Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Because work suxx0rs
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2013-12-10, 03:04 PM | [Ignore Me] #16 | ||
First Sergeant
|
I would say the easiest way to allow for warpgate capture is already IG right now: The Nexus warpgate facilities. Basically you have a building infront of the warpgate, and that is where you spawn in. If you capture this facility you get access to That warpgate, and you can warp accross to the facility to the warpgate your warpgate connects to, so now you must capture it before you can spawn there and get a foothold on another continent.
So the events progress like this: Capture warpgate nexus on the SE corner of Indar. -You can now transport to the NW warpgate on Hossin. Push out from the Hossin warpgate shield dome and capture the warpgate nexus on Hossin, now you have the ability to spawn on Hossin in the nexus. Also this brings back the 100% capture means 100% capture thing, whereas 75% capture means getting access to the continent's bonus... Which makes sense again. |
||
|
2013-12-10, 03:29 PM | [Ignore Me] #17 | ||
It eludes me why wargates should be capturable, really. Why not just make it so that if you have all the adjacent bases to a warpgate, you can hack the adjacent bases on the other side of the said warpgate. No need for buildings and spawns inside it, if we are going to have 3 uncapturable warpgates on 3 separate continents.
|
|||
|
2013-12-10, 08:55 PM | [Ignore Me] #18 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
I think there was only once that I can recall where any faction was pushed back to it's sanctuary and that was TR when there was a spawn bug. If you died, you couldn't get back in so it was a bug anyway. Now listen, all of these continent locking and intercontinental lattice ideas that are being tossed around have been implemented in PS1 for a decade. The process is well known to vets and SOE. Is it just me or is it odd that this thread is discussing mechanics that have been used for the past 10 years. The trouble isn't with any kind of lock or what constitutes a controlled warpgate. The trouble is that every continent is instanced. Even if you connect the conts, there simply isn't any way to flow around them on multiple fronts that eventually will intersect into a 3 way battle for a base or continent. There simply aren't enough continents. Heck why not take each of these 3 conts and flip them on an axis so its inverted or some such thing to create the illusion of another place until more can be created. 4 continents with a faction Warpgate on each isn't anywhere in the same ball park as 12+ continents, 6 caverns and 3 proper Sanctuaries. Compare this image to the ones of 4 continents earlier in this thread: Considering the continental lattice is mulitple also, how many possible pathways do you suppose there are between any two factions's Sanctuaries? When SOE says "Size Always Matters", it's true, they just dont always apply that to PS2 like they should. |
|||
|
2013-12-10, 09:07 PM | [Ignore Me] #19 | |||||
Major
|
|
|||||
|
2013-12-10, 09:36 PM | [Ignore Me] #20 | ||
Staff Sergeant
|
Any intercontinental connection will require this whether it's 3 or 4 the game flow will change and need to be looked at for balance. I do agree 4 would be more difficult than 3 to implement, but both are going to require some serious development time to balance and adjust anything they need to.
|
||
|
2013-12-11, 01:30 PM | [Ignore Me] #21 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
True it actually would take less time if they prepare themselves to take the bases lost.
Doesn't matter whether or not TR wants to heavily defend Hossin or not. Not going to sit here and debate if a whole faction wants to sit at a continent's warpgate and camp for hours on end since it has nothing to do with my point. Like I said they are heading to Amerish after they are done capping Hossin. Not sure if you didn't read my example correctly or just avoided the problems because you don't have an answer to them. Going to past it here again: "Lets say TR is about to lock Hossin and NC lock Esamir. Both want to head to Amerish and fight the VS right after. TR locks Hossin first and heads to Amerish. NC now has to recap the bases lost(on Esamir) from Hossin capping, takes them 15 minutes and they then cap Esamir. TR looses 3 bases adjacent to a warpgate on Amerish, a continent they just entered 15 minutes earlier, not good. On top of that wouldn't they loose their resource connections?""
Listen man I'm not saying my idea is perfect, yes half of each continent's lattice would have to be reworked. If you could figure your way without having multiple gates connecting to 1 I'd be all for it. Last edited by AuntLou; 2013-12-11 at 01:49 PM. |
|||
|
2013-12-11, 04:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #22 | ||
Captain
|
Sanctuaries and WG's that are not foot holds need to come back for cross continental warfare.
All I see with 4 continents and capturable foothold style warp gates is 1 faction is constantly going to be double teamed on their home continent. This will only change when both of the other two empires collectively lose interest in fighting on that continent. I look at the possible examples by both Rolfski and Louey on the first page and I think, you know on Waterson VS will almost never see Hossin. The difference in battle flow with the limited number of continents just highlights how hard it will be, similar to the PS1 with low population number, only in PS1 when the pop numbers became silly low you could at least group up and travel through the WGs to get to a fight you didn't actually have a connection to, drain a base and start a fight. With footholds, it doesn't much matter the actual links and rotations the low pop empire is going to get pushed back and double teamed. Not 100% of the time, but enough that it will be un-fun and hurt the low pop empire's population even more. |
||
|
2013-12-11, 04:25 PM | [Ignore Me] #23 | ||||
Major
|
Because Warpgate connections get lost once you capture them (to prevent 2 empires sharing a single warpgate), there are variable outcomes. Let's discus this situation for instance:
Now if TR takes Hossin S from the NC and Hossin NE from the VS first (Hossin lock), the situation is going to look like this: Notice that footholds on Indar (NC) and Esamir (VS) are now isolated (both Empires can still spawn there but the connection is lost). The NC has a though job now if they want to go to Amerish, because locking Esamir is not going to give them access to Amerish back as is illustrated below: For NC to go to Amerish now, they need to cap Hossin NE. Now if NC would have locked Esamir first before the TR Hossin lock, they would have been in much better shape because they would already have a foothold on Amerish: The TR is in worse shape now with their Hossin lock because Esamir was locked by NC first, which means they missed an opportunity for an extra Amerish foothold. I hope this addresses your concerns and also illustrates that there is a intriguing potential in this system that encourages empires to race for a lock first. Btw: There's also a more indepth discussion about this idea on reddit , that explains various aspects in great detail and addresses some concerns.
Long story short: You will zerg your way out of your corner, even if you're under-popped. There are 9 Warpgates in this system that can be captured. Numbers wise it should almost always be possible to get a hold on at least two of them, which means you will be fighting as VS at least on two continents most of the time. Last edited by Rolfski; 2013-12-11 at 05:16 PM. |
||||
|
2013-12-14, 12:32 PM | [Ignore Me] #24 | |||
Staff Sergeant
|
Think of the path of least resistance. The 4 cont system will only go so far and then the resistance will become unsurmountable and suddenly you're only option is to defend the bases you've captured. And that translates into boring. You've advanced yourself into a position where you can't advance anymore so you have to dig in. You have to have a real incentive to compensate for this. PS2 doesn't have it, PS1 didn't have it either, but they didnt' get into the "push til you have to defend" position as there was enough landmass for all 3 factions to move around successfully moving forward and occasionally crossing paths with a sizeable force. Or occasionally when 3 factions' circles intersected, a large free for all. The trouble is that the path of least resistance is always there. When people feel they're not having fun, they bail for another location (or faction). The 4 cont system will only have so few places to go. And remember, there are not 9 warpgates to capture, the gates are connected on either end. there's only 6 connections between the 4continents: A-B,A-C,A-D,B-C,B-D,C-D B-A is the same as A-B and is already counted. So your example of thin spread armies isn't as bad as illustrated. Also, when you're at 30%, that means 70% of the pop can come after you. And since you're pop is low already, armies will follow the path of least resistance and go for the disadvantaged faction first. In practice, the factions don't fight 50% against one and 50% against the other, when one faction is low pop and unable to resist the press, they tend to attack in tandem from 2 fronts and the low pop faction will move elsewhere. With 4 conts, you have nowhere to move, you get backed into a corner with only 1 way out of your warpgate and its surrounded by opposition forces. Anyone (TR or VS) remember when Indar came out and NC had all the bases and it was a circle of turrets and vehicles around your warpgate? People were jumping to other conts to build up resources to buy vehicles to try to push out. So thats another rally cry for sanctuary continents with 3 exits so that when pressed on one or two, you can exit on another. and also illustrates the need for back hacking and other ways to break lattice links behind the lines to disrupt the main front attacking you. It pulls troops to deal with the trouble or breaks the flow of resources. None of which can strategically happen in such a small space on 4 continents. Zerg till you break through? Yea right, try doing that when you're depleting resources faster than you earn them. Eventually the seige will end with you having no ability to spawn comparable weaponry to use against an opposing force that has no issue with resources so they can kamakazi if they so choose. People will get pissed about not being able to make forward progress, hell not even able to pull a vehicle, and log off. Or jump to the "winning" team. TOO FEW CONTINENTS. There is no question about it. |
|||
|
2013-12-15, 12:46 PM | [Ignore Me] #25 | |||
Major
|
And I just don't believe in one empire locked in at his home continent all the time. Numbers wise, it's just impossible, even in your example. And in case something like that happens, I'm fairly sure that off hours game play will regularly turn around a status quo. Also don't forget that the upcoming resource overhaul will shift things drastically for cornered empires. What is true though is that with this system, you won't always have the option to fight on every continent, but that goes for every continental lattice. In my proposed temporary solution, this is compensated with the "foothold rule" that can drastically turn around the strategic situation on the map on a dime, as is (visually) illustrated. Imo it's an interesting dynamic that at least compensates for the lack of continents. Because don't forget, we're already fighting on too few continents. Besides Alerts, it's always Indar and Esamir atm. Amerish is just a ghost town. Therefore, I rather have a temporary system that throws additional continents into the mix on these few continents I'm fighting on, than to have to wait another fricking year fighting on Indar and Esamir almost all the time. |
|||
|
2013-12-17, 09:46 PM | [Ignore Me] #28 | ||
Here's a thought: why make the solution worse than the problem?
We don't need dynamic warpgate ownership or 'free' territory to invade a continent. Not to mention the entire idea that says you have to lock a continent to invade another... why should the TR need to lock Amerish to invade Hossin? All that should be required is a link. Which is simple, add a link between the gates, then the lattice that is already in place doesn't even need to change. The only major change needed is to fix Amerish up and cut 30% of the outposts from Indar. |
|||
|
2013-12-18, 02:30 PM | [Ignore Me] #29 | ||||
Major
|
Another simplification of my idea was done in a reddit discussion though: My issue with this system is this: What would happen in this example if the TR from Indar are capping the Esamir NW Warpgate from the NC? The NC also lose their ability to fight on Hossin then, which would make cutting off empires way too easy imo. I made these two connections per every Warpgate so that empires can still fight on multiple continents if they happen to lose a Warpgate. |
||||
|
2013-12-18, 06:39 PM | [Ignore Me] #30 | ||
Cutting off empires is part of the PlanetSide Metagame... always has been.
In any case, you only need to have 4 gates if you insist on keeping warpgates for 'footholds'. The foothold idea should be revised into an actual base to act as the empire's HQ. Just make it have no cap point, generators, and protect all exits with shields. It can even be a redesign of an existing facility. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|