3 continents at start, or... 9-12-15?

[p0intman]

A-S-S
F-I-C
H-O-E

and I guess theres some other conts in ps2 that arent in ps1.

But we need the ps1 conts to return, only larger.

[Mechzz]

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

Those numbers are referring to people that can be active at once, there should be more then 6,000 accounts assigned to one server

I really, really don't want any cloned continents. The continents we have are all ready bigger then PS1's. Can you imagine having to deal with "There's a good fight on Amerish" "Which one?"

Got that, but Figment is assuming that the actual server capacity will be higher than 6,000, allowing more continents to be set up on a server meaning we can keep the 2,000 per continent limit even with 9-12-15 continents on a server.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Vancha

Personally, I think you've under-appreciated the capabilities of the word "easily" here. You should apologize to it.

Fine. Sowwy easily.


<3

EDIT: And yes, I presume the active server capacity should lie around 30.000 eventually. If not more.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by ringring

They are not bigger than ps1, they're about the same size as a standard cont but smaller that the larger ones, ie cyssor/esamir.

I disagree. The first Planetside had a screwed up distance measuring system, so any figures about it's map size are probably based on a faulty scale.

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison. It may be off, but it's generally in the ballpark. Measure base features on your own and make your own rough calculation if you disagree (click the picture to enlarge):



Also, there are only 17 captureable points on Cyssor (ignoring towers, which provide no direct land control benefit), while Indar has 70 captureable hex areas. Remember that much of Cyssors land mass never had extensive fighting happening over it (especially that giant mountain in the middle), while the devs intend most of the land mass of PS2 maps to be engaging battle zones.

Combined with the fact that Cyssor could only support 500 (then 400) players, as opposed to PS2's goal of 2000, and that instantly makes Indar comparable to possibly as many as 4 of the original Planetside continents, even if it's only slightly bigger than (or even the same size as) Cyssor.

Obviously having 3 or 4 continents worth of fighting space all slammed into one continuous map is going to be rather different than having it spread over 3 or 4 separate continents, which is why I think there would be a lot of value in having more than 3 of these giant new continents (at least 4 would be good I think), but as far as the number of captureable territory points, Planetside 2 is already poised to surpass Planetside 1.

[basti]

Very good idea, i like it!

It combats a whole lot of issues that pop up if you add new continents later, and also allows a global lattience like PS1 had it (trust me, this will come during beta once they realized what those footholds do to the game. )

[Raymac]

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like this idea. Having an Indar 1, Indar 2, Indar 3, Amerish 1, Amerish 2, etc. etc. is going to make the game feel completely half baked. This would just make the game look incomplete at launch and would sour the entire thing.

If the whole reason behind this is to simply bring back the "continent lock" then it is an even worse idea. As higby recently said in the interview and as I've been saying for months, locking people out of content is a bad idea. I don't want to rehash that debate here because I've done it enough, but thankfully the devs seem to see it.

I'd much rather wait for new continents than have a copy and paste of the existing ones and give off the impression the game was rushed and incomplete.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Raymac

I guess I'm the only one that doesn't like this idea. Having an Indar 1, Indar 2, Indar 3, Amerish 1, Amerish 2, etc. etc. is going to make the game feel completely half baked. This would just make the game look incomplete at launch and would sour the entire thing.

You really should read the thread, because you're not the only one and one never is.

We all know it WILL be incomplete at launch anyway...

If the whole reason behind this is to simply bring back the "continent lock" then it is an even worse idea.

Yeah say there's 20 reasons given, pick out one and wonder if that's the only reason... Good one. As said, read the thread.

As higby recently said in the interview and as I've been saying for months, locking people out of content is a bad idea. I don't want to rehash that debate here because I've done it enough, but thankfully the devs seem to see it.

So... how are people being locked out of content instead of given better access to it? Your argument does not make sense.

I'd much rather wait for new continents than have a copy and paste of the existing ones and give off the impression the game was rushed and incomplete.

You are waiting for server merges too?

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

You really should read the thread, because you're not the only one and one never is.

We all know it WILL be incomplete at launch anyway...

Too much to read, so I skimmed, but it seemed liked an overwhelming majority liked the idea. And I sincerely hope the game won't feel half baked at launch. I mean no MMO is truely ever "complete" but that is a far cry from a half baked launch.

Yeah say there's 20 reasons given, pick out one and wonder if that's the only reason... Good one. As said, read the thread.

Maybe not 20, but yeah, I cherry picked one because I didn't feel like writing a novel. The one I picked though, did seem more like one of the fundamental ideas behind it.

So... how are people being locked out of content instead of given better access to it? Your argument does not make sense.

I think it is debatable that simply copy and pasting is giving people "better" access, but I see what you are saying. I just think it's a cheesy solution.

You are waiting for server merges too?

Dude, every MMO has server merges. I guarantee Planetside 2 will have server merges. It's not a bad thing. It's inevitable.

Also, no need to be so antagonistic. It's not the first time I've disagreed with one of your opinions.

[Figment]

Well the thing is, if you give people access from multiple directions, I'd say it's better. Assaulting a continent on routine from the same sides all the time sucks.

(I don't trust a mission system to be capable of breaking routine, instead, I expect the majority of accepted missions to eventually enforce routine because people like certain paths to glory and will want others to follow their "optimal" route to it.)


As for being half baked... I'd imagine half the units they got planned won't be in yet. A lot of deployables may have lower priority and they have said they plan to add many more maps, those will have to come on the same servers, or you still can't access them.

Btw, if I picked this up right from Hamma's interview with Higby, currently it looks like they're pondering on making a dynamic database for characters so they can play on different servers with the same character, rather than having to start from scratch all the time.

So you're going to play on multiple Amerishes anyway depending on which servers are locked.

Originally Posted by Raymac

Also, no need to be so antagonistic. It's not the first time I've disagreed with one of your opinions.

It's not that, disagreeing is fine, especially if argued well. If you hadn't cherrypicked, you'd not have gotten the tone (and all in all, I can react worse tbh ).

It's that you don't read the thread and make random assertions and ask 'critical' questions that have already been adressed, but ignored. :/

That always annoyes me anyway. See, for a 50 pager, I can see see someone skips after say 3 pages, but this is a 2.5 pager. But even then people can get grumpy on having to repeat themselves, it throws the discussion back a few steps. :x

[ringring]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

I disagree. The first Planetside had a screwed up distance measuring system, so any figures about it's map size are probably based on a faulty scale.

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison. It may be off, but it's generally in the ballpark. Measure base features on your own and make your own rough calculation if you disagree (click the picture to enlarge):



Also, there are only 17 captureable points on Cyssor (ignoring towers, which provide no direct land control benefit), while Indar has 70 captureable hex areas. Remember that much of Cyssors land mass never had extensive fighting happening over it (especially that giant mountain in the middle), while the devs intend most of the land mass of PS2 maps to be engaging battle zones.

Combined with the fact that Cyssor could only support 500 (then 400) players, as opposed to PS2's goal of 2000, and that instantly makes Indar comparable to possibly as many as 4 of the original Planetside continents, even if it's only slightly bigger than (or even the same size as) Cyssor.

Obviously having 3 or 4 continents worth of fighting space all slammed into one continuous map is going to be rather different than having it spread over 3 or 4 separate continents, which is why I think there would be a lot of value in having more than 3 of these giant new continents (at least 4 would be good I think), but as far as the number of captureable territory points, Planetside 2 is already poised to surpass Planetside 1.

You may well be right (I'm not going to get my tapemeasure out) I just recall when the continent size was first said that "about the size of a normal cont but smaller than the larger ones" was the conclusion that PSU contributors came to.

Although I have to say comparing those 2 overlapping images it looks like a new base is about the size of an old SOI, that soundslike it is in the right range.

[Raymac]

Originally Posted by Figment

Well the thing is, if you give people access from multiple directions, I'd say it's better. Assaulting a continent on routine from the same sides all the time sucks.

Frankly that is one of my concerns too. I'd like to see the footholds be somewhat dynamic, perhaps rotating empires every few weeks, just to keep it fresh. In Planetside, we saw the routine you mentioned and it did make it a bit stale. So I think making the footholds dynamic will reach the same result for that issue without creating a new issue of having copies of the same continent.

Also, I don't often progress the conversation. Sometimes I just feel like adding my 2 cents. So feel free to just ignore my post and move on if it bugs you too much.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Based entirely on what I know about the size of Planetsides bases and what we've seen of the scale of Planetside 2's bases, I've made this rough comparison.

TB's whats it all about video, I don't think Indar is any bigger than Cyssor.

[3:10 onwards] It took TB about 14 seconds to fly from the edge of Peris AMP Station to the Foothold west of it. (Not flying in a straight line and wasn't at top speed when leaving the base)


Infact, your overlay shows the foothold being quite a bit further east than it is on the TB video.

Assuming 230km/h average speed the distance covered in the 14 seconds = 894 metres travelled. (yes he ab'd at the end but he wasn't top speed at the start either)

I just flew from the SW BWG on Cyssor to the nearest point of Leza at a constant 119km/h which took 35 seconds = 1156 metres travelled.

Yet your overlay scale seems to indicate that PS1 distance is actually 3/4 the size, despite being 250 metres further.

[Bags]

Having "Amerish 1" "Amerish 2" feels really bad, IMO. Makes the game feel unpersistent and instanced.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Bags

Having "Amerish 1" "Amerish 2" feels really bad, IMO. Makes the game feel unpersistent and instanced.

And seperating them on seperate servers does what aside from making the game seem smaller and cutting up the playerbase?


Look, three continents simply isn't a lot of content. So either you add or replace continents as time goes by, or you make different servers and create splits in the playerbase. You can't start with the ideal situation anyway. The benefits of replacing though is that you can do a lot more testing. Stresstesting server capacity, to intercontinental systems, whatever else we named, possibly more.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by EVILoHOMER

Planetside had the problem of too many islands which spread the population out too thin,

Not really. Only the caves did this. Otherwise it was the loss of population as a whole, that was the problem. In its peek 5+ different fronts was common.