Footholds Archetypes: "Food for Thought"

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by erunion

The caveat is how to connect the continents. And I do still like the idea of separate home continents if given enough individual continents.

This is very true - connections are the key. Anything that is more than 2 hops is effectively out of reach of that empire. Coming up with some hypothetical continents and connections might help us see a good solution. Might be some solutions in the 6-8 continent range where all 3 empires are within 2 hops of every continent. Have to play around with that.

[CutterJohn]

Originally Posted by Madlaps

Tradition has been removed to make it easier to get into a fight and not worry about defending home continents.

PS2 tradition. Not PS1.

Of course, PS2 tradition doesn't exist yet, but it will. If we have enough continents, there will eventually come a time where empires consider one of them their 'home', and they will aggressively defend it.

It won't be their home due to game mechanics or because higby or the lore writer said so, but just because the players want it.

And because there are no official game mechanics reinforcing this status as home, it can be taken away for considerable lengths of time.


Make your own homes. Make your own front lines. The game does not need to do this for you.

[Rabb]

Originally Posted by NewSith

1. Foothold Setup Unmodified aka "All Hail the Stalemate":

What some call stalemate I call constant battle on 3 conts.

In my opinion the other options encourage the empire's to lock there home conts down and moves the front lines to the area around the warp gates. So the front lines become smaller and more focused on the gates rather then the shifting large front lines we will see with option 1.

[erunion]

After playing with warp gates, I ended up with sort of a hybrid design.

I added a fourth continent, as my idea doesn't really work with 3. Each new continent has one foothold and a second neutral warpgate connected to first continent. Perhaps the outer continents could link together to make every continent more of a three-way battle, but I think I like it this way. With the hex system and since the neutral gates are in the middle of the first continent every faction should have a chance at any continent.

[Dagron]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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.

I would propose option 1a - same configuration, except who owns the footholds on each continent rotates every month or so.

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

Originally Posted by Malorn

Yep, I've been a big proponent of the rotating footholds, probably not a big surprise there.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...ad.php?t=36782

Seems like making footholds more dynamic is a popular solution to how things work in each individual continent. There are a couple of recent threads around that have ideas similar to yours (naval carriers and orbital drop-pod offensive).

That might be a concept worth exploring in a larger scale though...

I tried to throw together some of those ideas.
All "vacant" warpgates would be neutral. Now say each empire had only a couple (maybe more) of uncapturable capital ships total, and each would hop from warpgate to warpgate in their own individual everchanging path throughout every continent, one step every week (or every other week) like so...

Starship Seattle's schedule for the next 6 weeks:
Indar Warpgate(A) -► Indar Wg(B) ==► Amerish Wg(X) -► AWg(Y) ==► Searhus Wg(1) -► SWg(3)

Maybe they could stay somewhat near eachother (one or two steps away) or maybe they could drift apart, depends on what would be more interesting.

That way there would sort of be home continents, though they would slowly change over time.
Sometimes a faction would own a whole continent, sometimes two would dispute the same continent as a home, sometimes all three of them would. There would be times of all out 3-way war on one continent, there would be times of spread out empires skirmishing here and there.

Eventually, every empire would have called every warpgate their "home" at some point, and there would be an infinite number of permutations to provide different strategic POVs.

Basically it would be a constant random switch between the archetypes 3 and 5 (with more continents and a few more mobile footholds, it would be a random switch between 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5).

How's that for dynamic?


edit: i'm a little wired and tired, so let me know of any fundamental flaws you guys may find.

[Baneblade]

I'm still trying to figure out why the devs believe that an empire driven back to their foothold means that empire can fight their way right back out.

It is a well documented fact, static positions are easier to control offensively. The Castle Curse if you will.

[Rabb]

Originally Posted by erunion

After playing with warp gates, I ended up with sort of a hybrid design.

I added a fourth continent, as my idea doesn't really work with 3. Each new continent has one foothold and a second neutral warpgate connected to first continent. Perhaps the outer continents could link together to make every continent more of a three-way battle, but I think I like it this way. With the hex system and since the neutral gates are in the middle of the first continent every faction should have a chance at any continent.

This design will lead to locked home conts and everyone fighting over the one neutral cont. You might as well just have one and get the same result.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

I'm still trying to figure out why the devs believe that an empire driven back to their foothold means that empire can fight their way right back out.

It is a well documented fact, static positions are easier to control offensively. The Castle Curse if you will.

If the game is balanced and Empires play at similar skill levels both in the shooting and the strategy, then it should be very rare to get footholded.

However, when pops swing over the course of a day, it could happen more easily. So when you log on and see that your empire is footholded, you go in and sort it out, and if enough players do the same to swing the pop balance your way, you can start to recover.

I'm also hoping that specops will offer a way out of a foothold, but that's a real wait-and-see

[Boomzor]

Ideally I'd like to see #1 with a gradual transition towards #2 as more continents get added over time.

The thought of having your "home" invaded was quite the driving factor in Planetside 1. It really didn't do anything game wise except ruffle your faction pride feathers.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

If the game is balanced and Empires play at similar skill levels both in the shooting and the strategy, then it should be very rare to get footholded.

However, when pops swing over the course of a day, it could happen more easily. So when you log on and see that your empire is footholded, you go in and sort it out, and if enough players do the same to swing the pop balance your way, you can start to recover.

I'm also hoping that specops will offer a way out of a foothold, but that's a real wait-and-see

In concept, that will happen. But as we know reality is a bit different. I remember a lot of whack-a-moling at sanc gates in PS1. I don't think it will change much in PS2.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

In concept, that will happen. But as we know reality is a bit different. I remember a lot of whack-a-moling at sanc gates in PS1. I don't think it will change much in PS2.

Not even with the enforced gathering of forces in a foothold? The bigger outfits with some discipline will build strength and then push out in force, no? Should be fun trying, anyway!

[Baneblade]

Time will tell, I'm just a skeptic lol.

[Dairian]

Think ill stick to what the Devs are using at the moment because the use of 3 continents. Trying to play ring around the rosie wont work with 3 continents and pop lock. But I am sure when more continents are added the system will change.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Rabb

What some call stalemate I call constant battle on 3 conts.

In my opinion the other options encourage the empire's to lock there home conts down and moves the front lines to the area around the warp gates. So the front lines become smaller and more focused on the gates rather then the shifting large front lines we will see with option 1.

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by NewSith

That's the point. Fontlines will NOT move on a full server. That means that many people who don't like battlefield will leave quite fast, while CoD and BF3 fans will stay. After PS2 servers will become not fully populated all those people will leave, because the frontline will stop being stable.

You don't need continent locks to have moving frontlines. Having frontlines move OFF continents is a bad design, IMO. Every continent should constantly be contested, the front lines just need to be fluid enough that the whole continent gets play, without including game systems that allow for the continent to actually ever be secured.

This could end up happening naturally with tri-foothold designs, though it's unlikely. This could easily be remedied by adding in links between the continents IN ADDITION TO multiple footholds per continent. Those links become tactical options to destabilize the natural stalemate.