Alternative to the foothold system

[kunzadar]

Right now every faction has an non-capturable foothold on each continent. This idea has some benefits, but also a lot of drawbacks.

pros:
1. Factions can always choose to play on any continent if they want.
2. No continent will ever have no game play on it, this spreads out the population for the servers and allows people to see all the content.

cons:
1. It is impossible to completely cap a continent, so there isn't as much to strive for.
2. Since the footholds cannot be captured, and cannot move then each faction's territory will be somewhat static. Vs always hold southern, NC always holds north east corner, and TR always holds NW, depending on where each faction's foothold is. That means a VS player may never get to hold or defend many places on the map, because they are only very rarely contested, and only for short periods of time.

Many people have already posted on this issue, but i don't think any of their solutions are the best. Most people who have a problem with the footholds would like some kind of sanctuary system in it's place, and a lot of the people who don't mind he footholds would also like to see a return of sanctuary. This has a problem though, mainly that if people can drop from sanctuary they can drop all over the map which is OP.

So here comes my solution.

I thought. To fix problem 2 with the foothold system (the one in place now) take away the warp gates . When a faction is down to their last major base, a bio lab or amp station or whatever, that base becomes non-capturable. This way the territory system will behave more fluidly because the non-capturable area only appears when a faction has lost all it's other bases, so up to that point any base is fair game.

This still leaves problem 1 though. So instead of making the last base non-capturable make the territory it is in the drop point from sanctuary. In other words when a faction has no bases left they are pushed back to sanctuary, but can only drop onto the base that they lost last.

This would eliminate the static territory problem, and allow empires to gain complete dominance of the map, without letting players drop pod any where they want on the continent, and we get sanctuary as a bonus.

For this idea to work completely however the sanctuary drop system would have to be very robust. It would have to be able to drop vehicles, air and land. As well as be able to drop entire squads together, and players should be able to pick any place in within the territory to drop into, so there won't be spawn camping.

This might seem to strong for the attackers, but this drop system will only be available to a faction that has lost all territory on a continent, and can only be used to drop into one specific territory (the territory around the last major base to be lost by that faction).

[Red Beard]

I like the dynamic home territory approach, and I aslo like the emphasis on drop ship centred "restart", as I believe that they will be expanding the game to outer space eventually.

I suspect your "no change for the sake of no change" people will be on you, but I think this may work very well post launch (when they know what they want to go with the sand-boxing).

The only reason I say it seems like a stretch during beta is that it takes you back to an overall sanctuary system (which I prefer, but the devs seem against).

Having said that, if they go the spaced based route (which I hope the do), then a spaced-based sanctuary system is inevitable!

Edit:
I really want to see neutral warp gates make a comeback too!

[Rexdezi]

As I don't see problem 1 as a problem, I say no change to that, have it so that you can't cap that last territory.

However, I love your idea of "last territory is the uncappable" rather than "this territory is uncappable" and I hope they implement that (brings up strategical elements like if an Empire is down to two bases, do they sacrifice the weaker one in order for the stronger to be their uncappable?)

[Zolan]

A few days ago I posted a long explanation of what I thought would be a good solution, based on my ideas and the ideas of a few others, but I don't feel like typing everything again so I'll just make a list.

Solution

1: One foothold on a home continent for each faction with 3 warp gates to nearby continents.

1b: 3 or 4 warp gates on every other continent for travel between continents.

2: Orbital space station sanctuary for each faction with a drop pod launch system.

2b: Put a 5-10-15 minute or so timer on space sanctuary drop-pod launches. Also, your pod must be launched into an open area on the map, like the original game. This would prevent players from launching a mass of drop pods on a base or tower.

[kunzadar]

Yeah, even if the sanctuary thing won't work, or just can't make it in to the game i would like to see the last base become the foothold instead of a designated one.

[Garem]

Hovering sanctuaries that circle around the continent, imo.

But yes, you've hit the problems on the head. I like the solution you've provided, random uncappable bases... but I don't love it either. It seems to me similar to, say, invisible walls.
"You can't go here!" says the game.
"Really, why is that?" says I.
"Because. You can't go here!"

That being said, it's better that it be somewhat random/arbitrary than a static, impossible-to-take base.

[Immigrant]

Footholds are good and I respect and support the reasoning behind them. Temporary footholds do sound tempting however that would mean that you couldn't strip one Empire from all of it's resources... (since they would have either BioLab, or AmpStation or Tech Plant in control). This would be a bigger goal breaker than the current static footholds imo.

p.s. guys about that invisible walls - there is an an obvious explanation - force field around the foothold.

[Baneblade]

This may work, but I kind of like the airship foothold alternative better.

[Dagron]

I really like this idea, just as much as the sanctuaries circling the continents one. Both have their problems, but maybe we can work on making one or the other more viable (maybe even combine them?).

Originally Posted by Immigrant

Temporary footholds do sound tempting however that would mean that you couldn't strip one Empire from all of it's resources... (since they would have either BioLab, or AmpStation or Tech Plant in control). This would be a bigger goal breaker than the current static footholds imo.

I have to agree with this one.

Originally Posted by Immigrant

p.s. guys about that invisible walls - there is an an obvious explanation - force field around the foothold.

You didn't get the point here, i think. He means "why and how is this base suddenly uncapturable? why didn't they do it to all their bases before?" and i kind of agree with him, it doesn't make much sense. Though i don't think it's such a big deal...



Anyway, i have a suggestion to improve on the OPs idea, tell me what you think:

- Problem: Say an empire loses it's last territory... if that was the only one they could drop back onto, it would make it much harder for them to retake anything, as everyone would know where they would strike. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn't make sense for them to be stuck with that option.
- Solution: How about when an empire lost it's last territory, another hex was either randomly auto selected or they got to vote which one would be available for them to deploy on and try to take?
It would make perfect sense: that empire's leaders decided to make a push to take a strategic staging area to retake the continent, so they park their capital ship in orbit over a hex and drop everything/everyone they got there.
That would give the weak empire a better chance to get back in the game, while making it a little more challenging to the others (they pushed someone out, but now they need to watch their back doors) without completely negating their victory.
Yes, it would make kicking everyone else out of the continent somewhat difficult, but it wouldn't be impossible. It would turn it into a real accomplishment.

[kunzadar]

I really like the idea of a massive invasion force coming down from the sky, and letting it be launched anywhere on the continent would give the attackers another advantage (which they need as they lost the continent completely) .

[Russ]

I actually really like this... It allows for some really interesting territory positions. But ya i feel like the footholds make the maps too static.

[Flaropri]

My thoughts:

I like the reason for temporary footholds, but I do have some concerns. What vehicles would you be able to drop, all of them including Galaxies? Even if you don't have access to a Tech Station or Warpgate?

Would foothold defense only work on large bases or would it apply to outposts?

As far as limiting drops... I have an idea:

Let's say that the "Foothold" is actually created by the Sanctuary laying down a barrier from orbit, this also gives a lore-based reason for why it can't be captured/accessed by the other factions. Then, you can only drop into your foothold and territories adjacent, but would not be locked into a specific territory. This could be somewhat problematic if you're stuck in a corner, but that's not too much different from how it would be currently for TR on Indar for example.



Ultimately though, I don't think that you'll see that much of a difference from the current foothold scenario. The main concern is stalemates brought about from equidistant spawning areas, where the main battle-lines remain relatively stagnant, thus limiting use of the map. However, this wouldn't change much from using this system, so long as the initial entry-points are the same.

On the other hand, if an Empire is able to conquer most of a given Continent for whatever reason, that stalemate problem doesn't exist as strongly anyway. At worse, it simply moves the line around the map some, which is the same result with temporary footholds.

To try and explain it a bit better... the concern people have (from what I understand) with footholds is primarily that they won't really fight over most of the map most of the time and that the battle-lines will remain stagnant. If that's the case, having temporary footholds won't really change anything. On the other hand, if battle-lines and territory often change hands, such that areas of control shift enough to allow temporary footholds to commonly allow different zones to be contested even if a specific faction is an underdog, there probably isn't much of a problem with stagnation in the first place.

I also think that the Hex system helps to alleviate battle-line stagnation by allowing more variation in locations and vectors of attack, but obviously it's too early to tell if it is enough to help break stalemates. Ultimately, I think that spec. ops and attacking multiple territories in an organized fashion is what will lead to breaks in stalemates and move the control from Empire to Empire. And, of course, resource advantages and disadvantages will also influence what territories will be contested and how.

It is still worth looking into temporary footholds, and my presumptions could be off, but that's just how I see things currently.

[kunzadar]

Yeah my solution may not be the best, I just feel that with the current system that each factions territory will always stay centered on the warp gate. I would like to see some system in which the power base of each faction shifts over time.

[Dagron]

There were several ideas being tossed around here a while ago, but i realized that right now it's probably only being done that way because there are only 3 continents. I'm sure when there are more they will try to implement some kind of dynamic foothold system.