Poll: Rotation of empire footholds?

[Raymac]

This addresses my only concern about non-capturable footholds. When the warpgates were static in PS1, you would attack the same base from the same direction time and again. It started to get stale. Adding the Broadcast Warpgates really opened up the gameplay considerably.

Even if you fight over the same location, if you approach it from a new direction it will play very differently.

This is a solution that doesn't create a problem of hundreds of players losing the last spawn point on a continent and therefore getting kicked out of the game, which is exactly what taking out the footholds would do.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Fafnir

So what, you switch them and now your foothold is in the middle of hostile territory and you have to recapture everything around you? Or everything becomes neutral every switch? I don't see how it can be done differently.

The foothold just provides an alternate spawn point and probably some basic adjacency to make capturing the nearby territory easier - but you don' thave to do that.

You don't have to spawn at it, you don't have to capture the territory around it. There is no mechanic mandating this. so if you have a huge chunk of territory on the other side of the continent from your foothold it doesn't really matter. You can still spawn at that other territory, pull vehicles there, and attack out from it. The new foothold position provides you with a new opportunity to take other territory, that is all.

[Immigrant]

Originally Posted by Malorn

I would also agree that resources (if they are static).

Resource will rotate - that's confirmed, and that's good to keep things dynamic however footholds won't. SOE has been promising PERSISTENT WORLD EXPERIENCE I doubt they'll go and piss all over that now with hey let's do global position rotations every month because someone thought it was cool. Go play something else if you don't like world persistence - most multiplayer FPS games reset after 15 mins or less so you have plenty to choose from.

I would like if you could capture footholds however that completely defeats the purpose why they were put in the first place.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Resource will rotate - that's confirmed, and that's good to keep things dynamic however footholds won't. SOE has been promising PERSISTENT WORLD EXPERIENCE I doubt they'll go and piss all over that now with hey let's do global position rotations every month because someone thought it was cool. Go play something else if you don't like world persistence - most multiplayer FPS games reset after 15 mins or less so you have plenty to choose from.

I would like if you could capture footholds however that completely defeats the purpose why they were put in the first place.

I don't think it will break persistance. I certainly hope the territory around the continent will change hands considerably just as it did in Planetside. So shifting the footholds will indirectly affect the territory captured, but it still needs to be fought for.

[Amdefor]

Absolutely. They should not only allow the footholds to rotate every year or three, but they should remove/add a completely new map every year or three as well. PS1 is still going now, and still fun for many of us who play, and IMO PS1 would be a lot more popular if they could add new maps or mix up the links on the existing maps.

They shouldn't rotate the footholds any time soon after launch, but should program the game to allow them to rotate in future patches (like a year or more down the road).

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Resource will rotate - that's confirmed

Do you have a source for that from the last few months? In Higby's AMAA he said they were currently static. He had previously stated in the initial PS2 reveal they would spawn/despawn but that either hasn't happened yet or isn't in the near future.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Do you have a source for that from the last few months? In Higby's AMAA he said they were currently static. He had previously stated in the initial PS2 reveal they would spawn/despawn but that either hasn't happened yet or isn't in the near future.

All this means is it isn't a system they've implemented yet. It's probably something they need beta populations to bother testing and tweaking, so this shouldn't be surprising.

[SealedSun]

It always bugged me that I almost never got to fight on some of the more "remote" continents (from a VS perspective).

In my opinion, rotating positions every 3-4 months would strike a good balance between establishing a sense of home/ownership and freshening things up every now and then.

[NewSith]

Voted "No". We're about to have more conts sometime post-launch, so the whole foothold thing is not actually set in stone yet. I imagine that when there will be 6+ conts in the game we may even see the return of sanctuaries in some form or at least "homeconts".

Mostly because in my opinio switching foothold ownership is similar to changing sides after a match before the beginning of a new one. That goes against "no match-basement" concept.

[WaryWizard]

wasn't there a topic about this before? Well I don't really like the idea of rotating footholds, but in the previous topic some talked about randomly placed firebases in the hexless parts of the map that you could spawn from. They had some nice pictures to go with it too. I like that idea

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by WildVS

I'll buy that response although you weren't the one giving the initial claim He sounded so sure of himself for the feature to be included at release and I had my hopes up.

Oh, yeah. I mean, Malorn could be right and they've scrapped the notion of dynamic resources -- it's not like I have insider info. But just because Matt said that resources were currently static isn't a good reason to jump to conclusions about what they'll release.

[Ale]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Way too much clinging to home continent nonsense here.

ITT: Dr. Frankenstein has second thoughts.
or,
[Maury]Malorn... you are the father of this child.[/Maury]
or,
Homeconts, A.S.S.inine.



As for the OP's suggestion: Yes, rotation please.

[diLLa]

For me, It's another one of those things that could become an issue, but is highly irrelevant now as you have no clue how battles will move and at what pace.

If stalemates occur a lot around the same areas, than obviously something should be done to keep it fresh, but for all we know we might be fighting all over the continent, and there will be no need to switch it around at all.

[Graywolves]

I'm usually all about changing it up but..

When they started rotating the home conts in PS1 it made me a little sad. Having that sense of "These are ours!" meant something to a lot of people. You couldn't step on Esamir without the entire Vanu Sovereignty coming down on you.

It already feels less like Planetside without Dagda being constantly besieged.

[SgtMAD]

anyone remember SOE flipping the home conts in PS1?

I wouldn't mind seeing it every 3/6 months just to change it all up,the same maps will burn everyone out.

there is one other thing to think about here and it might be the most important,chances are that one or more of the footholds will be in a terrible position and that empire will feel like it got screwed so if you do rotate the footholds the other empires get a chance to feel your pain.

anyone remember what a pain in the ass it was to defend/attack Dagda for years on end?