Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

    https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...2#post-2021452

    I'll let the graphics speak:






    Suggested rules for WG taking:
    -Revamp WGs to have a battle flow.

    -Any lattice connection to a WG by an opposing team starts a countdown timer.

    -This countdown timer is an Orbital Strike.

    -Controlling more lattice connections to the WG speeds up the countdown timer.

    -When the countdown timer reaches 0 the Orbital Strike falls destroying the shields and people and vehicles in the open. WG connection to other WGs is cut. The attacking team has ten minutes to take the WG's Command Center or the shield/pain-field comes back.

    -The Command Center only needs to be flipped, no countdown timer, for the Attacking force to win.

    -Even if Faction X loses its last WG on a continent it does not 'teleport' the remaining players to another continent.

    -Assuming Faction X still holds other territories the Faction X players can spawn at those locations OR redeploy via a special Hot Drop action specific for the instance of them not having a WG on continent. (Imagine them rebirthing at an orbiting Capital Ship and drop podding down on a base.)
    Attached Files

  • #2
    Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

    This is a great idea and writeup!
    im only seeing one logistically problem, the battleislands each have one captureable, and one uncaptureable WG, one team has no incentive to fight because they cant take the enemies position ever as it is the factions home WG. If you take out Hossin and just look at the battleisland set up, the fation fighting would be counterclockwise- due the faction WG setup. the uncatureable faction WG would be eternally pushing out and the defending faction could never stop it.
    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

      I came to this version when I was trying to figure out what the Devs meant with their current suggestion. If you look at their suggestion they say each BI connects to two WGs NOT on Hossin and that each continent connects to Hossin with another WG.

      EsamirHome---------IndarHome-------------AmerishHome
      BI WG <------------> BI WG -------------Where does Amerish Connect???
      Hossin WG----------Hossin WG--------------Hossin WG

      Each BI has two WGs and Hossin has Three. This means that if you have a 1-1 WG relationship you have to connect 9 Warp Gates (6 BI + 3 Hossin) between all the Home Continents. Consider that each Home Continent has one Uncapturable Faction Warp Gate and you realize that you are only afforded two Warpgates per continent.

      This can only be mitigated if you add three more WGs globally. The only symmetrical options to that is either; Home Continents get Four WGs OR Hossin has Six WGs.

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

        This is an interesting setup but I'm still not sure what it adds to the strategy that the developers' setup doesn't. Also, Dillweed is right that the lack of any exit from the opposing BI lowers incentives. You may well get factions that hold one end, then push out, cap the second WG and lock the BI... then what? They'd all go elsewhere because it just became a dead end - there's nowhere for the forces to flow.

        That's totally counter to the "like Lattice but for continents" setup. A winning faction is supposed to keep encroaching on enemy territory, while the enemy has less and less which forces them to defend. In fact, why defend your home BI at all when it can't lead the enemy to you? The only reason to ever consider it would be for the sake of offense and it'd be wiser not to open that front until you're already winning everywhere else.

        I don't really follow your last post. This is the developers' Continental Lattice:





        I like your suggestion for capturing Warpgates, it's better than just owning them automatically once you take the surrounding territory. Although I wish the objective would be to make something explode; the OS is great but then simply flipping a control point seems anti-climactic. Like BF2142 and destroying Titans, if you played that.
        Attached Files



        |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

          I like the warp gate capture ideas, I would post them up on the main forums.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

            A simple paradox, I think, will explain the flaw in that diagram.

            Indar invades BI heading to Esamir and takes the WG heading to Esamir. Now that they have lattice connection to the WG on Indar, which then has lattice connection to the WG on Hossin they take all three WGs (EsamirBI->Indar; Indar->BI; Indar<->Hossin). Now Amerish invades the BI heading to Indar and takes the opposing WG. They now have connection to IndarWG and HossinWG.

            Which faction owns the Hossin->Indar WG?

            One potential solution may appear as follows:
            Hossin WG remains in the hands of the faction that owned it at the time of severance.

            Until one sees the problem that arises when the Hossin->Indar WG is taken.
            Where does it lead?

            =====

            For Warp Gate Lattice to work, by this I mean a WG that has two connected and able to be captured sides, by definition EACH WG must have one and only one corresponding WG link. Simply, assuming each current continent only has three WGs, and three of those nine are reserved indefinitely for each respective Factions, then the addition of three new Hossin WGs and six new Battle Island WGs is too many.

            Warp Gates Leading from Home Continents (3WG x 3 Continents = 6 -3 Home Warp Gates)
            Warp Gates Leading to Home Continents (Hossin + 3 Battle Islands) = 9

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

              I get you now. On the face of it that seems to be an issue but that's all assuming the system is set up in a particular way. I don't think they need a new link setup (although theirs isn't set in stone), whether it works or not just depends on the rules.

              For example, perhaps the WGs that have 2 links require your faction to own both links before it transfers ownership. Thus, in your example Indar faction owned both Indar WGs and their link to Hossin, once they lose one Indar WG through a BI nothing else changes. The invading faction can choose to focus on conquering Indar, or could go straight for the second WG, take it, and then use either to start back-capping Hossin.



              |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

                Originally posted by MrJengles View Post
                The invading faction can choose to focus on conquering Indar, or could go straight for the second WG, take it, and then use either to start back-capping Hossin.
                Assuming the NC take both WGs on Indar to open up that WG on Hossin to them what happens when the VS take the Hossin WG? Do they win both WGs? By winning those WGs do they now own connection to each BI that connects to Indar?

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: SUGGESTION (To For Devs): A take on Continental Warfare

                  Mmm, taking both and the BIs sounds too powerful. I'd imagine it'd just be the one Indar WG and it's corresponding BI, chosen randomly, last to be capped, or something like that. As I said, I don't know the mechanics and they might change the links anyway; my point is it could work.



                  |TG-Irr| MrJengles - You know you want to say it out loud.

                  Comment

                  Connect

                  Collapse

                  TeamSpeak 3 Server

                  Collapse

                  Advertisement

                  Collapse

                  Twitter Feed

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X