Footholds Archetypes: "Food for Thought"

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Which is why having 2-faction "home-continents" seems like a better idea. Then, the fighting can be over not only the warpgates that open up access to other continents, but also the home continents themselves (because they're never "safe" from at least one other empire).

Those warpgates, then, can lead to either other 2-faction home-continents (providing either access to that continent for the non-footholded empire or a tactical foothold that grants access to push into the opposition's holdings from multiple fronts) or to completely neutral continents, which may get locked but will never have a stranglehold by the locking empire, because they must hold their beachhead access with no special advantages of permanent access.

Yes that's option #3 in the OP. It isn't particularly bad, but still less space utilization than #1, which I think has to be the priority. #3 would be an interesting option to consider with more continents. For launch they need to maximize player density, because that density will drop the moment a single continent is added and with each additional continent. As density drops the need for a different continental layout goes up, both to keep density high in a local area and to add more strategic depth to the game.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Yes that's option #3 in the OP. It isn't particularly bad, but still less space utilization than #1, which I think has to be the priority. #3 would be an interesting option to consider with more continents. For launch they need to maximize player density, because that density will drop the moment a single continent is added and with each additional continent. As density drops the need for a different continental layout goes up, both to keep density high in a local area and to add more strategic depth to the game.

I completely agree. I meant it as a suggestion for down the road; clearly tri-footholds everywhere are ideal for launch.

My beef with #3 in the OP is I tend to dislike warp gate links that aren't 1:1 connections.

[NEWSKIS]

I think no matter what setup they use, there will always be a stalemate at some point, be it between 2 or 3 empires. The system they are using currently is designed so that the fights keep going on every continent and not just rotate between them. The hex system also gives a lot more ways to attack and makes defense more difficult. This might limit the stalemates. Personally I'd say wait till beta starts and see how good/bad the current system they have works. That's the only way to find out. Hopefully if some aspect of it doesnt work, they'll modify it to make it better.

[erunion]

Originally Posted by NEWSKIS

The system they are using currently is designed so that the fights keep going on every continent and not just rotate between them.

Yes, but what kind of combat will it be?

Likely each faction would spend its time defending/retaking a very small portion at the center of the map.

[NEWSKIS]

Originally Posted by erunion

Yes, but what kind of combat will it be?

Likely each faction would spend its time defending/retaking a very small portion at the center of the map.

There really isnt anyway to know to what extent that will happen until beta gets going for a while.

[Malorn]

I'm trying to create a road map for a good inter-continental design given the current continents and likely plan to continue releasing continents with only 3 warpgates. One thing I'm searching for is the inflection point where they could make the switch from the current model to an inter-connected dynamic model.

I was working through some different continent configurations and had some observations.

1) If continents continue the pattern of only having 3 warpgates then it will severely limit inter-continental link options.

2) With 3 links per continent and a fully capturable warpgate model (dynamic footholds) I described above, there is no valid configuration for an odd number of continents. 3, 5, and 7 do not work at all. 4, 6, and 8 work, and I have to say 6 and 8 look quite interesting with a fully dynamic foothold system. 4 is OK but is a slight loss in space utilization over the current 3-continent design.

3) Without the dynamic foothold model the continental configurations are all terrible and uninteresting. I didn't like any of them.

4) The dynamic foothold model is not only a cool sandbox concept, but it is also necessary in order to allow the game to free-flow and allow empires to reasonably see all the continents. It is also needed to create interesting inter-continental configurations because with only 3 links continents configurations lead to becoming triangular and effectively walls off multiple continents for each faction. The dynamic model allows what would have otherwise been end-points in the continental config to loop back and open up the configuration for a lot more open and flowing options. The end points are problematic in general and create some undesired characteristics. I think the dynamic foothold model fixes that.

5) It is possible to make an odd number of continents work, but only if there is one continent that is like the current model - all three empires have a link to it and it isn't connected to any other continents. It's just a one-off continent. The rest of the continents are configured as N-1. I'm not sure I like that as a solution because I think that one-off continent will draw people away from the other continents. Perhaps there are other incentives to help diversify, but the one-off continent also has some merits.




I don't have time now, but I will illustrate the above with a 4 and 6 continent configuration to demonstrate what I mean.

When I get some time I'll map this out in more detail, probably make a new thread about it. The goal is a road-map and some of the things that would need to happen if they wanted to eventually do that.