Is PS2 going to be intercontinental enough?

[texico]

Originally Posted by kaffis

This still doesn't get around a very simple problem:

Yes, "continent locking" is a goal Planetside vets are familiar with, and think is a good idea.

HOWEVER, the devs have repeatedly stated that the reason they've removed continent locking is that it quite simply removes large areas of land from the fight, for all the reasons that players feel like it's an accomplishment.

You can do that when you procedurally generate over a dozen continents, and don't have the subscription numbers to demand that each continent remain full.

You can't do that when you're handcrafting 64 square kilometers per continent. That's a huge amount of developer man-hours sunk into a big space that you've just said isn't in play so that some of the players can have an arbitrary sense of accomplishment.


Here's another idea: Let's get in beta, and figure out what kinds of arbitrary, emergent goals the system that's in place will support!

Well, I never attempted to address that problem because I don't think it can be addressed, because the two ideas, "locking" (a nicer term is ownership) and "open for all" are completely different stances.

Think of continental ownership in terms of the hex territory ownership system hypothetically. If there was no territory/facility ownership, you could potentially have people fighting eachother on every square km of land at ALL times. HAVING the hex-territory system means that at any one time, most of the land is well within somebodies borders and nobodies fighting there...

But it's necessary, because you have to create a feeling of ownership for the players. You can't just have them spawning and running at each other.

The same is true on an intercontinental level. By having no proper system of ownership and progression of owning continents, there's no feeling of ownership by the players. The sense of ownership is literally EVERYTHING in a tactical game. If there's no ownership of continents, then there's no intercontinental play AT ALL, and the game's scale is therefore reduced... The only thing players will feel like they're fighting to control is hexes/facilities, and not continents or planets like in PlanetSide.



And then, I mentioned this in another thread. You're looking at it the wrong way if you think it's a good thing for people to be able to play on any continent they want at any time. Locking continents means that continents that are locked will feel like PREMIUM content in the eyes of a player. They'll log in one day and see that the battle is taking place on their FAVOURITE cont which hasn't had any fights on it for a couple of weeks, and you can bet that they're going to spend as much time as they can playing that fight, because they don't always get the chance. It's exploiting the "string in front of the cat" psychology of people, and it's perfect too, because most of the time what continent their fighting on doesn't really affect their actual gameplay experience and it's not something they're actually going to feel dissatisfied by... when they DO get to fight on a continent they really like, it will feel like an epic bonus.


So yeah. Plus remember, locking isn't that common especially with a big population. The only continents in PS1 that were ever truly "locked" for extended periods were the home continents, and that was just to do with the way the lattice system rules worked.

[Ailos]

I approve of this idea.

However, I propose a simplification to this system:

If you own the warpgate outpost on both sides of the warpgate, the gate is shielded and only your empire may pass through it unless the enemy hacks it to temporarily disable the shield. If you lose control of the warpgate outpost on one side, the gate becomes neutral and anyone may pass through it. I just want to stick away from the idea that the outposts will only be hackable if you've lost all other facilities on continents - I am unsure if any single empire will truly ever own a whole continent for long, and though it makes defense slightly harder, it's still just easy to protect your empire's flanks.

Furthermore, this idea of a shield that is only operable when both outposts are protected is easier to integrate into the lore - the shields would be human-built, and not part of the actual warpgate. They would be addons that humans built when they start splitting up into empires to try and have a sense of factional territory.







Also, I support the idea that warpgates serve as links between hexes.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Ailos

I

What kind of map scaling are we expecting for distance between things? For example, in the drawing above, you've got a WG and 2 "facilities" nearby. What kind of distance would there be between those 2 facilities? 500m? more? less? Can answer based on PS1 if PS2 not known.

[texico]

Originally Posted by Ailos

I approve of this idea.

However, I propose a simplification to this system:

If you own the warpgate outpost on both sides of the warpgate, the gate is shielded and only your empire may pass through it unless the enemy hacks it to temporarily disable the shield. If you lose control of the warpgate outpost on one side, the gate becomes neutral and anyone may pass through it. I just want to stick away from the idea that the outposts will only be hackable if you've lost all other facilities on continents - I am unsure if any single empire will truly ever own a whole continent for long, and though it makes defense slightly harder, it's still just easy to protect your empire's flanks.

Furthermore, this idea of a shield that is only operable when both outposts are protected is easier to integrate into the lore - the shields would be human-built, and not part of the actual warpgate. They would be addons that humans built when they start splitting up into empires to try and have a sense of factional territory.

images.

Also, I support the idea that warpgates serve as links between hexes.

I think this works fine too. The reason I said the whole continent needs to be capped first is just because I didn't know if there'd be tactical/balance problems of letting an empire go straight to hacking a warp gate without having tried to take the whole map first, and yeah, I originally imagined the WG would only be usable by that particular empire when they own both WG-stations like you said, and it's fine for it to become "open" when contested (for no reason in particular I originally said that only the empires owning one of the two/both the WG-stations could use the WG-link).

Originally Posted by Raymac

It's likely I'm not understanding this, but how do you get around the problem of getting pushed off of one continent while your "home" continent is pop-locked? You would literally have nowhere to go if you don't have at least 1 spawn point which means you'd get booted out of the game.

Only solution I can think of is not letting the home-continents become pop-locked, or at least, letting them somehow spawn at the uncapturable-foothold but not be able to exit its shields into the continent if it's pop-locked, which is basically what the Sanctuaries would do anyway.

This is one of the finer more situation-specific problems of having only 3 continents. If there were more continents, your scenario is much less likely, and would only occur if a team has lost all the common-continents and is fighting on their home-continent (which would have to be their last continent). If there are any other continents even remotely in their control, they can spawn at the WG-stations (the semi-uncapturable footholds) on those continents they're fighting on instead if their home-continent is pop-locked.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by texico

Only solution I can think of is not letting the home-continents become pop-locked, or at least, letting them somehow spawn at the uncapturable-foothold but not be able to exit its shields into the continent if it's pop-locked, which is basically what the Sanctuaries would do anyway.

This is one of the finer more situation-specific problems of having only 3 continents. If there were more continents, your scenario is much less likely, and would only occur if a team has lost all the common-continents and is fighting on their home-continent (which would have to be their last continent). If there are any other continents even remotely in their control, they can spawn at the WG-stations (the semi-uncapturable footholds) on those continents they're fighting on instead if their home-continent is pop-locked.

I don't know how technically possible that would be. Granted I don't know the ins and outs of how the servers manage the players but having an continent allow double the normal player count sounds extremely problematic to me. I'd think that the devs will have the maximum player count per continent already, so any increase to that would be a problem.

Plus back in golden days, it was common to have multiple continents pop-locked. So considering how we are starting with 3, I don't know how easy it would be to just go somewhere else.

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Orbital stations as a spawn point and staging post for organising massive counter offences on any continent. Allow people to drop pod anywhere on continents that they have no territory controlled.

What you'll see from this is massive counter offences dropping from space onto continents that are controlled by an entire faction or just 2 factions, and it would be a glorious sight to behold.

So basically bring the Sanctuaries back? I don't know. Or doesn't being able to drop anywhere kind of defeat the whole purpose of locking a continent?

Plus, while I agree that IF it was coordinated right, a massive HART drop would be cool. I just don't know how effective it would be. Considering the other empires would have more assests at their disposal, a pure infantry drop might not stand much of a chance at surviving.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Raymac

Considering the other empires would have more assests at their disposal, a pure infantry drop might not stand much of a chance at surviving.

Looking at some of the facilities, there's going to be pure infantry combat without tanks or air support at all, so I do think mass infantry drops could quite easily counter.

As for the problem of it defeating the point of cont locking, you perhaps have a point, though people would cont lock anyway for the respect and to say that they did.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Skitrel

As for the problem of it defeating the point of cont locking, you perhaps have a point, though people would cont lock anyway for the respect and to say that they did.

This is very true, that is a great point. But it's also why I think that they will try to capture all the hexes, just to do it. Forcing somebody back to their foothold while you color the entire contient in your empire's color would give (imho) the same feeling of victory as any continent lock.

[Raymac]

It's likely I'm not understanding this, but how do you get around the problem of getting pushed off of one continent while your "home" continent is pop-locked? You would literally have nowhere to go if you don't have at least 1 spawn point which means you'd get booted out of the game.

[Skitrel]

Originally Posted by Raymac

It's likely I'm not understanding this, but how do you get around the problem of getting pushed off of one continent while your "home" continent is pop-locked? You would literally have nowhere to go if you don't have at least 1 spawn point which means you'd get booted out of the game.

Orbital stations as a spawn point and staging post for organising massive counter offences on any continent. Allow people to drop pod anywhere on continents that they have no territory controlled.

What you'll see from this is massive counter offences dropping from space onto continents that are controlled by an entire faction or just 2 factions, and it would be a glorious sight to behold.

[Ailos]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What kind of map scaling are we expecting for distance between things? For example, in the drawing above, you've got a WG and 2 "facilities" nearby. What kind of distance would there be between those 2 facilities? 500m? more? less? Can answer based on PS1 if PS2 not known.

I guess I should've pointed out that those drawings aren't to scale. Based on past answers from Higby and team, distances between facilities on Indar is similar to that in PS1, it's just that each facility is quite a bit larger now. None the less, it's at least 2 km between facilities, with minor capture points (like outpost and bunkers) every km or so.

Originally Posted by Raymac

It's likely I'm not understanding this, but how do you get around the problem of getting pushed off of one continent while your "home" continent is pop-locked? You would literally have nowhere to go if you don't have at least 1 spawn point which means you'd get booted out of the game.

If you notice, I mentioned that the shield doesn't totally block enemy travel - it just requires a squadmate with the special skills of an infiltrator that can temporarily incapacitate the shield. So a even a whole outfit could still cross over into a continent to wreak havok behind enemy lines if they wanted to, even hack the WG outpost on the other side if they wanted to (thereby opening the gate for travel to the general public).

Originally Posted by Skitrel

Orbital stations as a spawn point and staging post for organising massive counter offences on any continent. Allow people to drop pod anywhere on continents that they have no territory controlled.

What you'll see from this is massive counter offences dropping from space onto continents that are controlled by an entire faction or just 2 factions, and it would be a glorious sight to behold.

I like that idea, too.

My idea with the gate locking is that it's something I actually woldn't expect to happen very often. In my entire career playing PS, I've seen the NC sanc lock other empires only twice for any meaningful period of time (more than two days). The reality is that actually owning a disproportionate amount of terrain doesn't happen very often, but it's the possibility of that happening is what makes the game fun for us. So having these kinds of mechanics that allow dedicated outfits to have this sense of territory securely owned by their empire is what makes it fun, even if in reality the conditions to make that actually come true may never happen.

I wouldn't expect warpgates to be locked in this fashion very frequently, but I would expect outfit commanders to consider it as a tactical opportunity - to lock the gate for 15 minutes to allow some foreces to securely pass over to another continent to fight there or to deny that opportunity to the enemy commanders. Having a foothold on only one continent makes it all that much more momentous when you go fight on a continent that isn't your "home".

I mean... imagine the tactical prowess required from an outfit that has just decided to sneak two platoons of troops for a base assault from the NC home cont of (just an example) Indar to Esamir... but it involves sneaking the 6 galaxies around a massive TR-VS clusterfuck near the northern Indar warpgate that is the actual link to Esamir. That outfit is going to NEED some reaver escort... and that also creates a need for empire patrols of territory away from front lines.

I feel like the way we've been describing it here is like a sandbox element that does have some minor negative things, but also brings a lot of additional depth and immersion and scale to the game with a very marginal amount of extra design/development cost.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Ailos

I guess I should've pointed out that those drawings aren't to scale. Based on past answers from Higby and team, distances between facilities on Indar is similar to that in PS1, it's just that each facility is quite a bit larger now. None the less, it's at least 2 km between facilities, with minor capture points (like outpost and bunkers) every km or so.

Wow. Coming from Battlefield, the idea of it being that far between bases is awesome.

Approach lanes aren't usually tunnel-like valleys or anything crazy like that, are they?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Ailos

If you notice, I mentioned that the shield doesn't totally block enemy travel - it just requires a squadmate with the special skills of an infiltrator that can temporarily incapacitate the shield. So a even a whole outfit could still cross over into a continent to wreak havok behind enemy lines if they wanted to, even hack the WG outpost on the other side if they wanted to (thereby opening the gate for travel to the general public).

I see, but I guess my point is that the empire needs to have a permanent spawn point on each continent. If you are on say Indar, and your empire is already pop-locked on your home continent of Esamir, if you lose all your spawn points on Indar, where can you spawn? You'd have to get booted from the server.

It's not about being able to travel through the WG, it's about where you can start from. That's the question I have.

Now, if it's like what kaffis said and Vancha's drawing where these warpgates are in addition to the permanent footholds, then obviously there is no problem.

[Malorn]

A way to make the planet feel more continental and connected is to give each continent its own value and unique properties and give an empire-wide benefit for domination of it that is unique from other continents.

I wrote something in the idea thread about this before:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36627


Why fight on Indar vs Esamir? Apart from looking at which one might be more lucrative for you, if Indar and Esamir had unique properties worth fighting over then they each have their own value. If they are differnet from a resource abundancy standpoint then that also changes the value of the continent.

The continent domination is also a form of end game and could be used in daily/weekly tracking to see which empire is "winning"

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Malorn

A way to make the planet feel more continental and connected is to give each continent its own value and unique properties and give an empire-wide benefit for domination of it that is unique from other continents.

I wrote something in the idea thread about this before:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36627


Why fight on Indar vs Esamir? Apart from looking at which one might be more lucrative for you, if Indar and Esamir had unique properties worth fighting over then they each have their own value. If they are differnet from a resource abundancy standpoint then that also changes the value of the continent.

The continent domination is also a form of end game and could be used in daily/weekly tracking to see which empire is "winning"

What if there were 6 different "factories" for certain equipment or vehicles, that you can only make if you hold the hex it's in(and perhaps even one or more adjacent hexes), and of course, they'd be spread out, 2 per continent? Are there any weapons, vehicles, or abilities that would be balanced if you could only have them while you held that base?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

What if there were 6 different "factories" for certain equipment or vehicles, that you can only make if you hold the hex it's in(and perhaps even one or more adjacent hexes), and of course, they'd be spread out, 2 per continent? Are there any weapons, vehicles, or abilities that would be balanced if you could only have them while you held that base?

That's how it was in PS1 with Tech Plants and MBTs & Reavers