Geography, and Scope...

[Grognard]

I have been looking deeper at the game screenshots, and videos, and thinking about what I see that will effect gameplay, specifically the distances between pretty much everything... and really makes me wonder about certain things...


Observations / Considerations:
1. The bases, and travel time distance.
2. The distance of the structures from each other.
3. The space in the spawn rooms vs width of stairs.
4. The size of vehicles relative to the structures.
5. The highth of structures, and militarily significant natural objects
5. The distance of the ridges, and other militarily significant natural objects from structures.
6. The width of paths / roads.
7. Engagement distances for craft and vehicles, in the videos.
8. Class / inventory / ammo capacity vs. number if enemies / targets / HP levels.
9. View distance and obstruction density, vs approach paths.
10. Cover and concealment availability, ie clustering of troops...



Potential Effects (good and bad):
1. Vehicle, and running speed, specifically the necessity, availability, and capacities of transports... these capacities are only a little better than PS1... Do we want to simply rely on the more ubiquitous spawning system?
2. Weapon ranges, specifically engagement distances from weapon varieties like sniper rifles. Also, implants like run and sighting enhancers, use of nocs commonplace, even tacitly required...
3. Aircraft zones of control and interdiction radius, necessity for local air superiority... to prevent reinforcements from harrassment or destruction, or spawn site camping. Also, the sky limit, is it conducive to dogfighting maneuvers, and the "energy game" (altitude=speed)?
4. Tactical command and control / unit integrity... for instance keeping troops from getting spread out, to maintain economy of force.
5. Resource stewardship, ie. leaving things undefended, or not, due to reaction time, at critical resources behind the lines.
6. Base interiors, for instance the new zerg paradigm of 500 troops going down the stairs... grenade!
7. Engineering deployables that are effected by distance, for instance mine fields may need to be big now... and this requires reviewing inventory capacity, and the ability to deploy in a timely fashon, or who will do it?
8. Recon for cloakers, no invisible vehicles... does this now require a long run to recon?
9. Movement to contact, and flanking... we are going to need to develop some serious tactics for simply approaching a base, because there is a lot of room for ambushes, and interdiction now, it seems. Cooperation is going to be a big deal, and are the tools in place for faction wide cooperation? Can the mission system handle this?
10. Terrain varieties... lastly mentioned due to the dynamic way in which all the previously mentioned could be effected inversely, or even unpredictably...


This is just 10 examples of each, any thoughts on how this is all going to play out?





Edit: Spelling, punctuation, etc.

[DayOne]

A quick answer for 1. is that i believe there is going to be a lot more fighting over areas other than bases. Transport routes obviously, like bridges and roads, and possibly other, smaller, groups of structures along roads or that may or may not give resource bonuses.

[Scrima]

Hope DayOne is right, this is one of the things I am really looking forward to!

[General M]

Very good points!

I think they'll have to be careful on the transport side of things, I don't want to be running 10 minutes to get killed straight away, not that I will obviously

[DviddLeff]

Not worried tbh; continent sizes are about the same as PS1 we are told, and base sizes are much larger.

In almost all the screenshots we see canyons and ridges funnelling troops into specific areas, so kill zones will develop as well as predictable paths for troops to take.

If anything I am more concerned that it will often be too cramped and predictable despite the removal of the lattice.

Where for example will the deployable towers and stuff go if that ever makes it in game?

[cellinaire]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

Not worried tbh; continent sizes are about the same as PS1 we are told, and base sizes are much larger.

In almost all the screenshots we see canyons and ridges funnelling troops into specific areas, so kill zones will develop as well as predictable paths for troops to take.

If anything I am more concerned that it will often be too cramped and predictable despite the removal of the lattice.

Where for example will the deployable towers and stuff go if that ever makes it in game?

......?

[DviddLeff]

5x5km is the number isn't it?

[Peacemaker]

It's been said that even though the maps will be roughly the same size as PS1, they will use much more of it. PS1 had a huge amount of space lost to oceans, it seems they won't waste so much this time. They also state by spreading the fighting out it should feel bigger, I.e no wasted space.

[ringring]

I am sure there will be unintentional frustration points built into the map.
For example on current oshur, the approach to Yazatwa is too strong for the defence. It takes a lot for attackers to stay alive long enough to reach the walls.
Similarly the Leza dynamic. The Tore / Leza bridge is too long.
I think there is a fine line for the devs to walk in creating points of conflict on the map without making it too strong.

[Hmr85]

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

5x5km is the number isn't it?

8x8km Is what I thought I heard myself in one of the community broadcasts.