Mock up of the hex territory map

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

It doesn't sound like there will be many continents at launch so it would be a waste to have any locked. Because of this and the lack of sanctuaries I'm predicting each empire will have a permanent foothold on each continent, meaning locking a continent will be impossible.

I wouldn't be surprised if locking becomes implemented when more continents are released. Then they could introduce sanctuaries/permanent footholds to three of the original continents.

I don't want to see footholds for every empire on every continent, but if this was a temporary compromise, I probably would be okay with it.

I'd like to see some kind of empire wide reward for capturing a whole continent, that is awarded the moment you take the last territory on a map that has been heavily contested for more than x amount of hours with x amount of territory flips within that time. No real need to have a continent fully lock, but giving some kind of temporarily lasting reward would be nice.

Hopefully they have enough continents at launch that they can have at least one home continent per empire though.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I don't want to see footholds for every empire on every continent, but if this was a temporary compromise, I probably would be okay with it.

I'd like to see some kind of empire wide reward for capturing a whole continent, that is awarded the moment you take the last territory on a map that has been heavily contested for more than x amount of hours with x amount of territory flips within that time. No real need to have a continent fully lock, but giving some kind of temporarily lasting reward would be nice.

Hopefully they have enough continents at launch that they can have at least one home continent per empire though.

yea each empire have footholds on each cont is kinda weak, i think the sanc system made the game feel more alive. that you could be pushed all the way back to your city.

[Straws]

Originally Posted by Ailos

And was this more along the lines of what you all were thinking with the territory not being necessarily so geometrical?

I would consider that to be more geometrical than the other examples images in this thread so far.

Personally, I prefer it, but not for the immediate areas around a facility. As long as it makes sense to the layout of a continent, then I think it would be more interesting.

However, that was my preference when my understanding was that territory was captured as a whole. Some posts have indicated that territory is intended to be capturable in parts, in which case the polygonic approach still works, with or without Territory having a more natural shape to it.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

yea each empire have footholds on each cont is kinda weak, i think the sanc system made the game feel more alive. that you could be pushed all the way back to your city.

The way I picture footholds is like having a sanctuary that is right near one of the continents. How come the sanctuaries in PS1 never got invaded? Voodoo magic and shielding devices I imagine. Footholds would just be the same thing, only a little close to the action.

If there are multiple footholds for each empire on different continents, you could even do something like PS1's sanctuaries had, with those little triangular warp thingies that cycled you close to each of the three gates, only this time they would warp you to another foothold on a different continent.

Maybe start the game with at least 4 continents, with 3 of them each having a single foothold, one continent for each empire, with the fourth continent being a free for all. Then, once you have 7 continents, give one more foothold to each empire.

Obviously there would be the potential problem of getting sealed into your foothold, but considering that we can theoretically hack any hex without any sort of lattice link, it shouldn't be as big a problem as in PS1.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Originally Posted by ThirdCross

I'm predicting each empire will have a permanent foothold on each continent, meaning locking a continent will be impossible.

Is it still considered predicting when its something they said 8 months ago? We've known this is how it would be since fan faire. Most, like myself, don't seem to like it.

[SuperMorto]

Locking a continent might be a bad idea, but is there not another way to make sure the other empires can re-hack on that continent for some time? Like 30 mins or so?

[Quantumplation]

The key thing that continent locks did was to, in theory, allow the battle to roam. Granted, it didn't end up working out this way, but in theory it allowed the battle to be focused onto just a few continents, and to allow those continents to shift as territory shifted. This ultimately diversified the content you experienced over time.

It also gave a very important psychological effect to the player. There needs to be some concept of progression, i.e. "Alright, we've locked this content down, we can move on to the next objective." Even if this was an illusion (fighting was just going to come right back to the continent later), it's important for the player to have that feeling of advancement, and the feeling of "safety at my back" in that you know it's not likely you're going to get troops flooding in from the warp gate behind you.

If combat is always occurring on all continents, you don't get this on the scale that you would have in Planetside 1. It becomes less about "where is my empire fighting so that I can go help them", which was a very cool feeling, and more about "Where do I want to fight today." While it's nice to be able to choose where to fight, it takes away one of the most critical aspects of planetside 1, which was the feeling of being a smaller cog in a larger machine.

(And as always, none of us have seen how it actually works, so this should all be pure speculation and closer to distilling what made Planetside 1 good rather than criticizing a system in PS2 that we know nothing about.)

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...ad.php?t=37770

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well, instead of the sanctuaries on every continent, or the system we had in PS1, I once came up with this lattice suggestion:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/po...id=88000016100

It is based on a triangular system with three homecontinents, of which two homecontinents are sharing sanctuary warpgates with another empire. This was done to make zero basing extremely hard, or rather, make it easier to get back into a fight somewhere and especially hard for one empire to control ALL continents at once.

I actually always liked that idea, and the thing about that idea most relevant to this discussion is that it works just as well if each of the sanctuary gates are these continental footholds (and they're not connected to any sanctuary).

The only drawback to that is that to be as pretty, intricate, and as diverse as those links are, we need a lot of real estate, which I wouldn't expect at launch. For that reason, I'd expect the global warpgate links to look more like this, since they also appear to be going with the 3 warpgates per continent rule (rather than the 4 in PS1):



This requires just 9 continents rather than the 17 pieces of real estate plus the 6 caves. But it can be fractaled up to the same intricacy just as easily.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Originally Posted by Ailos

since they also appear to be going with the 3 warpgates per continent rule (rather than the 4 in PS1)[/img]

It is 3 per cont because the warp gates are the unconquerable footholds each empire will have per cont.

So I would assume you move from cont to cont by going back to your foothold and warping to the foothold on another cont.

[DviddLeff]

Yeah at the moment I dont think there will be a global lattice, just every cont open all the time.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Figment

[...]

Anyway, I present: the future of Indar?



[etc.]

lol. I got two colours swapped.

[Figment]

Alright, so I have three questions for you to answer:

One, is it me or will 80% of the fighting per cont be about the region of that T-fork split?

Two, when does the fight make, or allows you leave for another fight?

Three, how many times can you repeat that cycle if the exact same stretch of territory is in dispute every day?

[Mightymouser]

Well, you can capture hexes, so that "T-fork" is going to be constantly moving...Also, depending on whether they allow back-hacking (without needing adjacent hexes), I could see large fights regularly spawning out of areas that were previously quiet.

I do worry about the game becoming repetitive though, especially as there are only three conts, but they are intending to add more, so we'll just have to trust them to deliver I guess...

[Figment]

Backhacking will be possible, but securing those backhacks is supposed to be faster. Compared to PS1, how many people can you spare for, or will react to such a backhack?

Two, three times as many? Will the willingness to try that (risk) be worth it or acceptable for your own empire?

I could sometimes barely get people to come to Zotz drains to hold against 5 people "because it'd not stand a chance anyway so close to enemy warpgate", I presume it'll be a diplomatic and logistical nightmare to get 20-50 people there unless they are under your direct command.

The psychological presence of a nearby enemy sanctuary may just be too great.