question about the continents

[Braveliltoaster]

-why are they only making 3 at launch?
-why are they putting faction safe zones on each continent?
^- with the safe zones will there be total domination of a continent like in PS1?
- Why are they changing the names of the continence?

the fact the there are only 3 at launch with no global domination of a continent might make the game repetitive... its like playing on cyssor without an option to start a fight on a different continent... its cyssor, ishundar and esamir 100% of the time... and the footholds prevent you from taking over the continent for your empire, please say it isn't so!

[Dougnifico]

1. Budget and expansion possibilities. Each release will spike population and thus revenue.

2. Sanctuaries were seen as slowing the gameplay down. HART was like waiting for a bus. Footholds help speed up the game and keep populations on all continents.

3. No. They will always have 1 sanctuary (9 hexes from the looks of it).

4. They aren't. Amerish and Esimir are back. Indar is basically an Oshur - Ishundar hybrid. It uses Oshur bases. The problem is that Oshur was kind of a lame butthole of a continent and was changed into even lamer butthole islands. So... Oshur has a stigma.

They plan to rapidly expand within the first couple years after launch. Expect to see more continents and new features.

[Burnzblood]

Also keep in mind, this is an MMO that hasn't even seen Beta yet. Things are subject to change, and some things may change over the vast life cycle of PS2 in general. they will patch in continents, new vehicles, new weapons, etc. etc.

[Crator]

What if they make the new conts DLC packs for F2P accounts? What do you guys think about that? I'm not sure I like the idea of sectioning off the player base like that. I hope they don't do it.... I think this was discussed before and not many liked the idea.

[Xyntech]

There is a forum for these sort of questions here, but since you asked I'll give my take on them.

Originally Posted by Braveliltoaster

-why are they only making 3 at launch?

Because each continent holds 2000 players, compared to Planetsides continents which held 500 or less. 10 PS1 continents holds less than 5000 players. 3 PS2 continents holds up to 6000 (assuming they achieve their goals). Also, they seem intent on adding continents pretty steadily and soon after launch from the sound of it. Two more continents would make a single server be able to support 10,000 players, twice the number that a server could support in the first game.

Originally Posted by Braveliltoaster

-why are they putting faction safe zones on each continent?

For a few reasons. But one of them is that they are trying to speed up some of the slower elements of the gameplay to attract some of the slightly more ADD shooter players instead of immediately turning them off to the game. Footholds are essentially exactly the same as home continent warpgates, except that there isn't an additional loading screen between the empire Sanctuary and loading into the continent you want to fight on.

Originally Posted by Braveliltoaster

^- with the safe zones will there be total domination of a continent like in PS1?

They don't intend to bring back continent locking and I support this decision. Even if they brought back the Sanctuaries, I would still prefer no cont locking.

You can still capture every hex aside from the footholds, but if you want to keep it that way, you have to hold the territory against attackers. No free pass just because you capped the last base, the war is never over.

I suspect that due to continents having 70+ hex zones that you can capture and considering that every continent will be the equivalent of a home continent from the first game, but for all three empires at once, taking all territory is going to be that much harder. Hopefully they will add some smaller objectives like capturing something like a region (some sort of smaller cluster of hexes within a continent) to replace the continent capturing feeling from the first game.

Originally Posted by Braveliltoaster

- Why are they changing the names of the continence?

So far they have only changed Ishundar to Indar. Amerish and Esamir are the only other confirmed continents at this time and they both are keeping their original names, at least so far. I don't believe we've currently heard the developers reasoning on this change, but I like the way Indar rolls off the tongue, so I'm not super bummed about it myself.

Originally Posted by Braveliltoaster

the fact the there are only 3 at launch with no global domination of a continent might make the game repetitive... its like playing on cyssor without an option to start a fight on a different continent... its cyssor, ishundar and esamir 100% of the time... and the footholds prevent you from taking over the continent for your empire, please say it isn't so!

It is so, and there could be some serious problems with it. But personally, I don't think it's inherently broken beyond repair. We'll really have to get a good look in beta to see what exactly will work or what won't, but there have been quite a few discussions on this message board about ways to fix some of the potential problems.

Consider that the populations and number of capture points on a PS2 map will be equivalent to around 3 or 4 PS1 continents worth. While it seems horrible to think of having only 3 PS1 continents with never ending Cyssor wars on them, it's not so bad to think of 9 or 12 continents, with some being fought over and some not. This is where I think a region system would be really good for the game. You could divide the continent up into several regions, which would function very similarly to continents from the first game, except jammed up against each other in a single playing space.

It will undoubtedly be different from the first game, but until we get our hands on it, it's hard to say with certainty whether it will be better or worse. I'm confident that it will work out well though, at least with a few tweaks.

[Dougnifico]

Originally Posted by Crator

What if they make the new conts DLC packs for F2P accounts? What do you guys think about that? I'm not sure I like the idea of sectioning off the player base like that. I hope they don't do it.... I think this was discussed before and not many liked the idea.

I hope to god they don't. I have confidence they won't though. Just keep adding crap to the cash shop and add a bunch more certs for each expansion. The free stuff will bring people back where they will buy more boosters and more hats. lol

[Flaropri]

I recall, I think it was an AGN video? Not sure, but they talked about watching one of the guys working on individual piles of dirt next to a wall, making sure it looked right and everything.

The new continents are larger than the old ones, and much, much more detailed. That's why they are starting with only 3. They'll add more as they can later of course, but that's why. Also, being larger means that, in theory, there are more varied places to fight (keep in mind that they will have distinct biomes within each continent as well)

As for footholds, there are arguments for and against. They want people to experience all the continents, and be able to go back and forth without struggling as much as could happen with total dominance of the past. Plus, you can still have near-total dominance.

Ultimately, I'm just speculating at the reasons for footholds, but so far it seems that the devs prefer them, at least for these 3 continents. It may change in the future, or at the very least be a different situation with later continents.

[Rivenshield]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Footholds are essentially exactly the same as home continent warpgates, except that there isn't an additional loading screen between the empire Sanctuary and loading into the continent you want to fight on.

>browsing thread absent-mindedly
>reads this in the middle of a lengthy post
>months of privately fretting about this particular facet of the new game spontaneously evaporate

Thank you. I feel better now. That is as lucid and reasonable an explanation as I could wish for.

I still think the bouncy-trampoline pads for intra-base transport are fucking gay, though.

[soup de jour]

Originally Posted by Rivenshield

>browsing thread absent-mindedly
>reads this in the middle of a lengthy post
>months of privately fretting about this particular facet of the new game spontaneously evaporate

Thank you. I feel better now. That is as lucid and reasonable an explanation as I could wish for.

I still think the bouncy-trampoline pads for intra-base transport are fucking gay, though.

>greentexting on PSU

regardless, i'd rather keep the continent count small to discourage thinning the battlefield.

[ringring]

Personally I think it went lke this.

"Ok, what was wrong with the original continent design"

"Well, because the continents were automatically generated there were many places that were nonsensical.
"Also, the bases were standardised and choke points, doors and corridors were too narrow."
"What we need are continents and bases where every square inch is hand-designed to support fighting over all the continent land mass. Spreading the battle out will help give good fps too".

"Cool, but handcrafted continents take a lot of man-power, which means according to our schedule we will only be able to create 3 for launch. Won't only having 3 continents mean that it is more possible than it would otherwise be that 1 Empire could be battered back to Sanc?"

"What we do is put an uncapturable foothold on each continent which will mean that no Empire can ever be excluded from any continent and will always have somewhere to fight, this also means that we don't need sanctuaries, it's a win-win. Then we introduce additional continents down the line and then the meta-game can afford the uncapturable footholds to be removed in favour on sanctuaries."

Just my speculation ..... I've never got the line that no sanctuaries means the game moves quicker ....

[fvdham]

I think its a legit question whether 3 planets will feel like 3 instances instead of connected global war.

Also it's odd you only get resources from the planet you are on.
Why would you ever leave a planet you fully own? You would get less resources.

VS have conquered the world so many times before there was continent locking.
There were sieges of warp gates and recquests for sanctuary strikes.

[Turdicus]

Originally Posted by Crator

What if they make the new conts DLC packs for F2P accounts? What do you guys think about that? I'm not sure I like the idea of sectioning off the player base like that. I hope they don't do it.... I think this was discussed before and not many liked the idea.

Higby said in a recent interview, forgive me I can't remember which one, that new continents and play areas will never be something people need to purchase. He doesn't want to limit the playerbase in a way that would thin populations in certain areas of the game because some people pay and others dont.

So fret not, this is confirmed....by me....just read and listen to recent interviews haha.

[Broadside]

My main question is what what if the entire VS force gets pushed off one continent, can they go over to a different one or are they stuck with whatever they chose in the beginning?

[Solidblock]

Originally Posted by Broadside

My main question is what what if the entire VS force gets pushed off one continent, can they go over to a different one or are they stuck with whatever they chose in the beginning?

You cannot be forced off a continent, every faction has around 9 hexes (?) in which opposing players cannot enter. This acts as a safe zone for the surrounded faction who can use the sanctuary to stage attacks on the overly stretched faction.

As an idea though, how awesome would it be if you were actually forced off a continent, but back to an island sanctuary, the only way you could get back on the continent is through an amphibious invasion?

[Gonefshn]

3 huge continents with as much detail as these have is a great start!

Im not worried about it!