Footholds

Malstrum · 2012-06-24, 12:15 PM

I'm not sure if this topic has been discussed or not, but will the footholds in PS2 have a unique look resembling their empire to them?

Because each foothold is uncapturable, I thought it would be awesome if each of the footholds resembled each empire in some way, or perhaps the environment surrounding it as well.

Just a thought.

Otleaz · 2012-06-24, 12:17 PM

They are(better be) planning on making them capturable later on once more continents are added so that might be counter productive.

Dagron · 2012-06-24, 12:24 PM

Still would be fun if they made the footholds have their original empire's aesthetics.

It'd be cool to walk around a city of which every aspect reminds you it was conquered from someone else.

Goku · 2012-06-24, 12:25 PM

I'd rather not have empire themed footholds. Doing so may limit the possibility of switching footholds between empires. By switching the footholds empires will be able to fight from new ends of the conts, allows the maps to be less stale.

Dagron · 2012-06-24, 12:36 PM

Originally Posted by Goku

Doing so may limit the possibility of switching footholds between empires.

I disagree, see my post above.

Traenor · 2012-06-24, 12:39 PM

Imho, i do not think they will switch footholds artificially. Both because it is, you know, artificial, and because they have said they design each region to play to their factions strengths. However, making some of them captureable sounds a lot more possible, although it is unknown what the safezone will be then.

Otleaz · 2012-06-24, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

I disagree, see my post above.

Something like that would be too confusing for their target audience.

Dagron · 2012-06-24, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Traenor

... and because they have said they design each region to play to their factions strengths.

Even so i think it would be interesting, it would at least shake things up. If they moved every empire around, everyone would be out of their element and no one would be in more or less advantage than the other.

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Something like that would be too confusing for their target audience.

You could be right, but we shouldn't give people so little credit.
Besides, it's not like that type of confusion would cause trouble anyway (i think).

Otleaz · 2012-06-24, 12:54 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

You could be right, but we shouldn't give people so little credit.
Besides, it's not like that type of confusion would cause trouble anyway (i think).

I guarantee you would have a guy within the first 5 days grab a tank and randomly shoot at one of his footholds for at least 3 hours before giving up.

That is who they are trying to draw into the game.

Goku · 2012-06-24, 01:00 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

I disagree, see my post above.

Doesn't make any sense. These would be switched by the devs. You are not conquering anything as you lost your home foothold. That is only confusing as someone else already said.

These aren't cities as far I know either, but massive bases anyway.

Littleman · 2012-06-24, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Dagron

Even so i think it would be interesting, it would at least shake things up. If they moved every empire around, everyone would be out of their element and no one would be in more or less advantage than the other.

Now hold on a second, think about the reasoning behind setting up the maps that way. It makes conquering or at least cornering the enemy into their foothold much more difficult. As one empire presses into enemy territory, the advantage so turn towards the retreating empire's to prevent any one empire from being pushed back into their foothold.

Rotate the footholds with the maps designed in this way, and we may find the NC or TR in the VS corner, getting stomped back into the foothold by the VS because the terrain naturally benefits them. Sounds like the maps were designed such that rotating footholds wasn't a part of the plan.

But hrm... it does make someday eventually conquering the footholds a bit more exciting a concept.

Trafalgar · 2012-06-24, 01:34 PM

I worry that having unconquerable respawn point fortresses would put the whole strategy metagame into question, by making it impossible to roll up enemy territory past their "foothold" without ending up with an unconquerable enemy strong point in your territory, from which the enemy will pour out constantly to attack you in the middle of what is now your territory while you continue trying to advance. Putting it at the corner of a continent would be more containable, of course, and possibly that is what is being done.

While rebels and resistance groups exist in real world wars, you didn't end up with unconquerable fortresses, and even when castles were in vogue, you could either surround them until they ran out of supplies and were forced to surrender, or bombard them until you broke through their fortifications enough to justify throwing troops at it (or use siege towers, ladders, battering rams, etc, but more deaths were likely). Neither method is possible with unconquerable footholds.

(With the goal being to not allow any side to be defeated, it's questionable as to whether this is a concern to the devs - they may feel that it's a necessary sacrifice)

Dagron · 2012-06-24, 01:50 PM

Feels like i'm posting too much in this thread, so i just have this to say and then i promise i'll slow down:

Originally Posted by Otleaz

That is who they are trying to draw into the game.

Funny as that may be (i know i lol'd), it sounds like you're just upset with the direction the game is taking. Calling people stupid is not a very good argument.
I agree it might be a little confusing, but i disagree with why it would be a problem. Despite appearances, i doubt the playerbase's average IQ is 42.

Originally Posted by Goku

[1 - ]You are not conquering anything as you lost your home foothold.
(...)
[2 - ]These aren't cities as far I know either, but massive bases anyway.

1 - So you stole theirs and they stole yours, it happens.
2 - Cities, bases, tomato, potato. Anything can be taken away from it's owner, even ideas.

But that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by Goku

These would be switched by the devs.

Would they? I'm assuming nothing and everything. There are threads discussing people's ideas on dynamic footholds, we've seen that having the devs move them isn't the only option.

Final thoughts:
Ok, i agree that since the devs so far have no plans (that we know of), we can't tell if this is a good or bad idea in this regard.
But still, what's wrong with talking about it? Can't we explore the possibilities a little? I think that's all the OP wanted...

Hamma · 2012-06-24, 02:01 PM

When I saw them they were pretty bland nothing fancy. They are meant to be functional so they aren't very fancy.

Goku · 2012-06-24, 02:06 PM

In PS1 the developers from time to time did switch the lattice around to give maps a refreshing feel. I see no reason why this developer team will not do the same.

I think empire themed sites are interesting, but I think it defeats the purpose of having one if that empire isn't there. I just don't see footholds as the place to be doing this due to that. If we ever have sancs back then sure I would love to see a empire themed city. Just have to wait and see I guess.