Continent shape, geography, barriers and (mental) influence on territory held.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Grognard

Interesting, I like that mock-up, all numbers equal up to the total continental sum? If so, they may just be down playing the potential population capacity.

Very interesting...

It all adds up to 1863, so there would still be room for 137 more players, but close enough. I doubt will see 2000 player poplocks 24/7, or else something is seriously wrong.

Originally Posted by Figment

I'd like to say that the zerg did not expand on the path of least resistance, it expanded on the path of least organizational effort required and largest stimuli (provocations and (biggest) nearby threat).

I apologize, I was using path of least resistance in a more figurative sense, like lightning traveling towards the nearest conductor, not a more literal sense of actual physical resistance. Poor choice of wording on my part.

I would argue that players also tend to go towards the nearest reward. Giant battles = XP = easiest nearby reward. If capping a region provided a good XP/resource reward, I think that would provide some motivation. Zerg herding can be a tricky thing though.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I apologize, I was using path of least resistance in a more figurative sense, like lightning traveling towards the nearest conductor, not a more literal sense of actual physical resistance. Poor choice of wording on my part.

No need to apologise, I understood you were going for that. Just a poor choice of words indeed for those who may be rather new to this type of discussion.

I would argue that players also tend to go towards the nearest reward. Giant battles = XP = easiest nearby reward. If capping a region provided a good XP/resource reward, I think that would provide some motivation. Zerg herding can be a tricky thing though.

True, though I'd say the overal completionist (and perfect border) mentality humans have is even more important in relation to the concept of regions. That goes on both small scale with hexes, as well as entire continents. Which is one reason why a lot of people dislike the idea of not being able to conquer the entire continent.

That probably goes for me as well: it feels as if you can't finish up on your activity. Collectors have this need that is only satisfied by getting closer to completing the set and is only ever fully satisfied if you can get all. Not being able to get all is sometimes demoralising and frustrating to them and it sometimes prevents you from setting new goals. People usualy want to work towards a goal and finish that before setting a new challenge. Unfortunately the continent in PS2 seems to not allow working towards the biggest goal: global domination.

I fear that might eventually result in a sense of apathy once people realise it can't be done. That sense of apathy is often translated in a less complex form of command. In this case, it could be getting just enough resources to sustain a farm, rather than moving the map.

[Xyntech]

At least regions would give something beyond small hexes and larger bases to capture. One step up, to have it clearly marked for all to see that your empire owns X region on that continent.

Also, regions could potentially make it more possible to rally around attacking and defending certain territories, which eventually could lead to tactics that may bring total domination of a continent. The T split seems like it would be very hard to push one empire off for very long, much less both empires, but if you have a strong border created along regional boundaries, one empire may be able to entrench long enough to claim total victory.

I think that capping a continent in PS2 will be way more awesome and way more of a feeling of accomplishment compared to PS1. Being so much harder will make it feel more like locking the world than capping a continent use to feel. Completionists will still get that satisfaction, but it may be more like a once a month type of a thing, instead of a victory you can reasonably expect to achieve anywhere from several times a day to once every few days like capping continents in PS1.

I do hope we get a few smaller continents later on as well, hopefully ones with no footholds too. I think that capping those would happen a lot more often and cater to players who like that sort of thing. I think the current continents will cater to a lot more people than some are fearing, but I can't argue that it will be worse than PS1 in a few ways (even if it's better than PS1 in more ways).

[Figment]

Could be, but the thing about that is that you separate continents from one another. It would be like having separate worlds to conquer instead of one. Veterans didn't like the bending in that it reduced immersion and created more mental distance between fights, next to not making much sense lorewise.

When all continents were visible on one map, it felt like one fight, one war. That reduced and I think it did eventually lead to reduced care for global strategy and more farming invasions.

Broadcast warpgates also strongly affected the mentality of people to a more individual deployment. Before that, you moved as empires. After, you could more easily move on your own and logistically target selection changed too. A lot of bases physically became closer to the frontline and response was faster, making you less likely to attack certain base types that were hard to hold, but easy to expand from. Both became harder as large responses became likelier.

[Socks]

Perhaps the devs will switch the resources from time to time. This will make uncontested/less contested areas suddenly more interesting, thus shifting the frontline or making drops behind enemy lines necessary.

However for this to be an incentive resources will have to be scarce. Which i would find interesting personally. It would make you think twice for spawning that vanguard.
But as i understand the devs dont want to punish players for buying tanks (and possibly lose them in a few minutes, but thats for balance). They want to see tanks all over the battlefield.