Footholds Archetypes: "Food for Thought"

[Rabb]

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.

The way things are the size of the size of front lines will mean they are never going to be stable there is to much territory for that to happen.

If you try and make home continents with only 3 no mater what way you work the links you end up with fighting localized at the neutral gates which is much smaller then the front lines you will get with a foot hold on each cont.

The second you encourage empires to lock continents you start to limit the territory people will fight over.

The only way I can see a lattice system working is to bring back the sanctuary's for regrouping (making them a space station could be more fun) and make all gates broadcast gates. That way any empire can pop up any where. From there you let it play out naturally. The empire's will form there own preferences and front lines.

[The Janitor]

Maybe in the future we'll get "themed" conts instead of "home" conts. It'll be fun, it'll be epic, and very difficult given the home team advantage. I always liked the idea of having a home base for each faction, but I do see the need to have constant warfare on every cont possible. Give one "capital" for each faction that only they have a sanctuary on, but that is very much conquerable by the other factions. Perhaps some fun benefits will apply for the attackers, kinda like raiding a faction faction capital in WoW. At the very least achievements or badges or something to show off what you accomplished. Good stuff.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by The Janitor

Maybe in the future we'll get "themed" conts instead of "home" conts. It'll be fun, it'll be epic, and very difficult given the home team advantage. I always liked the idea of having a home base for each faction, but I do see the need to have constant warfare on every cont possible. Give one "capital" for each faction that only they have a sanctuary on, but that is very much conquerable by the other factions. Perhaps some fun benefits will apply for the attackers, kinda like raiding a faction faction capital in WoW. At the very least achievements or badges or something to show off what you accomplished. Good stuff.

Good idea Mr. Janitor. The "capital" continents should be themed by faction so the VS have lots of temples to Vanu, the TR lots of bombastic Roman-esque architecture and the NC lots of mines and mining shacks.

Something like that would be really cool!

[Malorn]

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.

There is one awesome gem of insight from this thread that will help us in further discussions about this - erunion pointed out the relationship between space utilization and the amount of space and how that impacts the flow of conquest.

To have meaningful strategy, conquest, and a metagame you need a lot of space. More importantly, some significant amount of that space will inevitably be unusable. It has to be in order for conquest to happen. You take territory and then once you take it it's yours for a while and the battle moves.

In order for the battle lines to move significantly they need a place to move to - thus we need a lot of space and it can't all be used.

The reality of PS2 is that it is launching with 3 continents. With such a small number the space utilization must be High or the game will be stale and boring and not feel any different than a session shooter in terms of scale. We need to see more of that world so we see just how big it is and PS2 feels "massive"

Additionally, we need high utilization so the populations for a server are correct when they start adding more continents. Consider 3 jam-packed continents. If they add 3 more continents, server population stays the same (unless the game has good net player growth over time), and space utilization no longer needs to be so high. This opens the door for a larger metagame. Game still feels large, we see a lot of it, and conquest & battle lines move meaningfully.

The point I'm trying to get at is that the 3 continents thing is really, really important for a number of reasons and its not just good for them to maximize space utilization - it's vitally important so the game can scale well as they add new continents later. Then as space increase the metagame will have more options and we can move to a model that utilizes less space and provides more meaningful conquest and domination.

We have to accept that the metagame won't be super awesome at launch, but the important thing is why that is the case, and how we can make it better in the future.

So the new buzzword for Global Strategy, Conquest & Metagame => "space utilization"

You can also see space utilization theory in action in the mockups in the OP. The more interesting strategy configurations end up creating dead space and areas of the map that will not likely see a lot of action. Thus more strategy = less space utilization. If space is low to begin with then having rich strategy means we're going ot have most battles in small parts of the map.

You saw this with DAOC also with three factions with 3 "realms" (or "home continents" if you will). Most of the battle took place on the entranace zone to each home continent. Were we to separate the factions into each faction being on its own continent and connecting the continents then we will end up with a similar result, where most of the battles occurs in the area around the two non-faction warpgates. Very dull result. So we see how that will play out.

Thanks again erunion...you've really opened a door for me in understanding the dynamics and design of continents, connections, and strategy.

[The Kush]

Originally Posted by Zolan

#4 is the way to go once they add more continents.

I honestly don't care what is in at launch, but if they make every new continent a foothold stalemate, this game will simpy become a glorified assortment of BF3 maps on a large scale. Hopefully they recognize this after launch.

THIS,

Please document for future reference.

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You saw this with DAOC also with three factions with 3 "realms" (or "home continents" if you will). Most of the battle took place on the entranace zone to each home continent. Were we to separate the factions into each faction being on its own continent and connecting the continents then we will end up with a similar result, where most of the battles occurs in the area around the two non-faction warpgates. Very dull result. So we see how that will play out.

Which is why having 2-faction "home-continents" seems like a better idea. Then, the fighting can be over not only the warpgates that open up access to other continents, but also the home continents themselves (because they're never "safe" from at least one other empire).

Those warpgates, then, can lead to either other 2-faction home-continents (providing either access to that continent for the non-footholded empire or a tactical foothold that grants access to push into the opposition's holdings from multiple fronts) or to completely neutral continents, which may get locked but will never have a stranglehold by the locking empire, because they must hold their beachhead access with no special advantages of permanent access.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by kaffis

Which is why having 2-faction "home-continents" seems like a better idea. Then, the fighting can be over not only the warpgates that open up access to other continents, but also the home continents themselves (because they're never "safe" from at least one other empire).

Those warpgates, then, can lead to either other 2-faction home-continents (providing either access to that continent for the non-footholded empire or a tactical foothold that grants access to push into the opposition's holdings from multiple fronts) or to completely neutral continents, which may get locked but will never have a stranglehold by the locking empire, because they must hold their beachhead access with no special advantages of permanent access.

Yes that's option #3 in the OP. It isn't particularly bad, but still less space utilization than #1, which I think has to be the priority. #3 would be an interesting option to consider with more continents. For launch they need to maximize player density, because that density will drop the moment a single continent is added and with each additional continent. As density drops the need for a different continental layout goes up, both to keep density high in a local area and to add more strategic depth to the game.

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Dart

I suspect #1 is what we will end up with because solutions 2, 4-5 would simply result in a lot of WG camping and each Empire holding/maintaining their 'own' Continent and 3 would effectively limit each Empire to (mostly) fighting on only two of the Continents.

I think you're right there, with only 3 conts you can't have warpgates in the same way as we had before, we'd be warpgate camping only. With 10 conts there was always another place to attack if you got camped in.

The only thing i worry about with this set up is you've essentially got 3 stalemates that may as well be on different servers, since the choice of where to go doesn't really matter

[DarkChiron]

I think something that can try to help alleviate the deadlocking of the 3 forces along essentially non-variant battlelines is the removal of the need to follow a set lattice in your captures. On PS1 you had difficulty breaking into enemy territory because they knew you had to try to cap 1-2 bases, and you couldn't go anywhere else. In PS2 they have introduced the ability to capture ANY hex, no matter where it is, so I think any group willing to shake things up can back-cap a base a few hexes into enemy territory and really shake things up. We'll have to see how that will work in practice. They made it sound like it would be more difficult to do back-capping, but I hope it's not SO difficult as to be impractical, because I think it will go a long way in making the battlefronts less static.

[Malorn]

The lack of a lattice adds more freedom, but the territory control system is not a free-for all by any means. Depending on how important adjacent territory is it could be nearly the same result as the lattice only not tied strictly to bases. Front lines are important and they'll move back and forth as population and attacks shift along the lines, but it won't be drastic day-to-day like we saw in PS1 where you might not fight on a continent for several days, even weeks because it was just too far away or well-held by the empire that had it. The shift will move from less about continents and more about territories on each continent.

It seems the resource system is more or less meaningless though, as you have to go through territories to get territories, and if you're progressing along a front you'll pick up resources naturally. They won't be something you can specifically target all that effectively.

[DarkChiron]

Originally Posted by Malorn

The lack of a lattice adds more freedom, but the territory control system is not a free-for all by any means. Depending on how important adjacent territory is it could be nearly the same result as the lattice only not tied strictly to bases. Front lines are important and they'll move back and forth as population and attacks shift along the lines, but it won't be drastic day-to-day like we saw in PS1 where you might not fight on a continent for several days, even weeks because it was just too far away or well-held by the empire that had it. The shift will move from less about continents and more about territories on each continent.

As I said, back-capping in enemy territory is just going to depend on how difficult they end up making the act of doing so. People seem concerned about frontlines not moving because of the idea that you HAVE to assault one of a handful of bases that exist on where two differently colored territories meet, and the enemy knowing this can always be prepared for any assault.

I'm saying that's not really the case when your attacks can happen anywhere you want (especially if you fly along the coast and attack coastal bases). AGAIN: This is heavily dependent on how difficult they make it for you to cap inside enemy territory, and is compounded by you being effectively surrounded and (depending on spawn mechanics) where you are not easily reinforced.

It is depressing to think that the hexes near an enemy's sanctuary will just NEVER be seen due to how not viable it is to even attempt to attack them. But really, it's more difficult than I care to ponder right now on how to make that not happen and still be fair to the guys who control the area when they're fighting several kilometers away.

[MrBloodworth]

I really do not like footholds at all.

I can't see them being more than server selections at that point. There just will not be global movement with this how it is.

[Inverness]

If we only have 3 continents, then #1 is the best option. If we get more continents then I would like SOE to try changing that configuration to be more like PS1 and see how that works.

The idea I have right now is for seven continents total. One continent, like Indar, would have a foothold for each empire. Three other continents would have a foothold for one empire each, and then the three last continents would be completely neutral.

Also, considering how in PS1 the neutral continents give you some kind of special benefit for capturing them all, I'm thinking maybe this can be done with PS2, but also displayed on the continent with some kind of super-base that is 3-4 times larger than a normal one, perhaps divided into multiple sections and with a unique feature that represents the benefit given by that continent.

Also, I've attached a few ideas I've had using seven continents, I like the first the most.

[Baneblade]

Originally Posted by Inverness

The idea I have right now is for seven continents total. One continent, like Indar, would have a foothold for each empire. Three other continents would have a foothold for one empire each, and then the three last continents would be completely neutral.

In PS1, Cyssor was the continent with all three empires' sanc gates. The result was CyssorSide until the devs fixed it. This may not happen with footholds, but then it might.

What I am curious about is if the capitol concept will make a return. Could be interesting having a capturable foothold in the center of the map.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

In PS1, Cyssor was the continent with all three empires' sanc gates. The result was CyssorSide until the devs fixed it. This may not happen with footholds, but then it might.

What I am curious about is if the capitol concept will make a return. Could be interesting having a capturable foothold in the center of the map.

I like this idea. Have a capturable foothold in the center of the map with nearby power stations used for the protective barrier around it. This might be a way to inject a bit of underground play by having the power stations be underground so different tactics are necessary to take them out. There should also be underground tunnels connecting these power stations to the capitol, which are not protected by the barrier, which could be used for both defense and offense.

It would also be made so that without all three power stations online, the barrier would no longer impervious to fire and could be worn down with bombardment and such (no OSes allowed though), and more quickly if only one station is still active instead of two.

The idea here is to allow more avenues of attack:
1. Hit all power stations to take the barrier down and move in full force.
2. If there is low population around or you're just that good, have a strike team move into one of the power stations and enter the capitol through the connecting passage and take control from the inside.
3. Take down one or two power stations and just shoot the hell out of the barrier until it collapses.