Uncapturable Foothold / Sactuary Hexes - Pro's and Cons - Page 4

Arcalane · 2012-03-14, 11:04 AM

I'm going to miss actual Sanctuary continents, if only because they were extremely useful when organizing for mass Gal drops or tank/vehicle ops. Trying to organize that kind of operation at any other base on a 'live' continent (even a 'secure' one) would be chaotic, as many courtyards never really had much in the way of free and clear space like Sanctuaries do, and the surrounding terrain was often quite rough as well.

I don't care what form they take - whether they're orbiting troopships, safe continents, or whatever - I'd rather see Sanctuary-type locations stay for logistical and organizational purposes.

An uncapturable foothold or 'sanctuary base' per continent doesn't seem right to me, though. Besides, if one side throws all their forces into defending their final base, and another is stupid enough to all-out attack said base... the third faction is going to have a field day on the attacker's flanks. Unless they both team up to hit the final base, any 'final base' assaults are doomed to fail - the defenders will hold out until the attackers realize they're losing territories and resources for a miniscule gain, and proceed to withdraw to defend their assets, allowing the defending faction to reestablish themselves and reclaim surrounding territory.

SniperSteve · 2012-03-14, 11:08 AM

I am not thrilled about non-capturable points either. I like what the original poster said. It would add freshness and would be interesting.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 11:11 AM

The Sanctuaries certainly had their charm, but getting rid of them does have it's positives as well. That is all wait and see.

I find it interesting that I see some who complain about a win condition, yet also complain about fights becoming stale. If there was a way to win the war, then it would become fresh with a restart. "Persistent" does not mean never ending. The beauty of having a win condition is that each time the war is won, something can be tweaked to change it up a bit.

Now, I don't know how many players here have played games that are persistent and can be won by a side, but these campaigns can take weeks, even months to happen. That hardly disrupts the persistence of things and offers great satisfaction to victory. It also adds great motivation to those who did not win to try to accomplish it next time.

Figment · 2012-03-14, 11:16 AM

Originally Posted by RavenUSC3

Something else I was just thinking though and I guess similar to what someone said above with some kind of space ship, but what about some kind of large ships out in the ocean that are constantly circling the continent? They could have some kind of protective shield around them and help to promote naval combat. It would certainly promote air combat and the use of galaxies just to get off the thing.

Now there's a thought. Would be interesting to have things like landing hovercraft (think original C&C, level 1) come from such a ship carrying your tanks. Beachhead assaults, naval and amphibious units would become much more important and interesting. The "Big" staging grounds on the continent would be the most important things to capture, but it would allow you to actually capture and secure a continent, while the fight can go on continuously none the less. Plus if the ships are circling the continent, you can change your landing approach every day.

Spluuga · 2012-03-14, 11:22 AM

Just skimmed through quickly.. Immediate thought was to calculate the center most hex to be uncappable as your hq so to speak.. so if you for example push west your uncap base would move accordingly and there would be no threat of being totally removed off the map.. Like I said this is in no way thought out solution, just a quick thought to chip in.. I'd prefer variation in locations.

kadrin · 2012-03-14, 11:28 AM

Originally Posted by EVILPIG

The Sanctuaries certainly had their charm, but getting rid of them does have it's positives as well. That is all wait and see.

I find it interesting that I see some who complain about a win condition, yet also complain about fights becoming stale. If there was a way to win the war, then it would become fresh with a restart. "Persistent" does not mean never ending. The beauty of having a win condition is that each time the war is won, something can be tweaked to change it up a bit.

Now, I don't know how many players here have played games that are persistent and can be won by a side, but these campaigns can take weeks, even months to happen. That hardly disrupts the persistence of things and offers great satisfaction to victory. It also adds great motivation to those who did not win to try to accomplish it next time.

While you make some good points, I think there's a pretty big difference between locking a cont. and forcing the other empires to organize an assault either at sanc. or on a different cont. to retake it, and having a permanent foothold on the cont. from which you can organize and roll all the armor you want.

It doesn't give a sense of ownership to the victorious empire when the other empires are sitting right there within spitting distance organizing their comeback.

kaffis · 2012-03-14, 11:36 AM

While "migrating" footholds wouldn't be something I'd argue against, I don't see this as a huge problem.

Planetside has always had some areas that were "home turf" and always the first in line to get reconquered when an empire was coming back from a serious defeat.

In fact, at release, Planetside 1 had entire *continents* that were "home continents" for some empires, because *one base* on that continent was linked directly to the sanctuary through the warp gate.

In fact, there were entire continents that one empire or the other rarely got to fight on *at all* because it was directly linked to both its' enemies sanctuaries. If I recall correctly, there were 3 continents that connected directly to two empires' sanctuaries, 3 continents that connected directly to one empire's sanctuary, and 4 continents that had no connections to any sanctuaries, with Oshur (or was it Searhus? The one with the massive crater that got split up) being the most "hops" away from a sanctuary, and equidistant from all 3.

As such, it had the same effect as the footholds will. The TR basically always owned *this* end of Solsar, the NC always had *this* corner of Amerish, etc.

If anything, the footholds will be somewhat better, because they hex system means there are more possible contact points. Instead of an empire fighting off sanc-lock at a specific facility (and that facility going uncontested unless they were driven all the way back and owned almost nothing on that continent...), now a foothold-locked empire has probably at least half a dozen adjacent hexes on which to mount their initial assault on their bid to reclaim territory.

That's an improvement, in my book.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by kadrin

While you make some good points, I think there's a pretty big difference between locking a cont. and forcing the other empires to organize an assault either at sanc. or on a different cont. to retake it, and having a permanent foothold on the cont. from which you can organize and roll all the armor you want.

It doesn't give a sense of ownership to the victorious empire when the other empires are sitting right there within spitting distance organizing their comeback.

There are positives and negatives to each side of the debate. It all depends on the mechanics. Footholds could be traps just as trying to reenter warpgates. Of course, to keep one empire pinned in, you risk having the other empire breathing down your neck.

I am supporting either side of this. I can't wait to play it out and see how it goes. I would kinda miss sanctuaries, and I'm not a big fan of the foothold concept. You should be able to conquer a continent completely. You should be able to win the war.

Beta will tell us what is best.

EVILPIG · 2012-03-14, 11:43 AM

Too add to what I was saying, we do not know the mechanics of how things will work. For all we know, while there is no lattice, resources will need a link through the hex system in order to be used. As you see in the GDC Demo, there is an area of NC territory that is truncated. I would expect that that area only has access to it's own resources. Such a system makes footholds more viable and not such death traps as the threat of, oh, I hate to say it, getting "back hacked" is greater if you are trying to smother one empire to their foothold.

Figment · 2012-03-14, 11:46 AM

Just going to post this again...

Originally Posted by Figment

Here is how I see the future of Indar using a sample stalemate situation. Note, I don't think that with a few hundred people per empire you'll be capping an awful lot far behind the lines without backup. I predict effective strategies to be about taking flanks to keep your back as secure as possible and a unified frontline. Splitting an enemy up into pockets using some sort of Ardenne Offensive encirclement strategy may work, but only if the continent is big enough and probably only if it's a two-way.

Anyway, I present: the future of Indar?

Don't have time for description writings, but I take it is clear enough.

I really hope the other continents will provide some more clever continent shapes that prevent this standard T-split from reoccuring every day for 10 times, the split was actually already seen in the demo. But those sanctuaries are really just in the way of any coordinated plan to capture the continent. Capturing this continent CANNOT be done. It simply cannot be done... It will just feel like you are constantly being double teamed. I don't think the continent is large enough to make you feel like you shouldn't be able to control everything.

Raymac · 2012-03-14, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

@Raymac and Cutterjohn: why didn't you move yourself and your squad then? Why, if having a 90% pop was not fun and waiting for CR5s was not okay?

You chose to wait. You chose to stay and advance with the rest of the empire. Don't blame the game for your choices.

Because SOMEBODY has to stay around. It's like you are asking, "well why defend a base hack?" You know how many times I saw a base hack get ninja'd because only a couple people bothered to stay behind and defend it?

If everybody had your selfish attitude of "well it's not fun for me, so fuck the empire" bases would never get captured. Believe me, most people do go off and not stick around for the continent lock, but SOMEBODY has to do the dirty work like staying behind to defend and mop up, or running an ANT to a quiet base.

Getting rid of those boring menial tasks is an improvement to the game.

Figment · 2012-03-14, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Raymac

Because SOMEBODY has to stay around. It's like you are asking, "well why defend a base hack?" You know how many times I saw a base hack get ninja'd because only a couple people bothered to stay behind and defend it?

If everybody had your selfish attitude of "well it's not fun for me, so fuck the empire" bases would never get captured. Believe me, most people do go off and not stick around for the continent lock, but SOMEBODY has to do the dirty work like staying behind to defend and mop up, or running an ANT to a quiet base.

Getting rid of those boring menial tasks is an improvement to the game.

Hahahaha, me, selfish attitude. <3 Good one. No, you missed the point of the question being asked. WHY, search yourself here, WHY did you chose to capture the base rather than to leave it alone? Apparently something inside you told you to stay and cap. Closure on obtaining the territory was somehow important to you.

For the record, I defended bases alone if I had to. I went to bases that were ghosted ALL the time. I CHOSE to. I could easily have said "screw that", I didn't, why? BECAUSE, like you are indicating now as well, I wanted to have the conts blue! It was more important to me than those fifteen minutes wasted not killing stuff.

It is still your choice.

They already got rid of the long waiting periods by having hexes around it influence capture time. They allow bases to be captured in segments.

Which means, you have no argument for sanctuaries on cont. You know what's the worst thing about this? You can never leave a base you captured now.

PS: Does anyone here remember pre-lattice times?

Samthan · 2012-03-14, 12:26 PM

Not a fan of the footholds.

I like a central staging area for the entire empire. Like the original sanctuary of PS1 beta, before they broke it off into 3 areas due to lag. Which is still better then the footholds.

First time I logged into the original games beta, with the old sanitary, I had a WOW moment. There was so much activity, and when I realized everything was being run by another player it hit me that this was going to be a great game.

Beside the wow factor I just think the central staging point would be best. Outfits or whatever group of players you have can get set up and move out TOGETHER. They can head out to whatever continent, and be ready when they get there based on Intel from maps they are receiving. It is different every time they head out. Of if you’re not with a bigger group of players, and you see a large group forming up for something, you can see this, and ask to join up so your apart of something bigger. If we have all these footholds all over, then the empire and player base are spread out, and maybe not being effective for the empire as a whole or for the good of the empire if they choice to go that route. Outfit and other groups of player will always want to go their own way from time to time, and do their own thing. But if they want to be apart of something bigger, a central staging location would only improve the ability of all parties to be together when they reach the battlefield.

roguy · 2012-03-14, 12:27 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

It is still your choice.

I think what upsets Raymac isn't wether it's a choice or not, it's how being selfish is rewarded by having more fun and more xp to the detriment of everyone else while teamplayers get "punished" by having to wait for caps to go through.

If there ever was a downside to PS1 that was certainly one of them.

Triple A · 2012-03-14, 12:31 PM

With 3 continents to begin with you could definitely make it so that each empire has a home continent that has one unconquerable base.
The way it would work would be if VS were forced off NC home cont they would be locked out from that strong hold for 3 hrs.
NC would have 3 hrs to attempt to push TR out in that amount of time or push the offensive on VS home cont.
The VS could then push on TR home cont. or prepare to defend their home cont from NC
TR then have to decide where their main focus will be

Non home cont. strong holds can only be hacked once every 3 hours. This is to prevent factions from constant strong hold locking.