Segregated Continents

Glennsnake · 2012-05-26, 05:51 AM

I know Matt talks up PS2 as being persistent and massive unlike other popular FPS titles. However I'm more than a little skeptical.

The segregation of the 3 continents takes alot away from gameplay in my opinion.

Without the ability to push a faction out of a territory completely the continents dont feel to me like they are interconnected at all and feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps.

Getting very excited for this game but I would hope that the dev's have considered the massive implications of segregating the continents as they have done. I believe it takes too much away from the 'massively scaled' feel of the game and the interconnecting webs that existed within original planetside.

Thomas · 2012-05-26, 05:58 AM

I have to agree with the fact that it won't feel the same with each faction still having a foothold regardless of who controls the continent but I think that is balanced out.

As we have seen, spawning any vehicle seems to take resources that you gain from controlling territory on that continent. Now seeing as though if you are only in your foothold base you won't have any resources coming in, hence you would need the whole faction's army to come in to start taking stuff over. This will encourage most factions to just leave one continent and attack another where they are already engaged and have territory under control.

I don't know if the dev's have even released any information on the other continents yet, perhaps they have some interconnectivity planned? I hope so.

Sturmhardt · 2012-05-26, 06:00 AM

Sorry, I dont really remember... but how exactly were the continents connected in PS1?

Glennsnake · 2012-05-26, 06:05 AM

Instanced as they are now.

However, unlike PS2, there were no 'safe zones' within a continent, meaning if a faction lost all controls points they no longer had a presence there.

The new design in PS2 is that every faction has a safe zone on each continent meaning that it is impossible to complete remove a faction from a continent.

Thomas · 2012-05-26, 06:05 AM

Originally Posted by Sturmhardt

Sorry, I dont really remember... but how exactly were the continents connected in PS1?

Some bases were connected to the Warp Gates that went to one other continent. This would then open up a base on that other continent to be captured.

Toppopia · 2012-05-26, 06:06 AM

Originally Posted by Glennsnake

Instanced as they are now.

However, unlike PS2, there were no 'safe zones' within a continent, meaning if a faction lost all controls points they no longer had a presence there.

The new design in PS2 is that every faction has a safe zone on each continent meaning that it is impossible to complete remove a faction from a continent.

Unless you completely surround the base and kill all that leave.

Glennsnake · 2012-05-26, 06:14 AM

3 continents. 3 factions.

Why not give each faction a 'safe zone' on 1 continent?

Change the other 2 faction safe zones to warp gates.

Toppopia · 2012-05-26, 06:16 AM

Originally Posted by Glennsnake

3 continents. 3 factions.

Why not give each faction a 'safe zone' on 1 continent?

Change the other 2 faction safe zones to warp gates.

Except when the empire captures 'their' continent and blocks the warp gate so no one gets through, i guess thats the same argument as the camping a factions safe zone.

ringring · 2012-05-26, 06:33 AM

Originally Posted by Glennsnake

I know Matt talks up PS2 as being persistent and massive unlike other popular FPS titles. However I'm more than a little skeptical.

The segregation of the 3 continents takes alot away from gameplay in my opinion.

Without the ability to push a faction out of a territory completely the continents dont feel to me like they are interconnected at all and feel more like slightly oversized BF3 maps.

Getting very excited for this game but I would hope that the dev's have considered the massive implications of segregating the continents as they have done. I believe it takes too much away from the 'massively scaled' feel of the game and the interconnecting webs that existed within original planetside.

I kind of share your concern and I think quite a few people do. But, I'm just going to wait and see how it all pans out.

It's possible that interminable 3-ways develop but if so I think the devs will address it. The game has to have a shooter element and also a viable RTS.

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 06:51 AM

I agree with these concerns of course. Being able to physically travel between continents would be a very awesome feature of the game. And I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have this except technological reasons. Some people have said, oh, if the game world is too large, at some point you will have to zone, and you don't want to have people zoning right in front of your enemies. Now, I don't know whether or not that particular limitation is avoidable or not, but if it is not avoidable, I suppose I will buy it for PS2(not PS3, we should be more advanced by then).

Noivad · 2012-05-26, 07:01 AM

With Maps capable of 6000 players each the battle will rage on all three of them. Just think WW II when Allied forces were in the Pacific, In Europe, and in Africa all at the same time. Each with Map with its own terrain, look , and feel. No concerns for me.

Sturmhardt · 2012-05-26, 07:07 AM

Originally Posted by Thomas

Some bases were connected to the Warp Gates that went to one other continent. This would then open up a base on that other continent to be captured.

Oh right, now I remember

I dont really see a problem here... Beta will show which system is gonna work.

ringring · 2012-05-26, 07:11 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I agree with these concerns of course. Being able to physically travel between continents would be a very awesome feature of the game. And I can think of no reason why we shouldn't have this except technological reasons. Some people have said, oh, if the game world is too large, at some point you will have to zone, and you don't want to have people zoning right in front of your enemies. Now, I don't know whether or not that particular limitation is avoidable or not, but if it is not avoidable, I suppose I will buy it for PS2(not PS3, we should be more advanced by then).

I have no worries on that score, you will be able to travel beweet continent, via the wargates (TB even said it in one of his reports iirc).

I'm also sure cr5's will be calling for people to move from one continent to another to secure a winning advantage - at least I hope so and always assuming all coninents are not already full.

Stardouser · 2012-05-26, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

I have no worries on that score, you will be able to travel beweet continent, via the wargates (TB even said it in one of his reports iirc).

I'm also sure cr5's will be calling for people to move from one continent to another to secure a winning advantage - at least I hope so and always assuming all coninents are not already full.

I know you can travel between warpgates, I meant physical travel between continents - flying directly over the ocean until you reach it. I presume the original poster is talking about this as well. Not sure? Maybe he isn't aware of warpgates.

Thomas · 2012-05-26, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I know you can travel between warpgates, I meant physical travel between continents - flying directly over the ocean until you reach it. I presume the original poster is talking about this as well. Not sure? Maybe he isn't aware of warpgates.

It seems like he was referring to the lattice system that worked with the warp gates that made the continents seem connected.