Confirmed: 9 Sanctuaries at launch.

[Miir]

Probably should clarify that I don't want continent locks. Merely I'm not a fan of static footholds. (or Sanctuaries).

However I do believe that the current system is flawed and will result in statemates and gameplay stagnation. Here are a few maps of Indar I recreated for this discussion.

First here is the current system and where my original stalemate assumptions came from. This shows the 3 empire footholds. (disclaimer I made this based on this image and the top was cut off so I made some guesses)


Next I tagged all the main bases in yellow which I imagine will play an important role in the game.


Next given the close proximity to each foothold (2 to 3 hexes) I tagged which empire would likely have the best advantages to take the bases.


From there I just filled in the rest of the hexes around the bases. These are sort of gimme's since they all are within a couple hexes of the foothold. What's left (the black areas) is what would be considered the "front lines" and will likely change often. Not to say people won't attack outside of those areas it's just that it will be considerably harder to maintain a push so close to an enemy foothold. Thus leading to the "stalemate scenario".


What I'd prefer they do is get rid of the footholds and utilize the "green zone" around the perimeter of the map.


In this "green zone" empires would be able to randomly deploy "Forward Operating Bases (FOB's)" to stage attacks from.


The major benefit I see to this is it would randomize the areas of the map that people would be coming from and it would also allow an entire continent to be captured (though unlikely)


In the event that one empire was just clearly better than the rest and managed to take over the entire continent. It would still allow the other two empires to re-deploy their FOB's and start to attack again to get a foothold.

[ArmedZealot]

Wow those are some pretty proff. examples.

I don't think the empires would be as splintered and random as you depict, the zerg would fight against such things.

[Malorn]

Ya nice mockups, but I don't see what you are achieving with them.

Lets start with the basics:

1) What problem are you solving?


2) What are your design goals in solving said problem?

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Miir

Don't suppose you could make a mockup of how many total bases could be expected in any given area? For example, zoom in on the red area of this picture and show a breakout of what the spread of capturable areas might be.

[Miir]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Ya nice mockups, but I don't see what you are achieving with them.

Lets start with the basics:

1) What problem are you solving?


2) What are your design goals in solving said problem?

1) Stalemates mainly and hopefully mixing up the map a bit. As much as I loved Planetside the game gets boring taking over the same bases again and again. What I propose will hopefully take the edge off the repetitive nature of the game by allowing some randomness to enter the equation. Don't get me wrong the whole hex and resource system adds a lot to the game and will extend the life of the game. But it will eventually become repetitive again with static footholds.

2) My main goal would be to remove any sort of static foothold. I like some of the other ideas as well like a rotating airship, space stations. Basically anything that opens up the map completely and gives people a option to come in from a different side is good. It's also a good way for SOE to have something else to customize. For instanced they could have it so you customize your FOB using in game resources. Maybe even upgraded with different attachments like air/land vehicle pads, shields, turrets, futuristic sandbags whatever. Build it up your way. Perhaps even have the ability to deploy multiple FOB's together to create some sort of player made base or an outfit base.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Don't suppose you could make a mockup of how many total bases could be expected in any given area? For example, zoom in on the red area of this picture and show a breakout of what the spread of capturable areas might be.

It's hard to do without a more detailed image. I used the image below to create the outlines and you can see the main bases are in each of the larger hexes but the smaller bases and towers are a little more difficult to see exactly. So I might be guessing a bit. Actually I just notice I got one of the areas wrong. There should be a third base for the TR. So it's 3 large bases to each foothold. That makes more sense.

[Stardouser]

What are the 6 side orange icons, and the swirly orange icons?

[Miir]

I believe those represent the different resources.

[Owalpo]

I think a simple fix to this(Even though we really don't even know how these work and are basing it off Alpha stuff) is if an Empire(TR) surrounds a foothold of another Empire(NC)that had just lost all its territory on the continent, and the Empire(TR) attacking defends the continent for 15 minutes allowing no territory be captured by NC then NC will be locked out of the continent for half an hour to an hour.

[LordReaver]

One empire needs a slight advantage each continent, otherwise the fight will always be somewhere near the middle of each cont. Sure it will vary slightly, but there wont really be any way to grab the majority of a cont. Which would thus create stale game play.

[Malorn]

Originally Posted by Owalpo

I think a simple fix to this(Even though we really don't even know how these work and are basing it off Alpha stuff) is if an Empire(TR) surrounds a foothold of another Empire(NC)that had just lost all its territory on the continent, and the Empire(TR) attacking defends the continent for 15 minutes allowing no territory be captured by NC then NC will be locked out of the continent for half an hour to an hour.

What is the point of that? Locking people out of a continent improves gameplay how exactly?

Originally Posted by Miir

1) Stalemates mainly and hopefully mixing up the map a bit. As much as I loved Planetside the game gets boring taking over the same bases again and again. What I propose will hopefully take the edge off the repetitive nature of the game by allowing some randomness to enter the equation. Don't get me wrong the whole hex and resource system adds a lot to the game and will extend the life of the game. But it will eventually become repetitive again with static footholds.

I agree that it does get boring and mixing things up is good. That's why I proposed rotating the footholds roughly once per month so we get some freshness in who is attacking and defending what territory.

Stalemates are another matter. If there is a stalemate the presence of a foothold won't change that, because the foothold is just the very tip of the iceberg and isn't much different from a permanent broadcast warpgate. The fact that each empire owns a significant chunk of land and can't afford to reach too far into any other territory without facing a double team is what will render a stalemate - not the presence of footholds.

Originally Posted by Miir

2) My main goal would be to remove any sort of static foothold. I like some of the other ideas as well like a rotating airship, space stations. Basically anything that opens up the map completely and gives people a option to come in from a different side is good. It's also a good way for SOE to have something else to customize. For instanced they could have it so you customize your FOB using in game resources. Maybe even upgraded with different attachments like air/land vehicle pads, shields, turrets, futuristic sandbags whatever. Build it up your way. Perhaps even have the ability to deploy multiple FOB's together to create some sort of player made base or an outfit base.

Why do you believe removing static footholds will fix the stalemate issue?

I agree on things opening up the map a bit, but essentially all the foothold does is give you an advantage in taking a handful of territories in a corner of the map and give you a base of operations in retaking those territories. In order for the foothold to be relevant, the empire must have lost all other facilities on the map and be reduced to just the foothold. That in itself won't render a stalemate. It will make it difficult or impossible to completely remove an empire from the continent, but I would claim that is a good thing to keep the battle raging.

I think your image showing planetside 2 in the same configuration day 1, vs year 1 is flat out incorrect and misleading. The footholds have no impact on that result, so I believe your grievance is misplaced.

Originally Posted by Miir

There should be a third base for the TR. So it's 3 large bases to each foothold. That makes more sense.

The TR do have 3 bases. Each empire has 3 in the picture you referenced. The TR have an AMP station in the NW (the one featured in the videos), they have a bio lab east of it, and a tech plant south of it.

You can view all 3 for each empire clearly in this picture: http://i.imgur.com/LPElr.jpg

[Miir]

That's why I proposed rotating the footholds roughly once per month so we get some freshness in who is attacking and defending what territory.

This is not a bad idea and it would help slow the issues with static footholds and I could definitely compromise if they didn't want to do a more drastic idea.

The only negatives (for me at least) would be that once you have a spot that cannot be captured you basically give a empire a means to just fall back and hide out in relative safety. This happened in Planetside where players would hide in a warp gate sneak out and attack then run and hide back in the warp gate. The attackers outside the warp gate would either get bored and leave if they could not get the people to come out. Or the people in the warp gate would realize it's a lost cause and leave. Either way that wasn't one of the more fun aspects of Planetside. In PS2 if you happened to push everyone back to the foothold (warp gate) you would not only be dealing with the impenetrable force field of the warp gate but also the zerg. So clearly there would be an advantage to defenders in the areas around the footholds.

The fact that each empire owns a significant chunk of land and can't afford to reach too far into any other territory without facing a double team is what will render a stalemate - not the presence of footholds.

True but the reason the empires can not reach out far is because they eventually hit the side of the map that is harder or impossible to capture due to the foothold. This is my issue.

In order for the foothold to be relevant, the empire must have lost all other facilities on the map and be reduced to just the foothold. That in itself won't render a stalemate. It will make it difficult or impossible to completely remove an empire from the continent, but I would claim that is a good thing to keep the battle raging.

I can agree with this but by keeping the footholds in their current form you are basically locking in an empire to be fighting or defending over the same piece of land. That's what I feel is a stalemate. By removing the footholds you would open up the map making a more fluid and changing battlefield.

I think your image showing planetside 2 in the same configuration day 1, vs year 1 is flat out incorrect and misleading.

Yeah sorry... it was meant to be a bit extreme. It doesn't show all the epic battles that go on. Perhaps I'll revise it.

The TR do have 3 bases. Each empire has 3 in the picture you referenced.

The first set of images did not. I fixed the map.

http://s224245511.onlinehome.us/ps/3.jpg
http://s224245511.onlinehome.us/ps/3a.jpg

[Hermes]

Perhaps a stronghold for each empire on each cont which can only be disabled, not captured. You can hack it, power it down and kick them out of the base, but you can't spawn at it yourself.

Then to start an assault on the continent you have to fight your way from the warpgate to your disabled stronghold. Because only you have the ability to spawn there it makes the base fall easier into your hands, but you can definitely be kicked off the continent for that 100% red/blue/purple screenshot moment.

[Owalpo]

[QUOTE=Malorn;667458]What is the point of that? Locking people out of a continent improves gameplay how exactly?

Takes the fight to somewhere else.

[MasterChief096]

Honestly, three continents simply isn't going to be big enough for this game I think, unless there are going to be tons and tons of servers, way more than the five in the original PlanetSide. More continents are going to be a must.

I also think that sanctuary continents can satisfy the needs of both the nostalgic vets, those who think they are a good idea, and those who are advocating footholds over sanctuaries

I think all footholds should be converted to universal broadcast warpgates, and that each continent should have at least five warpgates. Each empire should have a sanctuary. The sanctuary should abide by a population lock, 1000 empire-specific players per sanctuary, and then a new instance can bud off to accommodate other players if needed, or there can be a minimum of three sanctuary instances (maybe just three separate sanctuary continents in general) that can be used. Think HART A, B, and C as being their own continents, except exactly identical.

The design of the sanctuary would have be entirely revamped to ensure ease of access to contestable continents.

The center of the sanctuary would have a huge HART building that could shuttle troops, has terminals, and just has cool rooms like the current HART buildings do. Immediately outside of that, and I mean like five feet outside of that building, is a circular arrangement of alternating vehicle pads. Every other one would be a huge air vehicle pad, the in-between ones would be ground vehicle pads. There would be 20 pads around the central HART structure. Each pad would have a set of two respawn tubes, to allow troops to spawn from any continent in the game or anywhere in sanctuary directly onto a vehicle pad. This removes the 5-15 second long run in PlanetSide to get to a vehicle pad of your choosing.

With the central HART structure and the vehicle pads packed as densely as possible, the perimeter around the pads itself is rather large and spacious to allow for the coordination of raids and outfits. Three to four warpgates encircle the wide "field".

This design would not be a nuisance in terms of pacing whatsoever. If I died on Indar, depending on my rig, I could respawn at sanctuary directly at a vehicle pad, pull the vehicle, and drive/fly into a warpgate within 30 seconds, depending on vehicle timers. I could lounge around sanctuary if I want by going to the VR or exploring the HART building also.

Pros of this set-up

- Nostalgic players are kept happy
- It still doesn't take a very long time at all to get into combat. Hell, it would take less time than it takes for BF3 to load and start a new map, especially with the 30 seconds or whatever it is that everyone has to wait anyways.
- There are more warpgates on each continent than just three, and all are universal, this spices up the diversity of battles that can happen, and adds to the depth of potential tactics and strategy that can occur.
- Empire's still have privacy when amassing formations to hit a continent, and the location of that raid is kept in utmost secrecy until the raid actually hits.
- There is an empire-specific "lounging and AFKing" center for everyone to enjoy.
- Domination of a continent can still happen in the traditional sense in the same way, simply kicking the other empires off the continent and forcing them back to their sanctuaries.
- People who advocate the current foothold system still have the ability to be on any continent at any time. If you feel like four-five warpgates is too much variety, then simply restrict each empire to only being able to go through three, with a little bit of overlap between empire's and which warpgates they share. Put this on a rotation and bam! you get more variety. This works a lot better for battle diversity than each empire only having ONE place to attack from on each continent, as the other two empires will ALWAYS know where to go to prevent an attack from that empire.
- Consider an empire getting sanctuary locked. In PlanetSide, that empire has two choices, each a single ES warpgate on two separate continents. Easy to predict and manage. If an empire gets sanctuary locked in this setup, they can regroup and make some serious tactical decisions as to where they want to go, and how they want to go in based on the five different warpgates.

Cons

- There is still a loading screen involved, but like I said, it would still probably take less time to pull a new vehicle at sanctuary and get it back to the continent than it would take for a new BF3 match to start if timing from the end of a match itself.

If the only real gripe with this setup is a loading screen and possible queues, I fail to see how this would be different from footholds. If your empire has population-locked a continent, then you will still have to wait in a queue before going there, its just how you wait in that queue. Get all set up at sanctuary and then fly into a warpgate for the queue, or be in a queue right from the launch screen. Also, the total number of loading screens this puts into the game is - you guessed it - one. ONE loading screen. Ok two - starting the game up into sanctuary, and then one to get onto a continent. Once you are on a continent, you are on that continent, and the only loading screens you will see will be the ones you choose to see, such as flying through a broadcast into another broadcast.

Now, with beta in mind, I think that the current system works for quickly testing the mechanics of the game, but ultimately I think the proposed system would work better for launch and for the implementation of new continents in the future.

[Tasorin]

Part of the reason to play PS1 was push the other factions back to there Sanctuaries and lock them down. Actually locking a Faction down at the home planet Sanctuary was something you had to work for and during its prime, PS1 didn't have the problem of populations fluxing during the hours of day.

3 safe harbors for each faction on each continent gives each faction three separate fronts to start from. To me personally that pretty much takes the point out of capping a continent other then the resources and xp gained while doing it. Do you really want PS2 to be about resource swapping and unlocks, or do you want it to be about crushing your enemy factions back to a single start point.

I can live with the fact that the home planet concept of PS1 isn't going to transfer to PS2. I understand that Higgles and krew are looking for a faster game pace then PS1. Having 3 Sanctuaries per Continent supports that play style from what game play we have seen. I think with being able to spawn in on people the ability to be mobile in a organized squad is actually much higher then it was in PS1. I think that giving each faction 3 Sanctuaries on top of the higher mobility diminishes the end goals of capping a Continent. On top of that like others have said, that is 6 less hex areas to capture per Continent if 3 Sanctuaries are used instead of 1 Sanctuary per Continent.

This is also what a live robust Beta Cycle is for. Hopefully in the end after the community gets the stick time in and some sound feedback we get an improvement cycle with regards to Sanctuaries.