So You Can't Kick a Faction Out?

[Maarvy]

Originally Posted by Vetto

You... act as if they didn't do that in PS1...

I think A lot of people are blowing this out of proportions.

There only 3 maps from the get go... going purely by PS1 logic... then you could never have fully pushed anyone out any way, cause all 3 maps would have been connected to the Sanc warp gate.

Plus you act as if any side will ever own a planet for a day or so.. no were talking an hour tops even with Sancs in at least with only 3 planets it will be that way.

I'm with this guy .

What's the differance which side of the warp gate you start from .

[LightningDriver]

To me, with this new setup, it seems like if a faction controls all the territory on one continent, fighting off two factions to do it, it will be a bigger accomplishment than anything in PS1. Even if a continent is held for 5 minutes before a large invading force comes in, it's still a big deal.

[EASyEightyEight]

I'm trying to figure out why people think the goal in Planetside is to END the combat.

These footholds cut out the loading screen between amassing a force in a safe zone and rushing forth to take the immediate surrounding areas. If amassing in secrecy is the issue, then the foothold's bubble shield should hide everyone in it.

People are just upset the sancs are gone, and that the map can't entirely be bathed in their colors. It's all in the name of reducing downtime to a minimum and making getting into the action - y'know... the PRIMARY reason people play FPS' online - as effortless as possible. Most of your zergers don't give 2 $#!%s about the territorial meta-game, and I think it unwise to inconvenience their purpose for playing to sate the old-schoolers used to the "good ol'" Planetside that isn't doing so hot for reasons our more stubborn vets refuse to acknowledge.

Changes need to happen. I don't want to see PS2 go the way of PS1. Ever.

Ideally, no one should be getting foothold locked anyway, especially with only 3 continents to fight over.

[Maarvy]

double post 4tw

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Mechzz

And I do say that footholding another empire will feel like a big deal in PS2, because I think, or at least hope, that it won't happen too often.

This. Footholding an empire is the new sanc-lock.

[Soyokaze]

They've said that, long term, they want to add Multiple planets to fight over. At THAT point, you'll likely be able to lock folks out of continents. Seems pretty obvious that planets would function as continents do now, with the continents themselves being a sub-level. A nesting doll of conquest.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by DOUBLEXBAUGH

The problem is not the footholds, its starting with ONLY 3 continents. With a world that small, the global game isn't there. It will just be constant 3-ways which were never fun. I hope they can make more fast enough after launch, or we could lose a lot of players quickly to boring stalemate 3-ways.

lol boring ? 3 continents 64 km2 each ? with at least 12 major base and 40 to 100 outpost each ?

thats mean at least the equivalent of 30 batllefield maps for each continents

thays mean 90 + maps at launch witha lots of landscapes between each 64 x 3 = 192 km2 at launch thats pretty big to me

And since most peoples in shooters games tend to want to play in the same damned maps over and over ill be suprised if the game loose any players du to the lack of ground to play on lol

people tend to play exemple in battlefield their is tons of servers with : caspian border only , wake island only , operation metro 24/7 and many people play in those


I dont i hate to play in only one maps so personally i will play around on all 3 continents back stabing the other factions with some behind the line sneaky atack to play in some ground who are actually rarely contested i want to experienced the scale as much as possible and i hope many player will play like this as well

i do not want to always play in the same area over and over

[Saifoda]

I'm not so hot on continent locking, but my issue with having all three empires have footholds on every continent (and yes, I know this will change once more continents get out, I'm just trying to make the point to those who think there should forever and always be footholds) is that the battles will become boring. Every time the VS are fighting for base xyz, they're fighting the NC who are going to be able to respawn at abc rate and are LMNOP close to their foothold. It will become more stagnant without having the dynamics of warp gates from which to take from multiple angles..

[I SandRock]

My concern is continent rotating. You go to an empty continent and start taking over everything. As soon as you get serious opposition you just go to the next empty continent. I know this happened in PS1 but with lockouts and lay lines you couldn't do this in such a fashion, you could still push forward as an empire and keep things secured. Unless they expect all 3 continents to be fully in use all of the time due to server populations, so each continent would basically be a semi-server within the main server.

[amblingalong]

I'm curious if the devs have mentioned anything about one of the (IMO, many) problems with permanent footholds; each side will be playing the same 1/3rd of each continent constantly, because their foothold is there. Some people have proposed rotating footholds, but this seems unworkable from a long-term perspective, because then each empire will lose all their territory routinely, negating any sense of real persistence.

I get why there are three footholds, but it honestly this seems like it's going to be incredibly problematic, particularly once you consider how obnoxious constant three-way wars are going to be (and yes, even if there aren't three teams anywhere but the center, it's a three way WAR, because devoting troops to push against NC means Vanu hitting the North, etc.).

[megamold]

i'm not sure on how this will work either.
but i'm geussing that all the little towers and bases in the smaller hexes will play some part in pushing the front line closer to the other footholds.

and i dont think that 3-way battles will be that common, maybe more so then in ps1 but not so much that there will be a 3-way going every day all day, again i think the smaller capture points will play a role in this.

[Logri]

Originally Posted by amblingalong

I'm curious if the devs have mentioned anything about one of the (IMO, many) problems with permanent footholds; each side will be playing the same 1/3rd of each continent constantly, because their foothold is there. Some people have proposed rotating footholds, but this seems unworkable from a long-term perspective, because then each empire will lose all their territory routinely, negating any sense of real persistence.

I get why there are three footholds, but it honestly this seems like it's going to be incredibly problematic, particularly once you consider how obnoxious constant three-way wars are going to be (and yes, even if there aren't three teams anywhere but the center, it's a three way WAR, because devoting troops to push against NC means Vanu hitting the North, etc.).

I know what you are saying, it's also something I have thought upon.
One thing that I somewhat hope is that the footholds are only temporary until they have released all the continents.

[amblingalong]

Originally Posted by megamold

and i dont think that 3-way battles will be that common, maybe more so then in ps1 but not so much that there will be a 3-way going every day all day, again i think the smaller capture points will play a role in this.

Battles, no. But the war, yes, because devoting troops to fighting in the south against the TR (for example) means being pushed back in the north (against the VS).

One thing that I somewhat hope is that the footholds are only temporary until they have released all the continents.

I pray that this is true.

[Turdicus]

Hm, yeah its a possibility. But an empire will develop a certain sort of pride for being able to defend and know its home turf. That's fine with me. Another concern might be that the rear areas will never see any action...at all.

I think what will be the deciding factor will be just how far an empire is able to push or be pushed back. It can either be fairly uncommon to push someone to their foothold, in which case it would be really cool to fight over those rare areas, or it will be nigh impossible, which just isn't efficient gameplay design.

[amblingalong]

Another concern might be that the rear areas will never see any action...at all.

Definitely. And even if, as you said, empires occasionally get pushed far back, the more central areas will still see dozens upon dozens of times more gameplay.

Essentially, have fixed invulnerable footholds on every continent results in a funneling of combat out of around 30-50% of the continent, depending on how fast combat it and how easy it is to attack behind the front lines.