Confirmed: 9 Sanctuaries at launch.

[Pillow]

Just call the 3 continents the "Sanctuary continents" or something and make new continents called "Conquest continents" wich offers a different gameplay similar to PS1 but improved.

The Sanctuary continents from my point of view looks like a pointless circlejerk fragfest right now
I want continents you can invade and conquer i want to paint the global map to your factions color. And i want bigger strategic gameplay then what has been shown so far.
Add conquest maps!!

[Kran De Loy]

I said it another thread and without even reading anything between pages 1 and 7 I'm sure that other people have said it already too.

When new continents get put in past these first three, slap a captureable warpgate in the middle of each of the Prime continents then throw some rare resources or higher concentration of existing resources on the new (virgin) continents and restrict entry to each new continent through Prime Wargates only.

New continents have 2-4 warp gates to defend against invasion and the Prime continents remain a major piece of the territory control meta game as they're the only access points to those secondaries if a faction gets pushed out.

[Arius]

I guess we should just find out how this works. I do think having our foothold on the same place all the time would become a bit stale after some time though. As a certain empire, you would constantly see the same terrain.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Arius

I guess we should just find out how this works. I do think having our foothold on the same place all the time would become a bit stale after some time though. As a certain empire, you would constantly see the same terrain.

I could certainly see that too since it happened in PS1. Rotating who was which warpgate every once in awhile would help that quite a bit. It still won't be anywhere near the 'map fatigue' you see in every other shooter out there with their tiny shriveled maps.

[Vancha]

Paid-for continents is a terrible idea.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Paid-for continents is a terrible idea.

Well every mmo now has expansions that you pay for. That could still completely work in a f2p situation.

[EASyEightyEight]

It's good to know my posts can still rub people all sorts of ways, which usually means they know deep down that I'm actually speaking the truth. Planetside 2 is NOT Planetside 1, or have ALL of the differences between the two not clued some people in to that fact yet? Yet here we are, discussing why yet another facet of Planetside 2 isn't exactly like it was in Planetside 1...

As for paid-for DLC continents, I feel they would needlessly separate and thin the populations, harming the game over all. Consider Core-Combat's caves... only players that purchased the expansion pack initially had access to the caves, and then the overworld and the caves were sporting split populations, artificially lowering the number of players available for both. We don't want this in Planetside 2. I'd prefer to let SOE sell uber tanks with real life cash than demand players spend money to fight on a new landmass.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

It's good to know my posts can still rub people all sorts of ways, which usually means they know deep down that I'm actually speaking the truth. Planetside 2 is NOT Planetside 1, or have ALL of the differences between the two not clued some people in to that fact yet? Yet here we are, discussing why yet another facet of Planetside 2 isn't exactly like it was in Planetside 1...

As for paid-for DLC continents, I feel they would needlessly separate and thin the populations, harming the game over all. Consider Core-Combat's caves... only players that purchased the expansion pack initially had access to the caves, and then the overworld and the caves were sporting split populations, artificially lowering the number of players available for both. We don't want this in Planetside 2. I'd prefer to let SOE sell uber tanks with real life cash than demand players spend money to fight on a new landmass.

Not meaning to rip on you too hard here, but the first part of your post is lecturing about not equating PS1 to PS2, and then you spend the 2nd part basing your argument on PS1 populations numbers. You should take your own advice. Ideally there will be plenty of players for more continents.

Also, isn't "spending money for a new landmass" how every MMO expansion works? Granted it's not an mmorpg like where you normally see this, but I don't think it's far fetched to say it will still work. I mean technically adding any continents will "split the population". It's not like all the fights are only going to happen on the new continents leaving all the "poor kids" in the dust.

[EASyEightyEight]

We're nitpicknig to be nitpicking for the sake of making me look like a hypocrit. Maybe I am, or maybe we just can not fathom the purpose of bringing up the issue of caves in PS1 as x-pack exclusive material to relate to instead of risking using another game, like say MAG, as an example where maps are exclusive to people whom have paid for them and because only those whom paid got to play on them, they were rarely ever played because participation numbers were simply too low.

Yes, people WILL pay for the new content, the issue however is it practical to the intent of the game? Will enough pay for the new content for it to be as fun as the mainlands?

MOST games with DLC/x-packs, particularly MMO's concerning our common interest, aren't strictly PvP based. If most people don't pick up the expansion, there are still PvE mobs to slay and goodies of all varieties to collect. Planetside is different in that it lives and dies on its populations for the most part. Will x-pack exclusive continents kill Planetside 2? No. But I feel it's an unnecessary impediment to the core of the game: lots of people fighting lots of people fighting lots of people, and at no time should those numbers be divided by the almighty dollar.

[Destroyeron]

Originally Posted by EASyEightyEight

. I'd prefer to let SOE sell uber tanks with real life cash than demand players spend money to fight on a new landmass.

Fuck. That.

The second every spoiled preteen with access to daddies credit card gets to destroy me, I'm done.

[Goku]

Paid for continents fragments the playerbase too much for it to be viable. I don't want to see certain players barred from playing due to not owning the map. Depending o the growth of this game there may have to be more maps put in to support it anyway.

[acosmo]

FORGELIGHT. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? there will be no such thing as pop-locking or cont-locking. its not like the server is going to be like, "oh no, we can't handle this many players anymore because ps2 wasn't designed to have combat on this scale"

[Vancha]

Originally Posted by acosmo

FORGELIGHT. WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND? there will be no such thing as pop-locking or cont-locking. its not like the server is going to be like, "oh no, we can't handle this many players anymore because ps2 wasn't designed to have combat on this scale"

So the stated 2000 player-cap is an arbitrary number the devs pulled out of thin-air that doesn't actually exist?

[Kran De Loy]

Originally Posted by Vancha

So the stated 2000 player-cap is an arbitrary number the devs pulled out of thin-air that doesn't actually exist?

I would hope so, or at least a base number they'll steadily raise as they work out the details with the net code and server management. Or better yet, 2000 is just to get people to realize the scope of what they hope to accomplish.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

I would hope so, or at least a base number they'll steadily raise as they work out the details with the net code and server management. Or better yet, 2000 is just to get people to realize the scope of what they hope to accomplish.

More likely, just as it was in PS1, I think the 2000 number is a max they are hoping to reach and the actual player count will go down from there before launch. Even if it drops all the way down to 1000, I think I'll still be pretty ecstatic.