So You Can't Kick a Faction Out?

[Timealude]

i think there point is why make 3 continents if your going to deny people access to some of them? which is what they have said before.....

[Malorn]

The point he was trying to make is that it isn't fun for the team being kicked off. Of course it's fun stomping your opponents face and then spitting on them for good measure.

Most PS1 battles go like this...

1 - zerg invades a continent, preferably one where the defenders can mount a reasonable defense but not enough to stalemate.
2 - defenders either respond and create a stalemate, or they fail to respond and the attackers just steamroll the continent with no real opposition (skip to step 6).
3 - stalemate, until one side either mismatches population or one side is denied a tech plant for too long
4 - rats start jumping from the sinking ship, and territory is rapidly lost as they realize they cannot win and go elsewhere (to step 1-3 on some other continent).
5 - lots of people standing around with their thumbs up their asses cleaning up the continent, which will probably have a few last minute resecures to delay it even further.
6 - after the lock is over the process repeats with the victors invading some other continent. Go to step 1.

End result: downtime for the conquerors, relocation for the losers, and a period of 15-45 minutes of nothing really happening while the losers look for another good fight and the winners clean up. The losers also lose the foothold on the continent and can no longer effectively wage war there without a strong invasion. They're locked out of that content and options are limited.

The only real fun time in the whole endeavor is when the opposition is reasonably matched up. Due to the nature of locks however that time period didn't happen all that often.

The footholds help take away the downtime and keep things close to step 3 where there's action and it is always possible to wage effective war on any continent. Therefore nobody is locked out of the content and battle can spin up anywhere. That doesn't mean that an empire can't dominate a continent, but they can't just lock it and move along elsewhere and close it off for a while. It keeps every continent in play at all times, gives all players more options, and always allows the possibility of effective war. However, resources also come into play so "effective" war may be difficult without resource income, which the dominant empire will have in large quantities.

I see it as a pure improvement to the game. I just wish there was some actual benefit to dominating a continent or certain sections of it. The idea of provinces, facility benefits, and continent domination benefits can still reward you for those accomplishments. So far it doesn't look like they are doing those things but that's the sort of thing that might change due to beta feedback or be put on their long-term plan.

[Otleaz]

There is no downtime- The fight moves onto the next continent after taking it.

[Red Beard]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The point he was trying to make is that it isn't fun for the team being kicked off. Of course it's fun stomping your opponents face and then spitting on them for good measure.

Most PS1 battles go like this...

1 - zerg invades a continent, preferably one where the defenders can mount a reasonable defense but not enough to stalemate.
2 - defenders either respond and create a stalemate, or they fail to respond and the attackers just steamroll the continent with no real opposition (skip to step 6).
3 - stalemate, until one side either mismatches population or one side is denied a tech plant for too long
4 - rats start jumping from the sinking ship, and territory is rapidly lost as they realize they cannot win and go elsewhere (to step 1-3 on some other continent).
5 - lots of people standing around with their thumbs up their asses cleaning up the continent, which will probably have a few last minute resecures to delay it even further.
6 - after the lock is over the process repeats with the victors invading some other continent. Go to step 1.

End result: downtime for the conquerors, relocation for the losers, and a period of 15-45 minutes of nothing really happening while the losers look for another good fight and the winners clean up. The losers also lose the foothold on the continent and can no longer effectively wage war there without a strong invasion. They're locked out of that content and options are limited.

The only real fun time in the whole endeavor is when the opposition is reasonably matched up. Due to the nature of locks however that time period didn't happen all that often.

The footholds help take away the downtime and keep things close to step 3 where there's action and it is always possible to wage effective war on any continent. Therefore nobody is locked out of the content and battle can spin up anywhere. That doesn't mean that an empire can't dominate a continent, but they can't just lock it and move along elsewhere and close it off for a while. It keeps every continent in play at all times, gives all players more options, and always allows the possibility of effective war. However, resources also come into play so "effective" war may be difficult without resource income, which the dominant empire will have in large quantities.

I see it as a pure improvement to the game. I just wish there was some actual benefit to dominating a continent or certain sections of it. The idea of provinces, facility benefits, and continent domination benefits can still reward you for those accomplishments. So far it doesn't look like they are doing those things but that's the sort of thing that might change due to beta feedback or be put on their long-term plan.

The only criticism of it that I've heard from Higby is that it doesn't maximize content access for players. I suspect this is a business decision primarily.

Personally, I would prefer one foothold per continent, but without any continent locks, and just achievement rewards, xp, etc if a faction gets kicked. I prefer this mainly because I like the idea of neutral continents, and neutral warp gates. That probably won't happen though unless there's a lot of negative feedback to Higby's current plan unfortunetly.

The idea of provinces

Do looove this idea...achieve awards, bonus xp, w/e for capturing and holding a certain, somewhat irregular combination of zones...Very Risk-like.

One thing you could do to keep front lines from stagnating along those predefined lines is have 2 or 3 different potential patterns of territory holds yielding different rewards as a counter to resource denial by another faction...Lots of possibilities here!

[drennam]

it wont happen in the same way, capture points are no longer safe behind another linked base, your defense will get thinner with every sector you take control of.
it wont be like capturing a base and moving up to the next one, leaving the old in the dust with no one needed for defence.
people seem to forget you need to hold your cap points now to keep control, or a small squad is gonna walk in and take it over

[Jimmuc]

footholds are good for a short term like beta perhaps imo since with 3 constant 3-ways going on there is a lot of data they can use for balancing and such. once we have 4-5 continents or more then the footholds gotta go. just don't like the picture of 5-7 constant 3-ways...get pretty boring after a year or so (for me atleast)

[Mod]

Every time I see a thread started on this topic (and yes there have been many of them), I'm always thinking "what the hell are you talking about". Yes, things might change during beta, but at least on paper and in theory there is no reason why they should do.

The foothold idea is no different than PS1 really. Take an NC home continent from PS1 as an example, if the TR had come along and captured all of the bases and pushed the NC back to their foothold/sanctury warpgate then the situation the NC are in seems to be quite identical to the situation they would be in if this happens in PS2.

* The NC can't be attacked by TR in the warpgate allowing them time to plan
* The NC can't 'drop' in behind the TR
* The NC can drive vehicles out of the warpgate they are in

In fact, you are probably in a better position with PS2 as it is technically now possible for a group of NC to actually capture a bases on the opposite side of the continent from the foothold warpgate.

Also, if there weren't already on the continent, you know it would be very likely that the VS would see the situation and take full advantage by now making their own push.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Are you unable to kick a faction off of a continent? Conquest has only just barely had an overall goal... Which was to annihilate the opposing factions. Even though it is all but impossible, it was still there. After taking that ability away, what is left?

each based and outpost capture is a WIN in my book why should we have to have to ahnilatted the others from the map ? it will be boring to hold the warpgates this will mean you will figth in the same area non stop like playing in the same maps over and over and over and over

i prefere to fix me goal based on ressource colection or on denied my ennemy to have a specifics ressource base on whats is their strength or weakness

i would prefere to have a ongoing back and fore Fair figth instead of holding the warpgates

all the awesome infiltration mission all the scouting all the front lines assault all the galaxie drop are gone in this kinda of total domination senario wich will be bad for the game and for the players on every side

all the specialisation will mean nothing anymore all the tactics will be useless spawn traping is just boring

[Daffan]

Without Sanctuary it does take away from the domination aspect of the game and having a continent locked down by your faction.

It's a tricky aspect to deal with.

[Marsgrim]

Footholds are completely different from Sanctuaries in a few areas. Firstly, in PS when you lock a cont, there are no spawn points for the other faction therefore they have to return to sanc, and if they want to keep fighting on the cont they have to take a base to get a spawn point. With the current PS2 proposal that doesn't happen, and the "defeated" faction is never really defeated, they can keep spawning and fighting tying up resources.

Secondly, taking a continent gave a sense of achievement or victory which made a fight seem worthwhile.

The second point could be addressed by giving a big experience award for a faction wich manages to push the other 2 to their footholds on a continent. Something that seems a tangible reward.

[GhettoPrince]

Yeah, with only 3 continents it would be stupid to lock right now, just lots of rage and then a population lock on the 2 remaining continents.

I do hope that when the game is opened up you will be able to lock a continent for 24 hours. The campaign never ends, but you've got to have something to show for a decisive victory.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

The problem is not the footholds, its starting with ONLY 3 continents. With a world that small, the global game isn't there. It will just be constant 3-ways which were never fun. I hope they can make more fast enough after launch, or we could lose a lot of players quickly to boring stalemate 3-ways.

[maskedskull]

While I'm not a Planetside vet, I see the worrying as being kind of unfounded. While it is not to the same scale as Planetside 2 battles are likely to be, at the weekend I participated in a GW2 beta weekend and did a bunch of WvWvW. In the basic concept, they are very similar (3 factions battling to control various points). The server that I was on was able to hold onto not only our own continent but also captured every point in the central, neutral continent. In this case, each faction did have a spawn point/starting base that couldn't be captured and would result in pretty much instant death for anyone who approched to prevent them from getting inside (like how the footholds will prevent non-allied players from getting inside)

Sure we didn't hold onto it for long, especially after a combined assault from the other 2 factions, but it wasn't impossible.

As I say, it is not a perfect comparision but it is worth keeping in mind. And it could always change, we just don't know yet.

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by The Kush

I could see sanctuaries being added in beta, post launch, or on new continents. Why? Because we are going to have a constant three way over the same territory. It will get boring. Versus having the ability to successfully push back an empire which is rewarding.

Its sad when the VS pushes the scum off the rest of the planet that we can't do it torally, It would be nice to fly from 1 continent and then be able to go into outer space, come back down on another continent high in the sky and take a foot hold. Its more satisfying trying to get a full one back, knowing you were the team that had to get to the first base and activate it to start the war. Knowing that you cant just push them out and then 5 mins latter they start to zerg witch will be annoying and you have accomplished nothing. I know that there trying to make it worth while for casuals but were is our hardcore game play? If you want casual go play cod or something.

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

The problem is not the footholds, its starting with ONLY 3 continents. With a world that small, the global game isn't there. It will just be constant 3-ways which were never fun. I hope they can make more fast enough after launch, or we could lose a lot of players quickly to boring stalemate 3-ways.

dito casuals are the things there trying to a peas.