How come each faction doesn't own a continent?

Resolve · 2012-06-11, 01:37 PM

Each faction could own a continent(1 foothold per continent), and each continent could have 2 warp gates that go to the other continents. This way it'd be possible to lock an empire from a continent but they'll still have their home continent to plan another attack/defend from invaders.
I think the only downside to this is that you wont be able to play on any continent at will if your empire doesn't have a base on it.

Stew · 2012-06-11, 01:42 PM

this subject is already decide by the dev team and its not subject to change so its a lost of time !

Ratstomper · 2012-06-11, 01:44 PM

I actually liked the sanctuary and wouldn't mind if they brought them back. That said, I don't think it's game-breaking or anything. I'm not going to make any serious judgments until I get hands on with the game and see how it works out.

Stew · 2012-06-11, 01:46 PM

Originally Posted by Resolve

Each faction could own a continent(1 foothold per continent), and each continent could have 2 warp gates that go to the other continents. This way it'd be possible to lock an empire from a continent but they'll still have their home continent to plan another attack/defend from invaders.
I think the only downside to this is that you wont be able to play on any continent at will if your empire doesn't have a base on it.

And also locking factions out of a continents mean USEless battleground why should the dev team make some amasing base outpost etc.. if all those are almost never contested and players cant play on it most of the time

all this subject start to really get anoying

Think twice why should the dev team make some awesome contents if 90 % of the time this contents have no use ? Why making biodome if no ones figth in it ?

And also it will dramatically reduce the pace and the variety in the gameplay

anyway the dev team already have state on it and their choice is smart

Stardouser · 2012-06-11, 01:47 PM

Originally Posted by Stew

this subject is already decide by the dev team and its not subject to change so its a lost of time !

This is one of the reasons it's decided, people are assuming the devs know best. And maybe they do, but that's not because you have to be a card carrying game designer to have a valid opinion.

Let's look at this from another angle. There WILL be other MMOFPSs at some point. You can bet they won't all adopt the continent approach. Or will they? Is there some reason it has to be such small continents that isn't unique to Planetside?

Resolve · 2012-06-11, 01:49 PM

Originally Posted by Stew

And also locking factions out of a continents mean USEless battleground why should the dev team make some amasing base outpost etc.. if all those are almost never contested and players cant play on it most of the time

all this subject start to really get anoying

Think twice why should the dev team make some awesome contents if 90 % of the time this contents have no use ? Why making biodome if no ones figth in it ?

And also it will dramatically reduce the pace and the variety in the gameplay

anyway the dev team already have state on it and their choice is smart

It can still be discussed :P

I mean, in ps1 I saw different continents every day. It's up to the players if they want to fight somewhere they have to earn a base on that continent. I always loved that part of PS.

Bags · 2012-06-11, 01:58 PM

Because higby doesn't want players locked out of the content.

Baneblade · 2012-06-11, 02:00 PM

Three Little Sancs

The first little sanc built a house of spent shell casings and dried gun powder. It looked awesome. But when the Vanuwolf came around and knocked on the door with his big laser teeth, the house exploded and the Vanuwolf abducted the first little sanc and promptly began to test its loyalty until death with probes.

The second little sanc's house was build out of the shell of an old Vanguard. It didn't look like much, what with duck tape everywhere. The Vanuwolf knocked on the top hatch with an orbital strike and the second little sanc tried to quadshot, but missed when Vanuwolf strafed up

. Vanuwolf tazed the rebellious little sanc and decided to give him to the first little sanc as a slave.

The third little sanc thought itself pretty smart building its house out of a warpgate. The Vanuwolf tried everything, but ended up giving up hope of ever getting his hands on the third little sanc. The third little sanc told the first and second little sancs about this idea and they decided to try it themselves when the Vanuwolf was eating an Auraxisalad (treestuff and thousand island dressing).

Thus the three little sancs all had houses that the Vanuwolf couldn't destroy, which was too bad, because then the three little sancs started fighting about Cake, Pie, or Brownies. Clegging pigs.

Resolve · 2012-06-11, 02:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Because higby doesn't want players locked out of the content.

But why? It was a huge part of PS1 and it's a strategic game...having footholds on every base kinda removes a huge aspect of that.

Turdicus · 2012-06-11, 02:02 PM

I've heard compelling arguments both for and against sanctuaries and continent locking. The most reasonable one so far has been the idea that sancs and locks arent necessary with just 3 continents. But when more and more become available a system to avoid depopulation must be created, and sanctuaries, warp gates, and continent locks are great ways to rotate the continents so that depopulation doesn't occur.

So it might be better at launch to have the footholds, and then later on when the game world expands a new system will be implemented to keep battles big and fresh.

Mechzz · 2012-06-11, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by Bags

Because higby doesn't want players locked out of the content.

Never mind Higby, I don't want to be pop-locked out of the server my main character plays on. I'm sure none of us would want that. So until someone can a propose a "let's throw an empire off a continent" model that does not involve either :

a: causing players on the losing side to not be able to play because of pop-locking
or
b: more than 3 continents

then I can't see anything positive coming of these threads.

Anyways, I stick to the opinion that footholding an empire will be rare in a balanced game and therefore something that will be valued by the winners.

Geist · 2012-06-11, 02:07 PM

The problem with that is if you have a foothold solely on that continent, than you can't really fight anywhere else if your continent is being attacked. Than you have 2000 of your empires players who would usually be spread out on all 3 continents fighting the queue to get one of the 666 spots on your home continent, because that is the only place you have a foothold on.

Tbh, I would love for each empire to have a "Home Continent", which would be:

TR Esamir - They've hinted that Esamir would have some actual(albeit ruined) cityscape, so what better place for the rightful governing body to have than the remains of their cities?
NC Indar - Most of their equipment is repurposed mining equipment, and Indar gives me the feeling of a continent who's main purpose and value is the mining of it's resources.
VS Amerish - http://www.planetside-universe.com/m...300fb5e5f2.jpg Kind of looks like Amerish to me and those crystals give me the uncontrollable urge to research something. Perfect for VS no?

But I still think that each continent should have a foothold for each empire so that we can keep the max amount of players fighting constantly all over Auraxis. Either that or a Sanctuary with access to every continent. That works too.

**Malorn** · 2012-06-11, 02:20 PM

There's only 3 continents. Do you want to fight on only 1 continent most of the time? I don't, that would be shitty.

Until they add more we can't get anything like the old PS continents.

To be clear, there's two issues.

1) Not enough continents. Until this changes any sort of inter-continental linking is dead in the water.

2) Downtime/lockout fun-factor. Even if there were enough continents, its another issue whether the downtime created and the concept of locking players out of playing on a continent is something that is good for the game.

The first will be resolved in time. The second one is a design decision they may revisit after they see how things play out and we have more continents to work with.

Mechzz · 2012-06-11, 02:21 PM

OK. 3 posts in a row saying the exact same thing.

/thread

kaffis · 2012-06-11, 02:25 PM

Originally Posted by Resolve

I think the only downside to this is that you wont be able to play on any continent at will if your empire doesn't have a base on it.

Actually, the problem with this is the same problem you have when you can lock a faction out of a continent at all:

Suddenly, the amount of players who can play on that faction on that server plummets once they get locked out of a continent.

We don't want to see drastic capacity changes like that.

View Poll Results: Faction specific continents?
Yes- I want faction specific continents	25	21.37%
No- I like it how it is	44	37.61%
Bring back the sanctuary!	44	37.61%
other	4	3.42%
Voters: 117. You may not vote on this poll