Planetside 2: map layouts (spoiler)

[Neurotoxin]

I'm glad to see that Searhus is returning

[EVILoHOMER]

I just mean the Island at the top looked like someone erased the bottom half of the original Island design and stuck two squares at the bottom from other islands lol.

[neonlazer]

Originally Posted by Neurotoxin

I'm glad to see that Searhus is returning

If that was Searhus..it must be mini-Searhus

[QuantumMechanic]

When I looked at the second continent I thought of Searhus as well. And during E3 somebody said in a video interview that there would be a volcano-themed environment. I forget who.

[RNFB]

I have to say I'm really disappointed with the square continents. Hopefully the devs will consider a "mini bending" when more continents are released, and footholds removed, to warp their shapes into something more interesting.

No rivers, lakes, or islands = BORING

[MrBloodworth]

I also dislike the EQ2 like Walls around the borders in most areas.

Open up the sea.

[DoctorBrain]

Originally Posted by Stew

the thing i want to point out is i found the TR and NC warp gate much more closer and the VS

I noticed this as well. I hope the differences in distance between each warp gate doesn't unbalance the map.

[neonlazer]

Originally Posted by DoctorBrain

I noticed this as well. I hope the differences in distance between each warp gate doesn't unbalance the map.

You mean as in TR and NC get SW quarter and SE quarter and VS get the top half it seems?

[DoctorBrain]

Originally Posted by neonlazer

You mean as in TR and NC get SW quarter and SE quarter and VS get the top half it seems?

Yes, something like that. I don't think its so bad on the first map, but it's particularly noticeable on the second map. The top two gates have two major bases between them, but the distance from either top gate to the bottom gate is, at minimum, a three-base jump.

That being said, I'm not even sure if that second map is legitimate, as it seems significantly smaller than the first.
edit: Maybe it's just a concept, or a work-in-progress?

[fvdham]

The map looks like Searhus but also like Extinction.
Extinction makes me feel like a lab rat because of its maze layout but is map is not that bad.
Still for immersion it may be best to use a real world island for map design instead of a construct.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Higby

They don't HAVE to be square, but it lets us pack on the most gameplay space into the maps.

you seem to think that there is "non gameplay space"

There isnt. Every piece of land is viable for combat, no matter how oddly it is shaped. Damn, ive had battles around mount Cyssor, and even killed a BFR at the very top of it. I flew Galaxys and was a passanger in galaxys that went around the coast of Ishundar, from Marduk to Baal, and had even air fights there. I could tell you several storys of how i ended up on those little islands south of Bomazi on cyssor, with a damaged magrider, trying to survive.


You should know better, this is not a usual 32 player game. 2000 people means that going out of bounds doesnt exist, and that everything is gameplay space. Combat will happen everywhere, not just around capture points.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Higby

They don't HAVE to be square, but it lets us pack on the most gameplay space into the maps.

As Basti says, having some water/islands and a circular or triangular shape is good too. We should be able to use that area as a flight route for flanking attacks with aircraft and gal drops.

You could put islands out there with outposts. Put some valuable resource in large abundance out on that island territory and you'll see some cool battles on it. And I'm sure outfits will use places like that for events, meetings, and other purposes. Like that island on the south side of Cyssor - seemingly completely useless but it had a lot of events there. If its a territory with an outpost and resources it'll see even more value.

So please consider adding some more islands to the baby-Searhus map (Amerish I presume). It'll make the gameplay richer and hopefully give us more tactical gameplay options at the continent level. Coastline isn't a bad thing either.

And...BOATS. Yes, you don't have boats right now, but I know you like the idea and at some point in the future you might have boats. It would be great if the existing continents had some coastline so even they can see some new gameplay as a result of boats. Of course you will have whole new maps designed with boats in mind (I look forward to PS2's Hossin with boats). But it is nice if most if not all of the continents could benefit from the added boat gameplay, even if its only on the outside of the continent.


Just thinking ahead about future proofing continents. Having coastline where air battles can take place, small islands for staging or what not is not a bad thing. When more features and vehicles come along that space might become even more useful.

[fvdham]

You could have boats on wheels and call them Deliverer

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by fvdham

You could have boats on wheels and call them Deliverer

Deliverers require to many people working together. /snarky

[Synapse]

I'd also like to add my voice to others saying I miss non-square shapes, I miss islands, and I miss rivers/lakes.

As a magrider pilot, it looks like the mag's ability to go on water won't count for anything in PS2, since there are no rivers or lakes to stop other tanks.