Confirmed: 9 Sanctuaries at launch.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Goku

They're was a "home base" for a squad, but that was still the individuals bind also. I rather people just plan ahead in order to defend certain points to be honest and bind to the base they see best to head out from. If a group is properly organized and has proper air transport they should be able to get to the location being attacked rather easily anyway. Vehicles are not going to have hard limits like in BF3, so that shouldn't be a issue. Just get some liberators, fighters, and a gal you should be set...

The reason I'm putting this out there, among other things, is that one of the concerns is empires getting steamrolled in 12 hours, ie the rich getting richer stuff. This would allow faster defenses to be set up and perhaps keep things balanced. Or, so I theorize.

Vehicles would not be hard limited, because however many people make it to the base can spawn vehicles as normal, the limit would only be on the number of people that can insta-travel there.

[Goku]

In PS depending on the momentum of the fight a empire could get booted off the map rather easily in a matter of hours to losing everything with 12 hours. It is going to happen regardless of any kind of countermeasures in place. Besides all of that helps keep the fight going along instead of being a stalemate.

In PS 1 you could kill the spawns. Was it mentioned that you cannot this time around during a hack? I forgot is all.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by WildVS

You ever played Planetside man?

45 minutes tops.

[BorisBlade]

I dont like the home cont thing, esp with only three conts and each has an empire as its "owner" When you are fighting on a cont and then your home one is attacked you leave to defend it? I can see so many bad gameplay aspects with it being a "home cont". Never did like those. If we had a bunch of conts again and the home cont rotated atleast once a week then it could work but as is no.

Better to just have 3 sancs that are NOT on a cont, but separate like ps1. There are only 3 conts so no need for home conts or any kind of rotation, esp since you dont have lattice anymore,just the ffa CF. Just put in the old style sancs that have a warpgate that will go to any of the others just like a broadcast gate. Or if you want to limit travel ability, then make em go to a fixed warpgate on each cont that rotates around every week or so just to keep things mixed up a bit.

Then you can once again completely kick an empire off, or can you? Its still the zerg style of capture with people able to successfully fight all over the map, requiring no links, and very little map strategy. They are intentionally designing things so you will almost never ever be able to take the entire cont. If they are losing the last base they can simply rehack at a million other points and use the lame squad spawns and super fast spawn pt capture areas to literally just never go away. Is it possible to kick em entirely off in some crazy scenario? yes. Will it actually ever happen? Prob not, stupid rare if it does.

The game is not being designed for epic captures and territory dominance but instead for zergy circle capture fests where you just constantly fight but its really fairly meaningless with no real win or endpoint or victory. PS1 didnt have alot, but the cont caps were amazingly awesome compared to whats in ps2 so far.

And no the "wait til beta first" doesnt apply to this. The stuff we are talkin about is the way the game is, there is no testing of a win condition or design thats not there. Yes most likely its gonna be pretty borked in this area in beta and we can make it apparent how obviously its gotta change but stop throwin up the "you arent in beta you dont know" excuse out for everything. Its very valid for many arguments but not this one. Atleast not yet.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by WildVS

Typical BF3 session length

Was just asking because I might have a 45 day trial laying around here if you wanted to use it. Days, not minutes!

Ah no, I'm currently station access subscribed for EQ. I just couldn't bear to wander around in PS anymore seeing so few people...I might cry at all the action I missed...

[Goku]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Ah no, I'm currently station access subscribed for EQ. I just couldn't bear to wander around in PS anymore seeing so few people...I might cry at all the action I missed...

I hope you would. Nothing in BF even starts to compare to the scale what happened in PS. Driving along in your buggy going over hill to find 20 VS magriders to only go and die.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

I dont like the home cont thing, esp with only three conts and each has an empire as its "owner" When you are fighting on a cont and then your home one is attacked you leave to defend it? I can see so many bad gameplay aspects with it being a "home cont". Never did like those. If we had a bunch of conts again and the home cont rotated atleast once a week then it could work but as is no.

They are intentionally designing things so you will almost never ever be able to take the entire cont. If they are losing the last base they can simply rehack at a million other points and use the lame squad spawns and super fast spawn pt capture areas to literally just never go away. Is it possible to kick em entirely off in some crazy scenario? yes. Will it actually ever happen? Prob not, stupid rare if it does.

The game is not being designed for epic captures and territory dominance but instead for zergy circle capture fests where you just constantly fight but its really fairly meaningless with no real win or endpoint or victory. PS1 didnt have alot, but the cont caps were amazingly awesome compared to whats in ps2 so far.

And no the "wait til beta first" doesnt apply to this. The stuff we are talkin about is the way the game is, there is no testing of a win condition or design thats not there. Yes most likely its gonna be pretty borked in this area in beta and we can make it apparent how obviously its gotta change but stop throwin up the "you arent in beta you dont know" excuse out for everything. Its very valid for many arguments but not this one. Atleast not yet.

QFT

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by WildVS

Yeah he probably should. At least for more than 45 minutes. He sounds interested and asks a lot of questions that could he could answer for himself is why I asked about it. Anyway, it's your time.

Well, I am mostly interested in what we know about how PS2 is going to do things and to work from that. Although, I am awaiting Basti's veteran masterpiece with great interest. If I can find any reason to support the veteran viewpoint, then I want to find it, because I know what it's like to see veterans of previous game lose what they feel is the proper gameplay for no good reason.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

PS1 didnt have alot, but the cont caps were amazingly awesome compared to whats in ps2 so far.

What the hell was the "amzingly awesome" part? Was it the minimum 15 minute (usually more like 45 mins) of boring waiting around while you cap the last bases after the entire enemy population was already gone? Or maybe it was seeing the pretty color the continent changed on the map?

The concept of "conquering" a continent is fine. But in practice, it was laaaaame. I thought the system they instituted later with the capital bases was far more exciting and graitifying.

[StumpyTheOzzie]

capping home continents was awesome though. A real feeling of achievement - except against the VS because they only have 8% global pop when I play.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by StumpyTheOzzie

capping home continents was awesome though. A real feeling of achievement - except against the VS because they only have 8% global pop when I play.

Are they planning to prevent that from happening somehow? One empire being extreme underpopulated? I mean really prevent it, not just give a 3% exp bonus.

[ThGlump]

How you want to prevent it? dont let any player into continent till enemy get some population? Autobalance switching player empire? Both are impossible in PS.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by ThGlump

How you want to prevent it? dont let any player into continent till enemy get some population? Autobalance switching player empire? Both are impossible in PS.

Hm...I guess you can't. But...as an emegency stopgap, if one team outnumbers both the other empires put together, they could ally the two smaller ones...? It would be either that or a server merge.

[Skittles]

Originally Posted by BorisBlade

The game is not being designed for epic captures and territory dominance but instead for zergy circle capture fests where you just constantly fight but its really fairly meaningless with no real win or endpoint or victory. PS1 didnt have alot, but the cont caps were amazingly awesome compared to whats in ps2 so far.

I would agree with the basic statement here and expand it to say that with the way the game is going to set up it we will be fighting essentially over the exact same territory constantly and the same bases constantly. With biolabs having 18 capture points thats going to just bog down fights to a damn near standstill and then to compound the problem we will be fighting more often then not over the same bases over and over as what generally happens in every game of this type.

THEN factor in that you can NEVER actually kick someone off a continent? Yeesh. Theres definately room for improvement on the mechanics of this style of gameplay.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by WildVS

It took more time to achieve than capping a hex or a base? It was a lot of outfits goals back in the day and took a lot of planning, time and team work to pull off. And when it happened it was a satisfying result of a long play session.

I understand that, but the end result was still boring. Players could still plan to take all the hexes away from a certain empire on a certain continent for that satisfying result if they want in PS2, right? You still couldn't capture a warpgate in PS1, so why do we all of a sudden need to do it in PS2?