So You Can't Kick a Faction Out?

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Not really. They still have a foothold on your continent.

Yes. And you can keep them pinned into it, just like you'd have to in order to sanc-lock an empire.

All footholds mean is that you can never lock away content. Which is a good thing, since we don't have nearly empty servers that can fit onto 2 or 3 continents while another 7 or 8 go unused.

We want full servers where all of the continents have battles raging, be they in the middle of the continent, pinned into footholds, or desperately trying to avoid being foothold locked...

[fishirboy]

Originally Posted by Stew

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

Well instead of a camp war gate they could add in were you could get in a ship, fly from one continent and go to the next one and try and get a foot hold any were on the map. I feel more gratified when i annihilate some team from the map and now its a 1v1 against NC or TR. having that would give it more verity and then if the NC get wiped out they could attack from the behind and take over some were easy.

[NewSith]

I think something of more importance is the size of the BWGs... I mean from what we can see from footage they're actually the same size as PS1, and that bothers me, because I can hardly see 666 people in that dome... I think it should be made twice as big...

[Snipefrag]

with these footholds and no lattice links the meta game will suffer, thats the biggest part of 'dumbing down' between PS1 and PS2 |IMO. But to be fair, there isnt much they can do at release with only three continents. I'm sure they are thinking about it.

[Saifoda]

With only 3 continents there will need to be footholds and continent locking would definitely detract from the game. The original idea of continent locking was that you wouldn't be surprised by your opponents doing a HART drop (pre-lattice) and capping a base that makes no sense logistics wise but still gives them a new foothold, possibly in the middle of a continent your empire previously had complete ownership of. Now that HART dropping isn't part of the game, continent locking seems a bit archaic and pointless even, but that's not to say that once we get upwards of 10 continents that each continent should have a foothold from each empire. That would be messy and would DEFINITELY destroy the meta game, which would be a shame since there's so much potential with that now there are resources involved.

[Raka Maru]

Originally Posted by RodenyC

Higby is wrong there imo.That was so satsifying kicking TR off solsar tonight.At the same time getting kicked off just means you aren't trying hard enough.If anything I would rather see a compromise as only one foothold per cont.TR get Indar,NC get Esmair, and VS get Amerish.So you could kick TR completely off Amerish and Esmair and vice versa for the other conts.This will work even better when they add more maps.

I used to think the footholds were a bad idea, and still do to an extent, but it's the best idea now with only 3 continents. I was paying close attention when Hamma interviewed Higby about this. He didn't want to close the map to the other empires. While I agree with Higby right now, I'm hoping this will change later with real home bases (sancs or moon base?) when there are 10 continents.

Remember, we can now go anywhere after getting booted off a continent (all the area except foothold). The empire just has to decide where to coordinate the next strike, continent and hex.

What's the real difference if there is a sanc and no footholds? The continent turns RED. Since there is no lattice, a stealth team can go in, and everyone starts dropping on the hex of their choice. But they cannot bring in vehicles. Before, we used to have to fight for a base to grab vehicles.

Unless the defenders were asleep, the attacking force had to rush in to create a foothold with large numbers. We have these pre built footholds for right now. I hope this will change later, but understand why they are in for now.

[waldizzo]

At first, I was upset by the loss of sanctuaries, but then thought of it differently.

In the original game, when a faction owned a continent, the only way in for the other factions was through a warp gate which was protected. Invaders could gather forces there until they were ready to push. This, in my opinion, is no different than the current faction footholds in Planetside 2.

What is missing though, is the element of surprise. In the original, an attacking force could form in the sanctuary and then deploy to a locked continent without the defenders knowledge. In Planetside 2, an assembling attacking force will be clearly visible within the warpgate / foothold. Defenders will know where the next big push will come.

[Raka Maru]

Originally Posted by waldizzo

At first, I was upset by the loss of sanctuaries, but then thought of it differently.

In the original game, when a faction owned a continent, the only way in for the other factions was through a warp gate which was protected. Invaders could gather forces there until they were ready to push. This, in my opinion, is no different than the current faction footholds in Planetside 2.

What is missing though, is the element of surprise. In the original, an attacking force could form in the sanctuary and then deploy to a locked continent without the defenders knowledge. In Planetside 2, an assembling attacking force will be clearly visible within the warpgate / foothold. Defenders will know where the next big push will come.

Unless a stealth team goes behind the foothold campers and spawns tons of players without vehicles.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

Unless a stealth team goes behind the foothold campers and spawns tons of players without vehicles.

This. And we've got to hope that the "empire influence" that pops up when you hover on a hex in the map only shows "activities" such as hacking, shooting, etc. You should get a chance to prepare for sneaky stuff like this without just telegraphing your every move.

Scenario: VS pinned in foothold. 5 infil squad leaders sneak out to the 4 towers surrounding a main base and one the base itself. Their squads drop-pod in and hack a control point each. Suddenly the whole foothold can spawn at whichever capture point got taken.

[maskedskull]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

This. And we've got to hope that the "empire influence" that pops up when you hover on a hex in the map only shows "activities" such as hacking, shooting, etc. You should get a chance to prepare for sneaky stuff like this without just telegraphing your every move.

Scenario: VS pinned in foothold. 5 infil squad leaders sneak out to the 4 towers surrounding a main base and one the base itself. Their squads drop-pod in and hack a control point each. Suddenly the whole foothold can spawn at whichever capture point got taken.

That...sounds awesome

[MooK]

Originally Posted by Vetto

They just cut out the middle man of rallying together at sanctuary.

I enjoyed that =(

[Stardouser]

This argument is why we need the ability to fly between continents(and it's one server for 6000 instead of hard separation by 2000 each continent). Or one large megacontinent for 6000 instead of 3 for 2000 each. Either way there would then only need to be 1 uncapturable base(or, kinda split into two as per the example that will follow).

And, in either case, or in similar ideas, you can STILL have the adjacent-capture mechanic that makes it take significantly longer to capture hexes that are not adjacent to a hex you own.

For example, imagine we have 3 continents 64km square each spread out with ocean between and around. Maybe there's 5km between them, maybe 15, whatever. So you can fly free form to anywhere you want, and you will be able to capture a spreadhead because of the element of surprise(although you might have to send a force to multiple locations), but once that's done, the increased cap timer for non-adjacent hexes will pretty much all but force you to then attack the next hex over, creating a front line. Each continent would be one empire's "home" continent, but their footholds would be on shielded islands connected by bridges. Technically this lets you kick the enemy off every continent, but on the "home" continents, the home empire can counterattack their home continent from the island main bases. Since there are two, it makes it more difficult to rape, and the more people you commit to trying to do it, the easier a Galaxy assault force can go somewhere else and capture an invasion point on any of the continents.

There will still be warpgates of course, but, at least in this idea, there'd be 1 per continent, not 3. That allows additional options for travel - fly directly between continents or fight to a warpgate.

There could also be islands out in the middle of the oceans to provide minor capture bases. Note: This idea assumes no ocean ships; just because you can't drive a tank over the water, big deal.



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Now, is this a crude drawing? Yes. Would there need to be additional solutions to prevent 6000 people from converging on the same spot? Yes. But instead of flaming it as ridiculous, how about coming up with ideas to refine it, or even come up with your own ideas about how else we could avoid having 3 uncappable footholds per continent?

[wasdie]

Hibgy says that locking down continents denies players content. It makes sense. They spend all of this time making these large, very detailed worlds, only for you to not be able to play on them because one side owns them.

[DOUBLEXBAUGH]

Originally Posted by wasdie

Hibgy says that locking down continents denies players content. It makes sense. They spend all of this time making these large, very detailed worlds, only for you to not be able to play on them because one side owns them.

If you wanna play on it, get your friends and try to take it back. Its not literally locked, you can still go there.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

If you wanna play on it, get your friends and try to take it back. Its not literally locked, you can still go there.

Hey X, I think some peeps are trying to lock it.

This thread has swung back to the "we need to be able to kick empires off continents completely" theme, but as usual the arguments fail due to pop-locking on the remaining continents for the losing empire.

I'm with Higby on this. I'll be damned if I can be stopped from playing my favourite character on my favourite server because my empire was dumb enough to get footholded. I'd rather have the chance to fight my way out of foothold (see my recovery scenario above)

And I do say that footholding another empire will feel like a big deal in PS2, because I think, or at least hope, that it won't happen too often.