Originally Posted by IceyCold
First let me explain my reason for wanting the Sancs now as they are. They serve to fix several issues we are seeing in beta as well as giving the factions identity.
|
I apologize if I'm being a bit dense here, but what issues would separate Sanctuaries fix as of right now?
With only two Continents, we'd have to link each Faction's Sanctuary to both to be fair, which really would be no different then the current foothold Warpgates.
Instead of camping a dome shield, they'd just camp the Warpgate exit.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
My issue with Orbital Ships as you are proposing is that while they do make things a bit more dynamic they also present issues of continued combat logistics and are also much more difficult to implement in the engine (we are talking writing brand new code to get something like what you are asking in).
|
Well yes, the dynamic setup of such a system does hamper continued logistics,
but that's kind of the point.
It creates a continuous need to capture new territories while simultaneously trying to hold onto old ones for as long as possible, instead of constantly pushing back and forth over the same line.
But I do realise such a system wouldn't be that simple to implement.
The easiest way I can think of would have each "ship" just be a regular Sanctuary that was completely enclosed; a separate small map that's inside a huge building.
Deploying from there would then simply be a matter of going to the correct interface and then picking a drop-zone from ether the current hot-spots or an always available one representing the area directly below the ship.
Of course, such a setup only really works for Infantry...
I'd ether keep it so that Infantry has to fight for Vehicle Spawn Terminals, or have some sort of "HART Drop-ship" as ether a drop-pod for Vehicles or as a temporary structure with terminals to spawn them.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
Not saying they couldn't be added later when the devs are adding multiple planets. But for now the ground based version is easier to do now and accomplishes exactly the same thing as what you are asking for.
|
Uh...
how would they do that exactly?
Remember that my argument for "Orbital" Sanctuaries is that their drop-point markers would move across the maps, constantly chasing each other and forcing conflict.
It prevents the stagnation of static footholds while requiring far fewer Continents.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
Sure we may not have more than 3 continents, but the difference in having a Sanc ON the continents rather than OFF them is that with a Sanc located on the continent the factions will hoard to a continent and 3 way battles will be less likely as each team huddles to their "home cont". By moving the Sanctuaries OFF the continents you bring in the random factor of attack can come from anywhere.
Not to mention it makes for more dynamic play since any empire can cap any continent.
|
Uh... what?
Here, let me whip up a diagram in Paint how
only having three Continents limits things
immensely.
Figure one is what I gather the Devs are planning on, each Faction having a "Home Continent" that's linked to the other two...
Of all the three Continent setup this is probably the most flexible attack wise, but only if one Faction is beating another bad enough that they can actually prevent the third from joining...
Figure two is just Figure one with separate Sanctuaries... which doesn't really add anything...
Figure three is extending the current setup to three maps.
Figure four is figure three with Sanctuaries, which would certainly allow a Faction to better prepare its forces but would pretty much play the same way.
It's only in figure five, with the addition of a
fourth Continent, that Sanctuaries come into their own.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
We may only have 3 conts at launch, but they will be adding more. It is foolish and short sighted to not begin putting in place systems that will work well with the game 4-5 months down the line after launch.
Once again, at launch yes we will have only three; but it is better to plan ahead than to put in patchwork fixes as we go.
Plan for success.
|
True, but I worry that three Continents just aren't going to be enough to prevent stagnation with the current setups...
I mean, look at my diagram, you are going to end up fighting the same enemies over the same territory...
all the damn time.
It's going to get old really quickly, even with the Sanctuaries of figure two allowing the "Home Continents" to be easily switched.
Hence my Orbital Sanctuary idea; we can stick with two Continents, tie the Warpgates together to have them change "links" randomly, then have Sanctuary maps tied to a drop-point that moves from Hex to Hex in a preset pattern every so often.
Sure we'd need as many Sanctuary Ship "instances" as Continents per Faction (six currently), but it'd be easy to make one "Ship layout" for each side then copy and modify them as needed.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
To me the biggest boon of such Sancs is to create the feeling of a world. It is incredibly important for PS2 to set itself apart and creating a compelling and interesting story to frame the war is something that no other multiplayer FPS has been able to do.
|
Indeed, right now all we have seperating the sides are colors, voice-overs, a couple of vehicles, and slight differences in how our weapons shoot.
That's only a slim few degrees more then "Red or Blue" or "Terrorist vs SWAT", not the huge ideological clash that has splintered the pioneers of Humanity.
Originally Posted by IceyCold
I imagine a major reason they do not respond often times is because they have to look at these kinds of suggestions as a "How many people want this" and "How feasible is it for us to accomplish this".
I would like to get the chance to discuss with Matt maybe the merits of both systems and see if the devs and community can come together to create a good solution.
|
I'm hoping they're reading this thread.
We're having quite the brainstorming session here if I do say so myself.