Metagame Analysis - Esamir - PlanetSide Universe
PSU Social Facebook Twitter Twitter YouTube Steam TwitchTV
PlanetSide Universe
PSU: We will miss you Oshur!
Home Forum Chat Wiki Social AGN PS2 Stats
Notices
Go Back   PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Reply
Click here to go to the first VIP post in this thread.  
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
This is the last VIP post in this thread.   Old 2012-10-17, 10:56 AM   [Ignore Me] #1
Malorn
Contributor
PlanetSide 2
Game Designer
 
Metagame Analysis - Esamir


I'd like to try to solicit some feedback on the metagame, specifically the continental battle flows using Esamir as the first study.

I'm not sure if this will get the right results, but lets see what happens. If it works out well I might do more of these.

First, I'm not interested in cross-continent stuff, you're preaching to the choir there. I dont' want to hear about sanctuaries or about how you hate footholds. What I do want to hear about is your understanding and analysis of how the battles progress, why they progress the way they do, what causes great fights, and general analysis of world design.

This thread will start with Esamir, our new continent that has some very different characteristics from Indar. It makes for a good study of design approaches.

I'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir. Below I will make some assertions and ask some questions, and I'd like your thoughts. Feel free to challenge the assertion if you observe differently.


1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?


I have some thoughts of my own on all of these and I'll share them later in the thread.
__________________
Malorn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 11:40 AM   [Ignore Me] #2
PoisonTaco
First Sergeant
 
PoisonTaco's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Haven't played too much on Esamir to answer all your questions and I'll get to all of them when I can. For now I'll stick with 3.

The outposts on Esamir are spread out a lot more than on Indar. In my opinion this is a good thing as it adds variety. It also kind of makes sense for a region way up in the north. Being someone who lives up north in Canada (not THAT far north) this makes sense. The further you go, the smaller towns get and the further apart they are.

I think that since these outposts are so spread out there should be more vehicle terminals. It's really hard to go from outpost to outpost as infantry even with the availability of flash terminals. It's also hard to keep an infantry squad together. If the outposts had access to Sunderers that would help a lot.

I don't have access to the game as I'm writing this and I don't have the Esamir map on hand to know for sure. If Mechanized resources were distributed closer to the warpgates I think that would help each empire. This is a map where you're going to want to have some transportation.
__________________
PoisonTaco is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 01:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #3
Infernalis
Sergeant
 
Infernalis's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


What I think is the fact there's only a few bases is the cause (nor good nor bad, just diffrent) of many things.

1: Rapid conquest because there's less outposts, so there's less defense (less spawn, less bases to attack so less time to fight/catpure, bigger hexes per base captured). A massive assault team can advance further in term of distance before being stopped.

2:More space between bases and more flat areas, most people take a tank to travel.

3:I can't say it's bad because it gives a different gameplay. I even think we can keep both a continent with a lot of bases and a continent with less bases. The flow is faster due to more hexes captured and more clear objectives.

4:Everything is too flat, we need some mountains/building in mountains very hard to tanks to progress where infantry can shine. Indar has more different type of areas it seems. Maybe I'm not used enough to Esamir though.

5:Some more compact areas with more outposts (so less hexes) and mostly dedicated to infantry. Everything is too far away, a continent need some difference in flow within itself depending of the area.
Infernalis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 01:39 PM   [Ignore Me] #4
ringring
Contributor
General
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Esamir is friend tank-combat friendly. I mean this in a sense that the terrain is easy to travel over but it also has enough undulations and hollows to provide cover for a hidden approach.

This make tank combat occur at shorter ranges than on Indar (North) while Indar South East and West the terrain canalises vehicles. For example engagement ranges of tanks around West Highland Checkpoint are extreme.

The result is that tank fights are more fun.

The space between outposts provide space for the tank battles to occur. One outcome is that the continent feels larger, which is good.

I haven't played enough but more especially seen enough of the continent to have any opinion of which is my favourite area, other than to say I prefer it to Indar.

One thing to note is yesterday when leading our squad (TR Eurydome) we were very low on Armour resource and owned no hex providing it so I made gaining an aroumour resource outpost our priority target - this is the first time that's happened so far.
__________________

Last edited by ringring; 2012-10-17 at 01:42 PM.
ringring is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-17, 06:06 PM   [Ignore Me] #5
DirtyBird
Contributor
Lieutenant Colonel
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

The terrain of the continent plays a major factor as well as the fact that bases are fewer and far between.
And I think its only experiencing rapid conquest when the population is unbalanced.


2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

Personally I have observed many more large tank battles on Indar. On Esamir I see more tanks but that does not necessarily equate to larger battles. It seems tanks are more of form of transport on Esamir and the majority of tank battles I see on Esamir are generally one sided with a mass of tanks surrounding a post, not an actual tank v tank battle.


3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?
I think the flow is fine on Esamir and generally you get to move and hold ground faster than on Indar. Again I think the terrain also helps greatly with this. You can move to the next outpost fairly quick and leave the enemy little time to entrench themselves.
Looking forward to seeing how the new mechanics effect this.


4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

Eisa Tech Plant. Easy to get to for all factions with it positioned in the centre.
There are benefits for both defenders and attacking players with the large spread of the base including the height of the main base. Armour can sit back and attack from range or move in and try to dominate the outer spawns. But from a defenders PoV that armour push into the outer regions of the base can also benefit them as the armour bottlenecks. There are also points for pure infantry battles as well when moving into the main base.
The fun factor is in the longevity of the battle provided both sides are committed to it.
I think Eisa will be even more important with the upcoming changes.


5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?

Balance the populations and see what the next round of changes bring, then reassess.
__________________
DirtyBird is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 02:57 AM   [Ignore Me] #6
typhaon
Sergeant Major
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
I'd like to try to solicit some feedback on the metagame, specifically the continental battle flows using Esamir as the first study.

I'm not sure if this will get the right results, but lets see what happens. If it works out well I might do more of these.

First, I'm not interested in cross-continent stuff, you're preaching to the choir there. I dont' want to hear about sanctuaries or about how you hate footholds. What I do want to hear about is your understanding and analysis of how the battles progress, why they progress the way they do, what causes great fights, and general analysis of world design.

This thread will start with Esamir, our new continent that has some very different characteristics from Indar. It makes for a good study of design approaches.

I'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir. Below I will make some assertions and ask some questions, and I'd like your thoughts. Feel free to challenge the assertion if you observe differently.


1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?


I have some thoughts of my own on all of these and I'll share them later in the thread.
Not to be argumentative, but I'd say the most important factors in any discussion about flow/consistency/etc. are going to be the raw populations of each faction on the continent AND conquest rules like the incentives for taking and holding bases and the the presence (or lack of) footholds/uncapturable hexes.

Having said that....

The terrain and frequency of outposts certainly impacts vehicle-play. Flatter (better sightlines than most of Indar)... easier to drive... necessary to drive... infantry are easier to spot and kill (ie. tanks more effecient at racking up kills).

I feel the sightlines also impact aircraft use. I wouldn't say any place in this game is hospitable to aircraft (no real clouds is a problem) - but an aircraft on Esamir is almost always 100% visible to both ground and tower AA - so I think that really shortens the life expectancy of anyone in the air... pushing more into ground vehicles.

Rapid conquest is because of fewer outposts... but I wouldn't equate rapid conquest with less FUN. FUN happens when you have competitive forces battling each other.... when that happens on Esamir, everything works fine and it seems just right. I'm pretty sure more outposts would just result in more instances of people capturing undefended/barely defended locations... in other words, not having FUN.

I've found tower fights (especially those where vehicle terms for the attacking side are not nearby) to offer some of the most competitive gameplay. Biolab fights (again when teleporters are working) are also pretty cool. The other larger bases can be OK - but I think the battles that happen are generally (almost always) too small to allow the base design (too big) to impact the battles like it they were intended... if you had 500 attacking and 400 defending, I'm sure they would fantastic. Oh! That also brings up one of the elements of Esamir - though not often on that scale - I do think the fewer outposts and general design encourages larger overall fights. Fighting at smaller outposts is rarely compelling. They usually offer no real ways to mount a defense and are generally overrun quickly by whatever force is attacking.

One thing I've noticed that is lacking in PS2 on both Indar and Esamir are fights to control natural terrain. A lot of factors... lack of water or similarly impassible terrain... Sunderers/Magrider can go just about anywhere... overall size of territory... ease of stealth infiltration/squad spawning... seems like the best decision is to just fight AT the base/outpost.

I won't say this is a specific suggestion to Esamir - but one element I'd incorporate into continent design is by making the MOST valuable spots on the map to HOLD be the hardest to DEFEND... located centrally... and I'd work an element into the game where future footholds and nearby outposts offer better benefits (more vehicles/base shields/whatever) for a specific faction --- this would create a suggested path to going about taking over a continent... and a natural path of retreat when things are looking dire.
typhaon is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 03:08 AM   [Ignore Me] #7
Whiteagle
Major
 
Whiteagle's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?
Honestly?
It's the jumbo Hex sizes...
Really, there are what, three territories seperating the North Western Warpgate from the other two?
This... isn't good from my experience...

You see an offensive push, particularly those that would lock a Faction in their Warpgate, need to build "momentum."
The attack needs to reach that critical mass necessary to bowl over any opposition that might be mounted to stall or outright stop it.

With such huge tracks of Territory so easily taken before any real defense can be established, attack momentum just build WAY too quickly, leaving a defending faction on their back foot most of the time.

Hence Esamir is much easier to lock, not to mention how ease it is to KEEP locked with the distances between Warpgates and the next nearest base.

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?
Well it's a large, flat Continent where Infantry are easy pickings with their lack of cover...
Seriously, try walking some where some time...
With one-man MBTs, it's no wonder everyone would rather be a tank...

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?
Not good, as I've mentioned before, and too sparse...

If they were at least much more substantial, built up more to combat the hordes of tanks that wish to sit on their points, then maybe they'd work...
But still, I'd rather see the Hexes get chopped up just a bit more...

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?
Haven't really fought at a lot of places...
Half the time we're stuck in our Warpgate, the other half is usually won by whoever spams the most tanks...
By the time my cheap, not-buying-a-vehicle-if-I-can-walk ass gets there, the battle is usually over.

I do like Nott Amp Station's tunnels... but again the battle was mostly over by the time I got there...

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?
Since Esamir is Hoth... Why don't we put in some huge tank eating trenches with some turret emplacements dotting the edges?

It'd make a pretty good "Checkpoint" base, spilt up some of those longer Hexes and give us grunts somewhere to dig in.

Last edited by Whiteagle; 2012-10-18 at 03:17 AM.
Whiteagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 03:22 AM   [Ignore Me] #8
Marinealver
Sergeant Major
 
Marinealver's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Hey Look everyone I found a 3D Map of Esmir


If you do not get the joke, then compare the PS2 verson of Es with the PS1 verson of Es.
__________________
FOR THE SOVEREIGNTY
Marinealver is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 05:15 AM   [Ignore Me] #9
Fafnir
Sergeant
 
Fafnir's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?
Less facilities combined with very short amount of time required to capture a facility. The former is good, because it makes battles bigger and that's what Planetside is about. However short time required to capture a facility is absolutely terrible. If an empire is pushing forward, they just have to swarm defenders though 4 different entrances and throw grenades/spam tank shells through 8 different windows. There is no way in Planetside 2 to defend a base versus even slightly higher number of enemies.

The problem with indefensible bases is present on Indar too, but conquest is slower, because there are more outposts to capture and players are waiting each time until they are captured. If the devs would reimplement SCU and remove XP rewards for capturing, conquest on Indar would be as rapid as on Esamir.

Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?
Amp Stations. They are easier to defend, thus battles for them take much longer. Additional objectives also make those fights more interesting.
Fafnir is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 06:28 AM   [Ignore Me] #10
Babyfark McGeez
Captain
 
Babyfark McGeez's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


to 1):

What i observed is that a lot of times nobody considers defending adjacent hexes to a big base, which is admittedly not very fun if nobody is attacking there.
But often that "charge to the zerg" behaviour leads to smaller enemy groups quickly taking many bases around a "named" one. And even when it was clearly visible on the map what those enemy forces were up to i often found myself completely alone in trying to stop them.
Combine that issue with the less bases / bigger hexes (and the general issue of hexes providing less direction) on esamir, and you have frontlines that can completely change within a couple of minutes by a rather small group that often nobody cares stopping.

Last edited by Babyfark McGeez; 2012-10-18 at 06:30 AM.
Babyfark McGeez is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 12:04 PM   [Ignore Me] #11
Tatwi
Contributor
Major
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


I haven't played there much, but I was part of a really fun bridge fight one day. However, the problem was that the ground below could be driven over, so there wasn't a need to use the bridge. I would like to see some large, impassible open water areas under some the bridges, so that traveling over the bridge is a top priority. Doing this will make those bridges important assets to control.
__________________
Tatwi is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-18, 11:48 PM   [Ignore Me] #12
Galron
Staff Sergeant
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Its fucking full of NC every time I log in so I get out of it as fast as possible, cant offer much feedback.
Galron is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-19, 04:46 AM   [Ignore Me] #13
Stanis
Master Sergeant
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Originally Posted by Malorn View Post
II'd ask respondents to give as much in-depth thought as possible and to stay focused on the topic of Esamir.

1) Esamir is a continent that seems to have rapid conquest. What do you believe contributes to this?

2) Esamir typically has some large tank battles, many more than what I observe on Indar. Why do you suppose that is?

3) Esamir is sparsely populated with outposts. How does this affect the continental flow and is it good? Is it too sparse?

4) What are the most fun places to fight on Esamir and more importantly why are they fun?

5) What would you change to improve the consistency and flow of battles on Esamir? Why?
At risk of disqualifying my feedback I'll note that I play mostly on Indar.
Esamir fog. NC domination .. it's better now but everyone else in the outfit prefers Indar so that's where the squad is.

1/2/3. Rapid conquest. I'm not sure conquest is the best word.
There is a rapid advance. The enemy is not fought - they are rolled past and spawns supressed.

The larger hexes make this all the more apparent in the speed with which the map can be traversed. Blitzkrieg.

The problem is that an effective defence requires a logistical response. When the zerg is rolling tanks - that basically means a counter zerg of friendly armour. Since that can't happen at every smaller base or outpost and frequently not in a fashion to response to the existing enemy mass. The flow of battle is enemy tanks roll until they hit the friendly zerg or defensible location (usually a tower or biolab as the other facilties are swiss cheese).

3/ One aspect of the larger hexes and less of them is that holding a bugle into the enemy line should be a cause for concern as expansion from that point can happen rapidly.

4/ Towers.
These always generate the fights I like best.
They provide all tech. Most of them have a rearm tower. they are the most defensive structure - tanks can not camp the actual spawn door.
Usually there is some open space or terrain around which a combined arms battle can happen.

Most classes special abilities can directly assist the fight in their unique way without the best choice being as clearly rock-paper-scissors depending on what the enemy just pulled.

As I said in another thread I would rather most bases are towers in a courtyard, two shielded entrances and a rearm tower. From a strategy perspective they would be so much easier to defend.
Stanis is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-10-19, 07:00 AM   [Ignore Me] #14
Whiteagle
Major
 
Whiteagle's Avatar
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


Originally Posted by Stanis View Post
4/ Towers.
These always generate the fights I like best.
They provide all tech. Most of them have a rearm tower. they are the most defensive structure - tanks can not camp the actual spawn door.
Usually there is some open space or terrain around which a combined arms battle can happen.

Most classes special abilities can directly assist the fight in their unique way without the best choice being as clearly rock-paper-scissors depending on what the enemy just pulled.

As I said in another thread I would rather most bases are towers in a courtyard, two shielded entrances and a rearm tower. From a strategy perspective they would be so much easier to defend.
Here here!
It's sad that there are plenty of outpost that you can camp the Spawn in a tank, if not roll right up to the point without leaving it.

If Esamir is going to be a big Vehicle Continent, it should have bases that are more suited for fighting against Vehicles.
Even if they weren't all Air towers it'd still be nice if they had more obstructions for tanks and Turrets so we wouldn't all have to roll Heavy Assault when we want to actually hold an Outpost.
Whiteagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 2012-11-21, 03:56 PM   [Ignore Me] #15
Sifer2
Major
 
Re: Metagame Analysis - Esamir


I think this should probably be updated to say take the Tech Plant in the center, and you win the map lol. It's like they made a new Crown only this one is actually worth the trouble people go through to own it.
Sifer2 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Reply
  PlanetSide Universe > PlanetSide Discussions > PlanetSide 2 Discussion

Bookmarks

Discord

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:30 AM.

Content © 2002-2013, PlanetSide-Universe.com, All rights reserved.
PlanetSide and the SOE logo are registered trademarks of Sony Online Entertainment Inc. © 2004 Sony Online Entertainment Inc. All rights reserved.
All other trademarks or tradenames are properties of their respective owners.
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.