Originally Posted by Skitrel
This has been a big worry for me also, though you're oversimplifying and forgetting core new mechanics, like resources. Resources aren't going to be static, they move around, different places have more value at different times. This will give incentive to holding different places on different continents, particularly if different factions value particular resources more than others because of the benefit towards certain technologies.
That said, you're right, footholds on every cont in essence turn every continent into individual servers for 2000 people, with the players on those continents viewing it as just where they play all the time. I feel like linking conts and the ability to travel to other conts while also removing 3 footholds per continent would create a much better "bigger picture" to the planet, as opposed to just continents feeling like individual worlds that are being played at any particular time.
I mean, the overall goal of the factions is control of Auraxis right? Unassailable footholds completely remove the concept of controlling the planet, it's just an impossibility. While I don't think anyone should EVER be able to control the whole planet, or even come close, I do think footholds remove the illusion of being able to achieve that goal.
I feel like that illusion is incredibly important in motivating us players.
|
Yeah. Back before I joined PS1, when I was thinking about subbing, I would watch the live-update map of Auraxis on the planetside website. It showed the exchange of continents and how the fight was moving across Auraxis, who owned what. The fact that continents being exchanged on a planetary scale was really cool. On PS2, you would instead just be watching the movement of territory on each of the server-maps, which will seem like a reduction in the scale of the game.