons or consequences of design decisions. Downplay everything you don't see as non-existent issue... In fact you pretty much like everything by default. Sorry to say Cutter, but at this point I'm classifying you as a PS2-auto-fanboy. Now playing devil's advocate is one thing, you are just defending everything by default.

If not automatically thinking ideas are bad because its not how things were done in PS1 makes me a fanboy, then sure. Guilty as charged.

There is a HUGE difference between an on cont, to the enemy visible staging ground and one off cont. An even bigger difference between a permanent foothold and a potential gateway. Note the word 'potential', as in securable, passable, lockable, not a continuous threat. If you don't even see that, then you make a lot more... 'sense' in other topics as well.

Of course there is a difference. I just don't see it as bad. There is no need to have an artificial limitation on where people can attack. There is a need to make it not trivial to accomplish, so that there aren't ghost hackers flying around solo starting hack after hack, but combating that absolutely does not require a rigid structure to protect assets in the rear.

And with only 3 continents at launch, its very, very clear they don't really intend for us to be able to lock down continents anymore, so you'll have to rid yourself of the mindset that locking a continent is an expected norm. You'll still have home turf, but it will be the areas near your uncap rather than an entire continent, and you'll have to actively defend it rather than accept that the lattice will protect it for you.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by CutterJohn

If not automatically thinking ideas are bad because its not how things were done in PS1 makes me a fanboy, then sure. Guilty as charged.

I like how you gave that twist and the insinuation that others only critique because it's "not like in PS1". You do not seem to have learned a lot of lessons from PS1, focus a bit on pet peeves and like things that are (whether or not present in PS1) simply bad or poor ideas on their own just because it's done in game. And yes in several cases worse alternatives than in PS1, often seemingly based on a "Me Too"-design approach. ie. implementing it just because BF or CoD has it or on 'cool factor', regardless if it fits or benefits the gameplay due to how it'll be used, or that it does not fit or feel exploitive.

There are things I really like about PS2 and good changes made in comparison to PS1, but there are a lot of things I'm very, very skeptic off. This topic being one of the big ones because it's such a huge impact on gameplay. Yet you come in here saying "oh no, it's not different at all!". Yes, it is.

Of course there is a difference. I just don't see it as bad. There is no need to have an artificial limitation on where people can attack. There is a need to make it not trivial to accomplish, so that there aren't ghost hackers flying around solo starting hack after hack, but combating that absolutely does not require a rigid structure to protect assets in the rear.

I like how you say this yet don't understand how this design does the EXACT opposite. You just don't recognise it, because "in theory" the surroundings of a sanctuary can be captured. But in practice, PS1 was far less restrictive in what you can capture and the shear amounts of it! PS1 was more restrictive in the ORDER of capture, but not more restrictive from a strategic perspective. This game will be more restrictive because it is less prone to allowing you to capture almost all and naturally tends to keep you "on your own turf".

This is a severe restriction which you completely ignore or trivialise.

And with only 3 continents at launch, its very, very clear they don't really intend for us to be able to lock down continents anymore, so you'll have to rid yourself of the mindset that locking a continent is an expected norm. You'll still have home turf, but it will be the areas near your uncap rather than an entire continent, and you'll have to actively defend it rather than accept that the lattice will protect it for you.

Almost there. Yet failing to appreciate the points that lead to boredom and frustration through too much repetition and trivialisation of conquests.

The problem here is you expect the player to adapt to arbitrary new standards, which do not seem to fit with the psychology of players as I've come to learn out of experience from dealing with them in several online games. So I don't just mean PS1 players. Psychology of players, in general gaming.

3 continents at launch is merely because the remainder is not finished as hand crafting continents simply takes time and a free to play, microtransaction game needs to make a return as soon as possible.

[Fenrys]

Originally Posted by Figment

you want people to mingle socially and that sort of interaction is more likely during down time in a shared space.

The only socialization I saw while guarding hacks was 15 minutes of throwing jammers at eachother, stabbing maxes, and using bullet hole decals to draw dicks on the wall.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Fenrys

The only socialization I saw while guarding hacks was 15 minutes of throwing jammers at eachother, stabbing maxes, and using bullet hole decals to draw dicks on the wall.

American server? :P

We had things like ant runs in sanc, meeting and helping newbees, /b spam/chat in sanc for fun and setting up raids, travel time in a bus was often about using /l to just chat or joke about, get everyone on one line and get to know each other a bit. Similarly how /b was often used.

If you put people in their own outfit zone, you create a "Them - Us" mentality and create a social distance between your group and people on your empire, especially making it harder for new players to socialize and find an outfit that suits them.

/s, /o and /p are already social islands within the game.

[Raymac]

Here's something I was thinking about as to why people might be making too much of this. PS1 had more continents than PS2 is going to have at launch. PS1 had Sancturary Warpgates that only that empire was allowed in. If you reduced PS1 down to 3 continents, took out the lattice, added a territory hex system, then what you are left with is essentially what we are going to have in PS2. The Sanctuary Warpgates are, in effect, uncapturable footholds.

Basically, the only difference we are seeing is fewer continents (and they will add more later), and the removal of the lattice system (which is the main cuplrit behind the predicitable troop movements). Considering how the warpgates are going to be more than empty space like they were in PS1, I'm thinking this is going to be a good thing. (Although I do like the idea of the empires switching foothlds every so often if fights do get stale.)

[Kipper]

...but if the non-cap bases just 'change colour' of their own volition, its not persistence. Because no player(s) caused it - rather, it just happened. I just think that's daft. (although preferable at a pinch to always fighting the same hexes from the same directions).

The best way for me, is to have completely dynamic territory thats not anchored to a specific point, so you could end up being anywhere on the map over time.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Kipper

...but if the non-cap bases just 'change colour' of their own volition, its not persistence. Because no player(s) caused it - rather, it just happened. I just think that's daft.

Well it could be easily explained by saying Auraxis itself made the change for its own mysterious reasons. With sci-fi, you can make up all kinds of lore to fit just about anything.

[EVILPIG]

"Zerg" simply means massive numbers. They can organize and they can follow orders. I have seen it many times. Typically, players will simply gravitate to the closest target in the most direct route, regardless of the size of the force. The zerg, the bulk of the faction's forces, have followed directions from leaders they believe in or leaders who can properly explain the reasons for their strategies. It's a mistake to assume the zerg will always be mindless and unorganized. Step up and lead properly and they can be applied to a target in a more effective manner.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

The Sanctuary Warpgates are, in effect, uncapturable footholds.

Yes, as an abstraction and without considering its qualities or influences on gameplay, they are similar in that they cannot be entered. That's where similarities end however.

The first extremely important difference is the distance between sanctuary warpgates used to be significant and would span at least two continents and control over the remaining gates was not predetermined. This fact alone allows much greater adjecent swaths of land and backland to be called "yours", because this division would be a third of all continents and include entire continents, rather than similar amounts of territory divided in small sections per continent.

And that's the issue that causes endless threeways. PlanetSide as a whole, WAS a threeway. But not a stalemate, because there was so much territory you could control and have the battle flow through.

Even then battles were determined by warpgates that empires had access to. However, that could be 1, 2, or 3 different approach routes for empires. Now, there's only one and it won't ever go away.

In addition, you in PS1 you do not see an invasion force or even a special ops team assembling in a sanc warpgate (on the continent they are invading) till the very last second. You would have to scout all the different sanc gates and warpgates they might be coming through and all the bases those were linked to if you noticed some pop missing. Now, that's going to be quite different.

A further hindrance of using a warpgate, even a sanc warpgate as staging ground, was that you had to go to another continent to get your vehicles there and get back. But this barrier for acquisition (and barrier to regrouping en mass) was a good thing. It makes re-invading harder and less likely, providing a bit more control over the flow of battle and providing a bit more steady frontline for those smart enough to capture and hold large territories. Meaning a battle would be reset less often and allowed to flow till its conclusion.

Chaotic acquisition was not a good thing. Raymac, you realise the situation before the lattice was you could hack any base, anywhere, right? And that was before Broadcast Warpgates, meaning to even get to the first one, they first had to go through several continents which took a lot of time. So you could just hack an entire continent at once and only guard a couple you actually wanted while the enemy would go around undoing your hacks and being more occupied with running in circles than fighting or having fun.

The lattice also provided the opportunity for outfits to actually BLOCK the use of a warpgate, by starting a counter offensive on the continent linked through that warpgate, stalling for time or allowing their own empire to regain the initiative. This will not be possible today in quite the same way. So again, no, it's not the same.

Another difference is that with each foothold being seperate to the other continents, there is less sense of influencing the grander empire battle. Basically we've moved closer to seperate instances on seperate maps. And that's a significant step backwards, IMO.

With greater backland, fighting behind enemy lines becomes more viable, because an enemy has to traverse greater distances in order to reach you. This is a logistical problem that is beneficial especially to smaller groups. In PS2, backland per continent is within a minute drive from the frontline. That's really, REALLY close for responses by the main attack force.

Could go on with giving examples of how it differs in terms of gameplay, but it should be obvious by now.

Either way, trivialising the footholds as sancs is really shortsighted. I would prefer it if there was just one foothold that was uncapturable per continent at launch, creating a sort of Home Continents and linking the other islands.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

-snip-

I think the only thing we lose slightly is the connection between different continents, however, since we are taking out the fact you can get an enemy to 0% (which accounted for the worst dead-time in the game), that connection becomes non-essential. We will still have a connection all across Auraxis when commaders ask for reinforcements on 1 continent, or to counter a spec ops on a different continent.

You don't need connecting warpgates to have Auraxis be 1 world.

Also, I agree that "chaotic acquistion" is a good thing to a point. That's why the hex system is so exciting. The lattice system was added in PS1 beta because when it was too free-for-all, it was simply too chaotic and the war had no flow. Uncapturable footholds still allows for that chaos despite your nostradoums-esque efforts to attempt to predict how excatly every battle willn play out into a stalemate.

Bottom line for me, forcing people to fight in a lopsided 9:1 battle is a flawed mechanic so taking out continent locks is good for the overall flow of the game.