Footholds Archetypes: "Food for Thought"

[Khrakhan]

What difference does it make where footholds are located on other continents? How do the different continents affect the others?

Forgive my ignorance, i just never played ps1 and all those lines on the maps are kinda confusing me lol

[Malorn]

The reason they went with #1 is as NewSith says, it maximizes players on all continents. It also gives players the most combat options at any given moment instead of being forced to fight on 1-2 continents.

Take #4 for example. If they used #4 then the default configuration would be each empire has a locked continent and are struggling to attack other continents. The pressure to double-team will be high, and typically battle will only be occurring on 1-2 continents. With option 1, you can have battle raging on all 3.

Options #2 and #5 will have the same pattern as #4, only with even fewer tactical options.

#3 is the most interesting of the suggestions because it is highly similar to one of the early PS1 beta configurations where Esamir, Cyssor, and Ishundar each had 2 sanctuary links. #3 is deceptive though, because the two locked footholds on each continent will basically make each continent a 2-way fight with the occasional 3-way depending on how the lattice links up. As a result I think it'll be very boring with not a lot of diversity. I think that's ultimately why they abandoned that design in PS1 beta.

So 2, 4, and 5 are effectively the same with varying degrees of tactical options. The fewer options the more boring it will be. Number 3 offers a different playstyle where there's 3 2-way battles, but each one is going to be largely the same fight every day against the same opponent and the same bases. Also there will be 1 of the three continents that each empire will not see very often becase they are deeply engaged in their 2-ways.

Option 1 (the one the devs chose) ends up being the option with the most player options. All three empires can play on all three continents at any time, but it is prone to have 3-ways. What might end up happening though is that across the 3 continents populations differ, so mostly-two-ways might happen more than we expect.

I would propose option 1a - same configuration, except who owns the footholds on each continent rotates every month or so. With 3 continents not every continent needs to rotate. So you could rotate 2 of the 3 each time. Adds a lot more diversity in continent and options, maximizing player enjoyment of the content where all the other options do not.


Were I to rank them, I would prefer 1a > 1 > 3 > 4 > 2 > 5

That ranking is most interesting from a player options/tactical perspective to least interesting. #5 is incredibly dull and uninteresting.

[Madlaps]

I think #1 is the only option for the amount of continents currently up for launch. If we had more continents, something in line with what PS1 had - with faction home continents and benefits (+xp, +resources, -respawn, tech, etc) for capturing an entire continent.

This gives commanders (those making missions) or organised outfits a reason to aim for a continent or a reason to defend a continent. Given equal numbers, generally if you go defend a continent for resources - you will lose resources either way because you're abandoning what you're currently fighting over or splitting forces.

If you get benefit A for Amerish and benefit B for Searhus - there is a strategy in "A is more beneficial to us, so lets attack/defend here and give up B" or "if we attack NC for benefit B, they'll be inclined to defend it and give us a better chance at taking benefit A on Amerish"

[OutlawDr]

#1
I agree, there are just not enough continents to promote any sort of lockout or have home cont.

[Malorn]

I agree with the two gentlemen above me - #1 is the best for the number of continents we have at launch. It'll maximize freshness of the game and provide good gameplay while more continents are created.

It'll be a while before those first three get really stale and while I love the metagame as much or more than the next guy I don't think it needs to be fully in place at launch and there's plenty of time to see how #1 plays out and get new ideas as new continents come along.

[Dagron]

I haven't played PS1 so i'd like to know: how would more continents affect the warpgates configuration?
I mean, can someone throw together something like the OP did, but with more continents on the mix, please?

I'm sure a lot of newcomers, like me, would like to hear about the experiences people had with the several-continents domination game in PS1 (and theories on how to improve it).
It might help us understand what the future holds so we can give more informed opinions/ideas on the subject.

I for one keep chiming in on foothold alternatives threads and i'd like to know more so my suggestions might actually be at least viable.

Thank you.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Dagron

I haven't played PS1 so i'd like to know: how would more continents affect the warpgates configuration?
I mean, can someone throw together something like the OP did, but with more continents on the mix, please?

I'm sure a lot of newcomers, like me, would like to hear about the experiences people had with the several-continents domination game in PS1 (and theories on how to improve it).
It might help us understand what the future holds so we can give more informed opinions/ideas on the subject.

I for one keep chiming in on foothold alternatives threads and i'd like to know more so my suggestions might actually be at least viable.

Thank you.

If you want more insight on PS1 metagame & global strategy and how continental layout and linking affects battles, check out the manifesto link in my sig. See Chapter 2, Metagame & Global Strategy . I give a historical overview, an explanation of the patterns and strategy, as well as a deep-dive into on particularly effective strategy for holding land.

[Dagron]

Cool, will do. Thanks!

[Malorn]

This is linked in my manifesto but may be easy to overlook.

Here's a detailed breakdown of why we chose to defend a certain set of continents, purely because of how they linked and what type of bases they linked to. It also explains double team situations and was a great moment in NC history when we were all united under the same idea of global domination. I think the first world lock was not long after that time.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps/po..._id=1300000528

Whole thread is a good read if you have the time to work through it. Quite the step back in time to 2004 when PS was really in its prime.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Malorn

This is linked in my manifesto but may be easy to overlook.

Just finished reading the OP, still working on the manifesto... a little much to absorb at once, but it'll sink in.

So far it gave me some insight on home continents and continent connections. More than 3 continents would make a significantly more interesting meta-game, i can't wait for them to start being released.

I'm starting to get why people are suggesting that all 3 factions shouldn't have footholds on every continent... and how much fun it could be to push empires back, kick them out of one continent after another, making their territory shrink until they're cornered into their homes.

[RedKnights]

I think th biggest presumption this thread is making is that there NEED to be links between the foothold gates at all. From what I've seen so far the continents do not appear to effect one another.

[erunion]

Nice graphics.

I'm curious about a fifth option: All 3 factions have a foothold on the same one continent(just like now), with all additional continents(to be added) connected by warp gates(possibly make each warp gate connect to several others).

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by erunion

Nice graphics.

I'm curious about a fifth option: All 3 factions have a foothold on the same one continent(just like now), with all additional continents(to be added) connected by warp gates(possibly make each warp gate connect to several others).

I think that would play out like option #4. What you describe is similar to the sanctuaries of PS1, which connected to continents and then the continents connnected to each other. Only difference there is that instead of 3 separate sanctuaries you have one sanc with combat enabled.

The general idea that I believe people like is that idea that you start off on different continents, but they all connect in various ways and you meet int he middle and fight across different landscapes. This is appealing because it's a front and gives a sense of real conquest and helps drive home the persistence aspect of the game, as well as the scale of the game.

I hope we move to something like that, but it does require a lot more continents before you start seeing the rich gameplay. With a small number of continents the strategy is extremely basic and likely boring.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by RedKnights

From what I've seen so far the continents do not appear to effect one another.

That's what i was thinking too before my 1st post here, i wasn't sure why people were so into linking warpgates one way or another. That's why i asked for more info before i started suggesting stuff.

Though after reading some of Malorne's tales of old (mostly from the post he mentioned above), i'm starting to think that completely unrelated continents will not be so entertaining, from a strategic gameplay point of view.

I still have a lot of reading to do, but i already got that making transitions between continents unrestrained allows for more players at the same time in each server... but it completely isolates continents from external influences, effectively turning them into different "servers" and not a part of the same world.

When there are a few different paths your army could take to reach a specific continent, that makes things a little more unpredictable and fun.

Empires have to make tactical decisions: which path they take when expanding their territory into other continents, which continental entry point should be defended and which one should be abandoned when they're attacked from two sides, which continents should they take as their own and make a priority to defend, etc.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Dagron

Just finished reading the OP, still working on the manifesto... a little much to absorb at once, but it'll sink in.

So far it gave me some insight on home continents and continent connections.

I'm starting to get why people are suggesting that all 3 factions shouldn't have footholds on every continent... and how much fun it could be to push empires back, kick them out of one continent after another, making their territory shrink until they're cornered into their homes.

Glad it's helpful in understanding. They're difficult concepts, especially without playing the game!

And yes people really liked that dynamic, and it was fun. I personally really liked it. It's why a lot of folks around here want to see home continents again and better lattice linking. I wanted that at first also, but after a while I came to conclude that it won't work out with the current 3 continents.


However, there is a darker side to it which I dont' go into in the manifesto that has become apparent to me more recently - downtime & staleness.

It created a lot of stalemates and had downtime. People would leave continents that were being lost, and many times the last several bases that you took on the continent were uneventful. It would waste quite a lot of play time. It was also very hard to crack into a continent without a full invasion force staged from sanctuary.

And it also led to only seeing a small portion of the game world without a lot of variety. It was the same battles, same bases, same opponent, same continent, day after day. We mostly only saw 4 continents and small pieces of the others. Only seeing that small portion of the game world made the game seem stale. Day-night will help a lot with that, but so will having a presence on every continent. Always something different to do and if you want to change things up you can.

The footholds help alleviate those challenges and make it easier to attack. It also allows you to see more of the game world, which is particularly important when you only have 3 continents. PS1 had 10 continents at launch. If we only had 3 continents and a locking mechanism, the game world will be very small, the global strategy would be simple with so few continents, and I don't think it would pan out well.

But once we get more continents down the road...well, maybe we can revisit PS1-style continent invasions and locks and linking. I'd like to take a new stab at it with the PS2 mechanics and see what works out, but as other posters in this thread have indicated...we need more than 3.


If you're curious about more, I had a few threads in the Idea Forum where I discussed some of the global & continental strategy elements and how to bring them into the current game design.


Here's the PS1 metagame & Global Strategy issues mapped onto PS2's known design:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36476


Continental benefits & domination and reasons to fight on one continent vs another:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36627

Facility Benefits and how they can make for more interesting continental strategy:
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36780


So if you want to drink from the fire hose, there you go! Lot of thoughts and relation to global and continental strategy there and learnings from PS1 onto PS2.