[Malorn]

Originally Posted by IceyCold

Before we go any further there is an important fact that SOE needs to understand. Planetside 2 is attempting to fill the “session player” role that current games like BF3 and CoD tend to aim towards. This is a flaw in game design, as the scale and scope of the conflicts are not in favor of session play. Even if I can drop in with Instant Action, what I can really accomplish in 15-30 minutes is minute and not fulfilling to a session player because they do not usually get to see a conclusion to the events they played a part in.

I disagree that this is a flaw in game design. Modern gamers need to be appeased in 20-30 minute segments. You should not have to play PlanetSide 2 for hours on end to enjoy it. Moreover, if it takes you that long to enjoy it then something is terribly wrong with the game. You should be able to get in and have fun within 2-3 minutes of launching the game. That's needed for new player retention also. While seeing the fruits of your labors might take much longer, session play must be a viable way to enjoy PlanetSide 2. Otherwise it will be a lonely game.

Originally Posted by IceyCold

Footholds, a fool's errand:

As anyone who currently plays knows the current system uses footholds where each empire has a constant place on each continent. Although this system was intended to make it so players always have a chance on every continent, this system also negates the feeling of progressing battle.

As I have continued to play the game I keep wondering how much more interesting it would be to see a war that is being fought over a PLANET and not a CONTINENT. The current system's biggest flaw is since there is no movement across the continents they themselves feel more like BF3 servers and not interconnected fronts in a large war for a planet.

Footholds pull away from the feeling of a massive planet and instead push towards a session based feeling. There is no fear of losing one's last base, no final stand as the enemy forms around your final bastion on the continent praying that those who have already fallen will come rolling out of the warpgate to relieve you in your darkest hour. These feelings made Planetside feel like a war for a planet, not a skirmish for a chunk of dirt.

Finally, with footholds the devs are being corn-holed into building continents that favor 3 sides equally. This makes for boring world design; and once again takes away from the feeling that this was once a place with people living on it now torn asunder by the ravages of war and makes it feel more like a map made to fight over.

Also disagree on footholds. They serve an important purpose as a "home" on a particular continent. The only real issue I have with them is that they are static. I much prefer a system where footholds can be neutralized and created as part of inter-continental conquest. At that point they become an aid to an invasion, not a static given.

With only 3 continents it's going to be nearly impossible to have meaningful cross-continent gameplay. You only have two options and you need to be able to have room for a lot of players to spread out and enjoy different continents at a given time. That means that these quasi-permanent footholds are something we will have to live with in the short term.

I would encourage you to be patient with the footholds. They have an important role, it's only their permanency that is cause for concern. I feel that is a necessary evil for the time being. As the continents expand they could easily move to a more supportive role in the flow of continental conquest.

Originally Posted by IceyCold

Below is a list of reasons to include sanctuaries:

> Sanctuaries give a real place to set up and prepare for a campaign, they give a staging area away from the enemy.

> VR training rooms and even things such as shooting ranges can be put in place. Allowing players to test weapons and vehicles as well as unlocks before buying them.

> Sanctuaries free up continents to take back the role of battlefields and not just glorified servers.

> MOST IMPORTANTLY FOR PLANETSIDE 2: Sanctuaries can be used to give factions identity and a feeling of purpose if done right.

I agree with these reasons to have a sanctuary. To me the critical purpose of the sanctuary is basically a glorified lobby - a place where overflow goes and someplace to call home.

I can also see sanctuaries having certain properties like jacked up resource gain so anyone sitting in the sanctuary a short time can fill up your resource pool quickly. This would have two effects - first, it creates somewhat of a training ground where you can pull vehicles and such (using implants and some certs you could nullify the timers, sanc would nullify the resource cost). That's your basic VR. Second, it also serves the purpose of recharging for an invasion or after getting pushed out of an area. It gives you a place to regroup, fill up your resources, and form up a new invasion force to attack or defend something else, much like PS1 did.


However, its important to also know what was not good about sanctuaries. They are twice removed from the fight. First they aren't on the right continent, and then they aren't at the fight on that continent. Footholds are only once removed, putting places a short flight away or an ATV ride from the battle. I can see new players getting lost in sanctuaries, not knowing where the fight is and quickly giving up on the game. To hook new players we need to get them into the fight as soon as possible so they can experience the massive and experience the huge persistent world. They can't do that in sanctuary.

There are of course solutions to this, like making Instant Action much more intuitive, putting new players on continents and not in sanctuary, and other such mechanisms. I don't believe that footholds and sanctuaries are mutually exclusive. Both serve a purpose.

Being an MMO, having a 'home' to go back to, socialize, and group up seems like something good to have. The identities of those homes make sense to map onto the faction lore, and I think you've done a great job at sketching those out.

Originally Posted by IceyCold

The NC Sanc: The Hole.

The TR Sanc: Fort Dominus.

The VS Sanc: Brigg's Insight.

These are all perfect for the factions. Some questions/suggestions. In particular I think each sanctuary should have an obvious and lore-based explanation for why it isn't attacked. The NC one has this, the other two don't...at least its not obvious.

NC sanc is perfect becuase it identifies well and describes why it is a sanctuary and TR/VS can't attack it. Might even work in an ancient 'geo warp" that allows NC to deploy into the main warpgate matrix. Throwback to PS1 and explains how that base allows them to be fully functional while buried inside a volcano.

The TR one is close to describing why the VS/NC dont' attack it - if Fort Dominus was actually built within a city then VS and NC would be hesitant to attack it because they would easily be branded terrorists and incur civilian casualties (real or not), so the TR not only use the city as inspiration but also as human shields to protect their fortress. If VS or NC attack it they lose the support of the people and it hurts their cause so they leave it alone. Perhaps the TR first landed, built the fort at the warpgate and then the rest of the city was built around it - as cities often are built around places of security and transportation. Thus it becomes a control point within the city, a deployment point, a recruitment facility, and a giant wall of human shields protecting it from NC and VS attack.

The VS one is also sort of close. The concept art for the sanctuary shows it on the water. What if it was actually under the water? What if it were a mobile base and the reason NC and TR don't attack it is because it's always in motion? An underwater exploration lab that is effectively a super submarine or even a fleet of them, scouring the ocean bed for artifacts while providing safety and the ability to surprise attack anywhere. I shamelessly stole this idea from SeaQuest and Terminator Salvation.