A Problem I Forsee With 4-Continent Lattice

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Blynd

That is a very specific scenario. I said your idea of forcing everyone to fight on hossin to get access to another continent. That just creates hossinside for everyone as they fight over the central wg. Much like the old crown. Sorry but this suggestion will not work

And just like the old Crown, he who holds The Crown loses Indar. I think it'd add some dynamicsim (is that a word? Feels like it should be a word but Google tells me it isn't) to the lattice and break up any static fights.
Besides, given the choice between Indarside and Hossinside... I choose the continent that has the Interfarm.

[Rivenshield]

Why the hell are rotating warpgates so difficult (along with much else we had a decade ago)...

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

Why the hell are rotating warpgates so difficult (along with much else we had a decade ago)...

Because after 7th rotation... Well, they lose their innovativeness.

[Baneblade]

Intercontinental locks should't even be attempted until Searhus.

[Timithos]

Hey guys! I see a problem! There aren't 10 continents like in Planetside 1.

Four continents is not going to work very well probably no matter what they or we think up.

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Intercontinental locks should't even be attempted until Searhus.

^ Bingo ^ Even with Searhus, locking continents is silly still until there are more continents then that.

[typhaon]

I don't think challenge is really the # of continents - it's the mechanics and pace with how territory is taken and held.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by typhaon

I don't think challenge is really the # of continents - it's the mechanics and pace with how territory is taken and held.

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

[typhaon]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

Why does the number of continents matter?

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

No, the number of continents is critical. The problem is SOE has it in their collective heads that every continent has to have activity on it all the time and it is simply not the case. But there still has to be enough to move the trenches and allow for continent locking. At minimum there should be six.

I agree with your points and I don't think new players (meaning those who haven't experienced Planetside) have grasped the simple fact that just because you have half a dozen (or however many) continents, doesn't mean that you need 2000 players (or whatever) on each continent.
The way I figure it, only three conts will have active fighting on them at any given time.
Any less and you run into problems shifting the population and creating enough of a ruckus when you start up the third cont assault to get anyone to show up.
Any more and you end up with a few squads fighting each other on every cont.

To respond to Typhaon, the number of continents is important because each new continent provides the possibility for another link between every continent. That's not to say that every WG will link to every WG, but it could. It's that potential for maneuver that stops Indar (or Cyssorside) from being the only continent that to fight over.

Ideally, like I said above, you want One cont to be pop locked, one overflow cont that has enough people on it to make playing on that continent enjoyable and you need the third continent to allow for the outfits to maneuver on a strategic level.

[Blynd]

Originally Posted by bpostal

I agree with your points and I don't think new players (meaning those who haven't experienced Planetside) have grasped the simple fact that just because you have half a dozen (or however many) continents, doesn't mean that you need 2000 players (or whatever) on each continent.
The way I figure it, only three conts will have active fighting on them at any given time.
Any less and you run into problems shifting the population and creating enough of a ruckus when you start up the third cont assault to get anyone to show up.
Any more and you end up with a few squads fighting each other on every cont.

To respond to Typhaon, the number of continents is important because each new continent provides the possibility for another link between every continent. That's not to say that every WG will link to every WG, but it could. It's that potential for maneuver that stops Indar (or Cyssorside) from being the only continent that to fight over.

Ideally, like I said above, you want One cont to be pop locked, one overflow cont that has enough people on it to make playing on that continent enjoyable and you need the third continent to allow for the outfits to maneuver on a strategic level.

i agree with the dirty TR guy

4 conts will not make a workable latice system so there has to be more then that to make any intercontinental latice work.

[bpostal]

Originally Posted by Blynd

i agree with the dirty TR guy

4 conts will not make a workable latice system so there has to be more then that to make any intercontinental latice work.

Thanks, let me see if I can muddy the waters so you can get back to hating (as is proper!).

I think a 4 cont lattice is viable. It wouldn't be pretty and you'd have, at minimum, the issues brought forth in this thread crop up but we would have a lattice and hopefully proper WG functionality. I still think that the solution, with a rotating/randomized WG would help alleviate any 'staleness' while we wait on Searhus.
Creating a setup with 4 continents, however, would get people used to the idea of intercontinental lattice. My fear, if that does happen, is that people will get used to the 4 cont setup and be unable to take the next logical leap for when the global lattice is fully implemented.

[Mordelicius]

They have to flesh out the Battle Islands first (they were supposed to be the continental connectors). They said there would be multiple BIs. I also proposed a different system: http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=55871

But without seeing the other BIs, it's really hard to try to fit all the puzzle pieces in.

If they say what kind of Battle Islands are they doing:
- 2 link type.
- 3 link type?
- 4 link type or more?
Basically, the question is what kind of modular design will they apply to the Battle Islands with regards to the intercontinental lattice as they add new continents?

I do understand your point that players will gravitate towards their 'home' continent. The chief reason for this is population. In Waterson, players are going back to Indarside. There's not enough players for Amerish, especially with those major chokepoints all close to each other, the fight becomes either a population steamroll (other empires won't join) or ping-pong between Techplants or major 4-link chokepoint. Imo, they erred with the 2-concentric rings design lattice. They need to open it up some more links between the rings. That or they have to nerf the Bastion and Auraxis Firearms.

[Blynd]

Well as battle islands seem to be a thing of the past atm we can only speculate but again they would need more then just one to make any use of them between continents possible.

[Rivenshield]

I still think sanctuaries with one fixed and one randomly rotating WG would help immensely.