Systems: Possible Sanctuary System

[MasterChief096]

No continent locks would make me a sad panda. It gives me and the empire a sense of, "yeah, we just captured this place and beat the hell out of the enemy to do it."

Only beta will tell I suppose.

[Bags]

You can already camp raids coming out of warpgates.

[Tool]

Depending on the amount of conts coupled with what they said about the difference in taking territory compared to PS1 (harder, longer, lol) It may not even be a possibility to get that close to these bases. Because of this new hex grid territory control system, it may extremely easy or take very little time to capture areas near or around these bases to gain that foothold while immensely difficult for enemy empires to take them.

Hopefully I'm not crucified for this thought as well.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by Bags

You can already camp raids coming out of warpgates.

This is true but at least if you are forming in sanctuary the enemy will not know *which* warpgate you will be launching the raid from, unless some jackass leaks this info to the enemy.

Also since there will be no lattice my best bet is that you would be able to hit multiple targets from sanctuary, and camping EVERY warpgate would be hard to do.

I just don't like the idea of not being able to kick off every enemy from a continent. It doesn't feel as accomplishing or persistent.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

This is true but at least if you are forming in sanctuary the enemy will not know *which* warpgate you will be launching the raid from, unless some jackass leaks this info to the enemy.

Also since there will be no lattice my best bet is that you would be able to hit multiple targets from sanctuary, and camping EVERY warpgate would be hard to do.

I just don't like the idea of not being able to kick off every enemy from a continent. It doesn't feel as accomplishing or persistent.

Easy solution is to not form up in a foothold that the enemy has an overwhelming presence near.

And we don't fucking know how these will work. Maybe they're disabled for a few hours after capturing a continent? Stop worrying until we know more.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Bags

You can already camp raids coming out of warpgates.

You can, and you can watch global pops to determine where they are going, and you can also have spies use cross-empire tells to feed info.

Each Sanctuary has three warpgates (not that an enemy can camp the Sanc-side of those gates). Two of those warpgates are generally broadcast gates, meaning you can go just about anywhere. One is fixed. At least, this is how I understand it - someone correct me if I'm wrong.

If you choose to camp me before I leave Sanc, I have [at least] two options if I wish to continue playing the game on that empire. One, I can use the HART. I can have my entire outfit HART, matter of fact. Yes we can't get vehicles and HART them, but we can hopefully HART to someplace where you aren't (because you're camping a warpgate and therefore cannot immediately stop us even if you are on the right continent) and pick them up. Two, I can select another continent on which you are not located.

With no HART planned for PS2, that strikes one option. *IF* this "uncapturable base" is a fixed spot on the ground on a map, that means it can be encircled and camped. Now, you can certainly (probably, theoretically) take your ball and go somewhere else. But you won't be going from that base. You'll have to spawn at another base and either A) change targets or B) take a longer route to get back to the continent, provided you can do so.

Uncapturable zones on continents as a replacement for Sanctuaries is not a good idea, in my opinion. For the reasons that others have pointed out and for the reasons I've pointed out. Everything points to "uncapturable bases" being a faster way to get into combat - unfortunately, if a large combat group is camping that base, you're going to be there for a long time if they know what they're doing. So, yeah. Not the quickest way to shorten time spent getting into combat except under ideal circumstances.

Murphy's Law #69: nothing is ideal in combat.

[Bags]

All we know is they are "uncapturable footholds" and that each empire has one on each continent.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by Bags

Easy solution is to not form up in a foothold that the enemy has an overwhelming presence near.

And we don't fucking know how these will work. Maybe they're disabled for a few hours after capturing a continent? Stop worrying until we know more.

Its just discussion.
Better to voice our concern and worry now while SOE has loads of time to debate amongst themselves how they want these footholds to work.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by MasterChief096

Its just discussion.
Better to voice our concern and worry now while SOE has loads of time to debate amongst themselves how they want these footholds to work.

edit: forget it

[headcrab13]

Originally Posted by Tool

But who knows? Perhaps they aren't ground bases at all, but those mega cruisers like suggested in that other thread?

I agree. I'm sure the devs have already hashed out a plan for preventing gate campers. It would be awesome to have a floating mobile base up above the "ceiling height" of the world, so that air vehicles couldn't fly up and camp newly spawned players.

The floating base could have everything the old Sancs did, from certification terminals to VR to ranges to staging areas, and when you're ready to get into the fight you could take a drop pod down to a selected point on the continent below.

[Firefly]

I'm all for waiting to see what "uncapturable bases" and footholds are before I further shit on the idea or do a 180 turn and endorse them. I'm also all for endorsing these new features *IF* they prove to be better than Sanctuary. I'm not averse to change unless it's change for the sake of change, for the sake of change's sake. But until such time as that happens, I prefer Sanctuaries.

Supposedly, Sanctuaries and the HART are being axed because "it takes too long to get into the action" or words to that effect. This is in spite of the fact that lowering the HART timer and/or using the Instant Action feature can get players into combat in approximately thirty seconds or less, depending on how far from either of them you may be. This is also in spite of the fact that I can go from clicking "Gemini Server" to loading Sanctuary to firing my first bullet in a gunfight in under two minutes.

The whole idea of Sanctuaries slowing down combat is the problem of slow-moving outfits lining up their Reaver Night players for pretty Rambo pictures in Sanctuary. My outfit (G-d now I sound like a tour guide) has created and streamlined a process which we routintely drill and train called "Minuteman". This simple concept allows us to rally at a specific location in Sanctuary, load a Galaxy and be airborne in under a minute. I don't think I've ever spent more than five minutes in Sanctuary unless it was intentional or queue-related. The only thing aside from slow outfits keeping people from getting into combat is a warpgate queue - which is the game's fault (and not localized just Sanctuary), not ours.

[megamold]

i think that making a sanctuary and still having the footholds on the continents would create a problem where noone would go to the sanctuary because there is nothing to be done except for the occasional gathering of forces ( wich is awesome is ps1 btw ) effectively creating a ghost town
i think a simple way to still find that gathering of players would be to give commanders the option to put a marker on the map wich tells you the number of players there ( 50+ 100+ 500+ ) and the time untill the attack starts.

i think this is needed because there may be a foothold on the continent but this will not allways be the best place to gather forces ( rough terrain , to far away ,.. )

now these gatherings will be in "danger" because they are not a safe zone but i think this adds to creating more moments that could turn out to be awesome ( pre-emptive strikes and whatnot ) and adds more strategy for the commander since you want to be close to the enemy but not to close, do we go in hard and heavy or slow and steady?

the only problem i see with the foothold is that you will be locked into one side of the continent
( tr bottom left , nc bottom right , vs top ) i think it would be awesome if the battle could actually move around the island instead of just inwards ( if that makes any sense )

[FastAndFree]

What if the Footholds had shields that the deffenders can fire through?

Then the players themselves would be the level 999 city guards. And if the enemy forces laying siege on the base are waiting outside of firing range then it's essentially the same as any other outdoor battle, except the deffenders have a foothold to fall back to for repairing/reloading etc, making them stronger initially or if they are pushed back towards their foothold, and gradually losing their edge as they gain ground and need to move supply vehicles further and further away from the shield

And since the footholds would likely be a distance from the closest point of interest I can't see a way to abuse being invincible except to keep the perimeter secure, which is the intended purpose

And if Footholds need to be capturable I suppose there could be a way to bring the shield down


On the other hand the mothership approach has the advantage of being incomparably more awesome

[Brusi]

I'm all for footholds if they look awesome and have enormous fuCk0ff gUnz!!!

Still don't see why we can't just have sanctuary-ish areas with no HART station available. for some reason, i don't see spawn camping being a major problem in PS2.

[MasterChief096]

Originally Posted by FastAndFree

What if the Footholds had shields that the deffenders can fire through?

Then the players themselves would be the level 999 city guards. And if the enemy forces laying siege on the base are waiting outside of firing range then it's essentially the same as any other outdoor battle, except the deffenders have a foothold to fall back to for repairing/reloading etc, making them stronger initially or if they are pushed back towards their foothold, and gradually losing their edge as they gain ground and need to move supply vehicles further and further away from the shield

And since the footholds would likely be a distance from the closest point of interest I can't see a way to abuse being invincible except to keep the perimeter secure, which is the intended purpose

And if Footholds need to be capturable I suppose there could be a way to bring the shield down


On the other hand the mothership approach has the advantage of being incomparably more awesome

This would prevent the camping but a new problem would arise. What would even be the point of taking a continent if the 500 players you just curb-stomped to take it are now in the foothold on that continent and now have a shield they can fire through?

1. You can't leave the continent, those 500 players will just go roll everything you took from them.

2. The fight would be boring. Camping at a distance so that they have to leave their shield only to watch them run back to their shield.

Sanctuaries are not a bad idea, and definitely "had a place" in PlanetSide.

If they are going the route of footholds and will never add sanctuaries (dumb) then there needs to be a way to eject the enemy empire's players (the empire you beat) from that continent and force them somewhere else, otherwise you can never truly "take a continent".