Continent pop in PS2 -- concerns and speculations

[Rivenshield]

In days of yore we had (I think I recall) 166x166x133. That's a grand total of 465 people all (potentially) blazing away at each other in the same small area (which is a lot more apocalyptic than it sounds like. It was like a high tech Battle of Gettysburg sometimes). That means the first two empires to get pop lock enjoy a 1/5th numerical advantage.

If the old ratios hold true, PS2's pops would be something like 700x700x560. It'll be great if they can pull that off. However....

....here's my concern: These new bases are XBAWKS HUEG -- twice the size of the old. And remember how vast and cavernous they were? How easy it was to get lost in them? run about for a frustrating minute and a half and see maybe a handful of other people before you got where you wanted to go? In order to achieve the same population density as a PS1 base fight -- that same immersive sense of being caught up in a gigantic battle, of standing shoulder to shoulder with dozens or hundreds of your comrades -- they'll need to double old pops, minimum. Without that quality, the game will wither and die.

I'd like to see three things:

1) Hotkeyed minimaps for each base that will clearly show not just a maze of corridors, but every point of importance. Generator, vehicle pad, air pad, spawn room, equipment term, et cetera. I hate running in circles because this new base is laid out a bit differently than the last one. I also hate having to run forever to find anybody to fight, or team up with, or ANYTHING.

2) The same time-proven system of two major belligerents plus a third spoiling force 80% smaller than the other two. I hate endless repetitive slugfests. You ought to be able to advance against one foe while stalling with a small blocking force of psychotic CE's, like we did in days of old before somebody at Sony shrugged and made all three empire cont pops equal.

3) A continental pop lock of at least 1500 warm bodies, no matter how they divvy them up. Last I heard they were shooting for 2000 players per continent, so hoping they can meet 75% of their original goal seems reasonable. That gives us a population density 50% higher than the original Planetside. Which would would be almost unfathomably epic.

Your thoughts, fellow zerglings?

[basti]

We never had uneven pop locks.

Old ratios got slowly turned down from 200+ to the now 133.

They also said several times that they aim for THOUSANDS (note the S at the end) on a continent. Even if we just reach 1000, thats still 333vs333vs333. Thats a lot more than we had in the prime days.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by basti

We never had uneven pop locks.

It's been a number of years but I'm pretty certain that we did, at launch and for some time after.

Originally Posted by basti

Even if we just reach 1000, thats still 333vs333vs333. Thats a lot more than we had in the prime days.

I played BF2142 briefly. Did anyone else? Does anyone remember when Northern Strike came out? Remember how the maps fell into disuse after about a month? Because they were too. Freaking. BIG. They condemned you to run around for several minutes to find anyone to team up with or do battle with. That's boring.

A PS1 sized base with twice the warm bodies shoved into it creates a battlespace bustling with activity. Twice the warm bodies spread out over twice or thrice the area still gives you the same (or lower) population density. And we're going to *need* those warm bodies, because you can't just guard the gate and watch for people dropping from Mossies anymore. Jetpack infantry will be coming in waves over the wall at any given point. That really, really reduces the ability of a small determined force with its act together to stall a larger one for awhile, which was one of the things that made Planetside great.

[ringring]

When I started in 2004 pop limits were 166x166x166.

After a few years eith fewer people playing the limits dropped to 133x133x133.

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by basti

We never had uneven pop locks.

Old ratios got slowly turned down from 200+ to the now 133.

They also said several times that they aim for THOUSANDS (note the S at the end) on a continent. Even if we just reach 1000, thats still 333vs333vs333. Thats a lot more than we had in the prime days.

As of June 2003 when I started there was a 500-player pop cap on each cont, and IIRC 1 empire was allowed fill up to 50% of the total number of slots (250) on the cont, leaving the other 2 empires to fight over the remaining 50%. Whoever got their zerg on cont first got the 50% lock, but I don't remember if there were further defined pop caps for the other two empires other than the fact they couldn't go over a combined 50%.

Later on (maybe 6 months after release?), like ringing pointed out they changed the pop locks to 33% per empire, or 166/166/166 slots. Still later after that they reduced the total cap from 500 players to 400, making poplocks 133/133/133 players instead of 166/166/166.

...

To the OP: I really like idea of having all major points of interest in a base marked on our minimap. I also like having the ability to hit a "base map" key (in addition to the "cont map" key like in PS1) that would give you a map of the whole layout of the base that you're currently in, either all levels or just the current level.

However, IMO moving away from the balanced 33%/33%/33% poplocks is a bad idea. It's true that before the poplocks were balanced to 33% each, battles for a cont often concluded more quickly than they did after the poplocks were made balanced.

However, in PS1 we all know that numbers reign supreme, and before the caps were balanced determining the victor was simple: Basically it was "whoever gets their zerg on cont first, wins." Whichever empire got that 50% lock usually won the cont, so winning became a race to see who could get 250 people on cont first. Once one side got the 50% lock they were already fairly certain of victory.

But with balanced empire caps though, superior tactics played on much greater role on who ended up taking the cont.

And about the endless 3-ways... IMO this is most likely not going to be an issue in PS2 with the new territory control system. The TCS will give you many different avenues of attack against your enemies. We have no lattice network to make artificial bottlenecks everywhere and force empires to attack only 1 or 2 specific targets in order to advance. That, combined with the lack of sloth-like BFR's bogging down the front lines by hanging back and squatting in place so their shields can recharge, more open base layouts, no interlink benefits, faster TTK's, (hopefully) lack of capital domes, and the fact that you can't rez unless you're a medic will all lead to much more fluid battle lines.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Erendil

We have no lattice network to make artificial bottlenecks everywhere and force empires to attack only 1 or 2 specific targets in order to advance. That, combined with the lack of sloth-like BFR's bogging down the front lines by hanging back and squatting in place so their shields can recharge, more open base layouts, no interlink benefits, faster TTK's, and the fact that you can't rez unless you're a medic will all lead to much more fluid battle lines.

All good points. Thanks.

[Erendil]

I don't think there will be capitol domes either since bases seem to have sectional base shield domes now that I believe can be taken down by killing/capturing a base shield gen. So no more forcing an empire to take sub-capitols first, which again means more avenues of attack.

[CrystalViolet]

The key to pops and in a sense, the whole game is going to be the way the mission system distributes players through out the continent. On the surface it will be a way to give players tactical objectives, but under the surface, it's main function will be to keep battles focused and interesting in different regions despite shifting population numbers.