Uncapturable Foothold / Sactuary Hexes - Pro's and Cons - Page 10

Firefly · 2012-03-15, 02:45 PM

Having no sanctuaries is a dumb idea. You want faster gameplay? Put in an instant-action feature.

Even if you rotate uncapturable bases every two weeks, within two days the playerbase will figure out how to bottleneck a base, stranglehold the chokepoints, and grief the fuck out of players on opposite factions. I will go ahead and say this right now - I'm already planning on how to be the biggest asshole to NC and VS using the above methods I just described.

Signed, Black Widow Company... the original warpgate assaulters.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-15, 03:04 PM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Having no sanctuaries is a dumb idea. You want faster gameplay? Put in an instant-action feature.

Even if you rotate uncapturable bases every two weeks, within two days the playerbase will figure out how to bottleneck a base, stranglehold the chokepoints, and grief the fuck out of players on opposite factions. I will go ahead and say this right now - I'm already planning on how to be the biggest asshole to NC and VS using the above methods I just described.

Signed, Black Widow Company... the original warpgate assaulters.

What's your point? That you can bottle people into a warpgate? You can do that regardless of whether there is a base inside the warpgate or whether that warpgate connects to a sanctuary. It doesn't stop people from leaving the continent and fighting on another.

DaSwede · 2012-03-15, 03:27 PM

The simple fact that a faction can only enter via one makes this a viable strategy. Broadcast Warpgates solved it in PS1 so you had options.

Triple A · 2012-03-15, 03:36 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Well it could be easily explained by saying Auraxis itself made the change for its own mysterious reasons. With sci-fi, you can make up all kinds of lore to fit just about anything.

Bugs!

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-15, 04:54 PM

well, they used dropships didn't they?

Sure, most got slaughtered on descent but you know... The principle is good...

Raymac · 2012-03-15, 05:32 PM

Originally Posted by Malorn

What's your point? That you can bottle people into a warpgate? You can do that regardless of whether there is a base inside the warpgate or whether that warpgate connects to a sanctuary. It doesn't stop people from leaving the continent and fighting on another.

^ This. Sorry Firefly, but that is one of the lamest arguments I've heard in favor of bringing Sancturaries back. We really don't need a massive lobby. As long as we have enough space to form raids somewhere, that's all I care about.

Figment · 2012-03-15, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Also, I agree that "chaotic acquistion" is a good thing to a point. That's why the hex system is so exciting. The lattice system was added in PS1 beta because when it was too free-for-all, it was simply too chaotic and the war had no flow. Uncapturable footholds still allows for that chaos despite your nostradoums-esque efforts to attempt to predict how excatly every battle willn play out into a stalemate.

Bottom line for me, forcing people to fight in a lopsided 9:1 battle is a flawed mechanic so taking out continent locks is good for the overall flow of the game.

You don't need to take out continent locks if you simply speed up the procedure to a formality at those odds. That's what the hex grid system can be used for. I'm perfectly fine with the hex grid.

I just don't think there's any reason where (unlike in the demo where there were only 50 people playing) 666 players on a side would allow someone to hack something behind two hexes behind them.

If you look at the image below from the demo footage:

Note three things:

1. It's the T-split I predicted a month ago.

2. The territory behind the front line is very small. Three hexes deep, you are already three hexes away from the Sanctuary Foothold. In fact, there's almost only one line of bases between the frontline and the Sanctuary Foothold. That's not much territory to attack and quietly set up camp. You want to take that, you need to bring a zerg...

3. Note how the territory held by NC in the north east is bordering two empires, meaning they can't really expand from it without leaving their rear open for probing. To put it nicely.

Three hexes is the size of a base controlled area, so I would estimate approximately the size of a SOI, at most two and a half, given that we know the continents are approximately the same in size as PlanetSide's. Do you realise how short the response time will be?

So... Let's assume for a second that there's a relatively equal distribution of NC fighting along one of those three border areas of the NC in the south west. So 222 zerging center, 222 east and 222 north. In practice I would assume the central zerg to be biggest though.

If we assume 12-20% of these 666 people resec, approximately the population percentage that would resecure in PS1 without causing a significant power difference at the frontline... Do you realise just how many players will be coming from all directions at you? And that if you manage to beat those off somehow, you are now right next to one, two, or three major zergsections? In fact, I'd say a lot more people could break off from the frontline, since the two other zergs will keep each other in place, thanks to the same principle that an empire can hold a base that's under attack by two sides: neither allows the other to do a proper siege.

If we compare this to PlanetSide 1, a zerg could well be fighting on the far side of the continent, simply because they are not stalemated and pushed back to the equilibrium position as much by the second empire. The zerg will respond faster than in PS1. This will be enough to make most people think twice about doing Ops behind enemy lines, because they'll just get zerged.

The "backland" needs to be far larger to make this concept of taking random territory behind enemy lines worthwhile.

**Malorn** · 2012-03-15, 06:23 PM

Funny thing too....

3 continents, 3 footholds per empire. PS1 had 3 bases in the sanctuaries. So we actually still have the same number of staging areas. They are just on the continent now.

So the only difference is what Cutter said: it's the sanctuary + warpgate - loading screen.

The net effect is that you won't have a footzerg hopelessly streaming out of a tower trying to crack open a continent and people can easily get tanks & aircraft. It used to be such a pain in PS trying to get people to roll tanks when attacking a continent because the pop-lock on the continent would come into play. So the lack of a loading screen makes attacking easier and more productive.

Also, the continental "lock" had two benefits:
1) It prevented HARTing into a continent. There is no HART in PS2 so this benefit is completely meaningless.
2) It gave a continental benefit to the empire that controlled it. They can still provide benefits to empires that dominate a continent.

I had ideas about continental benefits and such in this thread in the idea vault a long time ago:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/f...ad.php?t=36627

Basically territory control is another way we can get the same effect as a continent lock without all the lameness that went with it.

The continent domination ideas in the thread can also give people their victory conditions that they want.

Raymac · 2012-03-15, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I just don't think there's any reason where (unlike in the demo where there were only 50 people playing) 666 players on a side would allow someone to hack something behind two hexes behind them.

I certainly see what you are saying, but I think your conclusion is premature. Assume you never played PS1 before, and you just looked at the map with the lattice. Using the logic that you are using now, you would say that it would be near impossible for somebody to successfully backhack because the lattice restricts what somebody can attack. The enemy zerg is limited to 1 tiny space where you can attack, which means a smaller force can defend it and more troops can rush to defend against the backhack.

Well, from playing the game, we know that backhacking is a very successful tactic. In fact, the hex system makes backhacking much easier because there are more places to attack.

Also, it's not really fair to look at the demo and say "see, it's a T stalemate just like I predicted" because it was clearly set up that way for the demo. Like you said, there were only 50 people playing, if that. What we saw on the map is more a default layout than the result of actual gameplay.

Figment · 2012-03-15, 06:47 PM

True about the T-split, however, I took it it means the map is divided for such natural divisions.

Which makes "sense", from a balance perspective.

Raymac · 2012-03-15, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

True about the T-split, however, I took it it means the map is divided for such natural divisions.

Which makes "sense", from a balance perspective.

It would make sense that the "average" position would be something like the T, just so it is generally fair for all empires to have relatively the same amount of territory. But I think it is safe to assume that we will see some pretty wild fluctuations. Personally, I'm really excited to have front lines like this because it will add to the suspense of being "behind" enemy lines. In PS1, you really didn't have battle lines. Just islands of troops around the bases.

StumpyTheOzzie · 2012-03-15, 06:59 PM

Well, unless it is a perfectly balanced T (at least in the early days) then some faction or other is going to complain that the other faction is unbalanced. The devs will see that and "balance" things.

The best long term strategy is to have bad strategy and tactics in the first few months so that your empire gets buffed.

And I imagine that after a few months things will be "tweaked" so that we end up with the T.

Serotriptomine · 2012-03-15, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Sifer2

Pretty much, and I don't know of too many people that actually liked the uncapturable foothold idea since it was described. PS1 had the same problem to a degree with the gateways, and continents that were closer to their Sanctuary.

I still think the best idea is off Planet Sanctuary space ships. Letting you deploy by drop pod like the old HART. The only footholds being the bases you take over.

My last name.

I would love seeing coordinated ANYTHING in terms of taking territory back.
I wouldn't mind seeing a cooldown-able 1-3 times a week, each faction gets a "drop x people @ the border of place x within x distance of the farthest place x"

Kipper · 2012-03-16, 09:51 AM

Hmm, not sure what to make of this. I don't know how anyone else who tried this had things turn out, but I ran the simulator for 350 ticks - bearing in mind it is simplistic - but DOESN'T have any uncapturable footholds. And I got the results in the attached.

Maybe it didn't run long enough, but my expectation was that empires would move around the continent - they haven't here. They are still broadly where they started....

Interesting....

Lonehunter · 2012-03-16, 10:17 AM

Originally Posted by Firefly

Even if you rotate uncapturable bases every two weeks, within two days the playerbase will figure out how to bottleneck a base, stranglehold the chokepoints, and grief the fuck out of players on opposite factions. I will go ahead and say this right now - I'm already planning on how to be the biggest asshole to NC and VS using the above methods I just described.

What he said lol