Territory System, is Adjacency required?

[Hamma]

For those of you unaware, recently the devs changed it so that in order to capture territory you have to own adjacent territory. The thought is this will create a viable front line and stop the whack a mole territory system.

Do you think this is a viable option? Or do you think you should still be able to capture any territory regardless of adjacency?

[EVILPIG]

This was a necessary change. Whack-a-mole gets old and the game currently does not have any indicators on the map which tell you that a territory is being contested. In Planetside 1, you'd have the flags and 15 minutes to respond. Captures happen too quickly to allow the lack of adjacency.

[Aaron]

Adjacency was put in place because the lack of a front line and the chaotic captures. I think it was a step in the right direction, but back hacking should probably make a comeback in some modified way.

[EVILPIG]

Adjacency was put in place because the lack of a front line and the chaotic captures. I think it was a step in the right direction, but back hacking should probably make a comeback in some modified way.

Without some form of indicator, adjacency should remain. You can still achieve the backhack effect if you quickly hack Outposts deeper and deeper into enemy territory. You drive a wedge.

[OnexBigxHebrew]

I like the old idea they had been throwing around: The more adjacent hexes you own, the faster the cap is. Makes border caps and surrounding enemies a better strategy. Kind of reminds me of the "Great Snake" strategy in the American Civil War.

Would still need an indicator on the map, though. Maybe an exclamation mark wherever a cap is happening?

[Saxywolf]

Don't allow back hacking of Bases or make them take an extremely long time.

Back hacking other places should be allowed, but there should absolutely be warning indications.

[Haro]

The adjacency system is good, but there needs to be an alternative for capturing other bases behind the lines. Maybe work infiltrators and hacking into it, or bring back gens, but more options would be nice.

[Figment]

I'd go as far as to say a combination of adjecency and lattice. (Lattice would actually expand the options, but could also provide more (visual) guidance and help to avoid typical threeways).

[DayOne]

Until you've spent an hour chasing one dude on a quad that is backhacking all your bases then you wont know how needed the adjacency system is.

[NewSith]

As of now the adjacency isn't working properly, imo.

As I always stated, the absence of proper communication methods was the propblem, not the adjacency system.

[Shogun]

a system is needed, but i loved the ps1 system most. i just don´t know how to transate it to ps2.

we need indicators on map like the flags in ps1, and enough time to react if one shows up.

the status of bases on the map as it was in ps1, was extremely valuable. can we get something equivalent? i want to click on a base and get a summary window with all relevant data. status of capture points, status of generators, shields, terminals, etc.
my main concern is lack of information about anything.
right now it plays like a normal arena shooter. click a random instant action point and kill someone there. coordinating anything is extremely hard right now.

[Shinjorai]

Ive been in beta since the tech test. Wow sounds wierd being able to say that now lol. Anyways the adjacent hex system made the battles a lot better. Me and my team defended a tower for a couple hours last night and it was a blast. Before the system, that just wouldntve happened. So I think like somebody said its definitely a step in the right direction but still they should add some more detail to the current system. Maybe make it where if you participate in so many base captures that day you have a temp token that would allow you to capture a back hex behind enemy lines.

Lets say they put computer terminals on each facility that you could hack over time and once you got it, it would containt a portion of code in the game that once you got say five of them you could break the security on one of the back hexes security computer making it compromiseable. That way it reduces the backhacking but still makes it available but those people have to participate in frontline combat as well to be able to earn the right to do that.

[Wandering Mania]

I am in 100% in full suport of the Adjacency system. I hated chaseing arround 1 guy usealy in a reaver (damn NC) hacking back all our terratories and nothing was gained in the whole 3 hours beside some BR rank experiance. And with my lack of decant ram on my setup flying is not doable because of studder crashing the scythe.

[NewSith]

the status of bases on the map as it was in ps1, was extremely valuable. can we get something equivalent? i want to click on a base and get a summary window with all relevant data. status of capture points, status of generators, shields, terminals, etc.
my main concern is lack of information about anything.
right now it plays like a normal arena shooter. click a random instant action point and kill someone there. coordinating anything is extremely hard right now.

And there I thoguht I was the only one...

[vVRedOctoberVv]

Yep. Adjacency has greatly improved territorial stability (along with the slightly increased timers). What it means is that what you do actually matters, at least for a little while. Previously, capturing a major base like Zurvan was anti-climactic to say the least. Five minutes after you left, somebody took it away from you.

PS1, territory changes would last hours, possibly overnight or longer (depending on circumstances). Before they tweaked the adjacency system, you get up, go to take a piss, come back, and everything was different :P

[NewSith]

Yep. Adjacency has greatly improved territorial stability (along with the slightly increased timers).

In my opinion - it incresed stability of the central region, the outer reaches are still switching back and forth all the time.

And also what do you mean by "increased timers"?

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Yep. Adjacency has greatly improved territorial stability (along with the slightly increased timers). What it means is that what you do actually matters, at least for a little while. Previously, capturing a major base like Zurvan was anti-climactic to say the least. Five minutes after you left, somebody took it away from you.

PS1, territory changes would last hours, possibly overnight or longer (depending on circumstances). Before they tweaked the adjacency system, you get up, go to take a piss, come back, and everything was different :P

I agree. The map changing hands so quickly actually game me a sinking feeling about the scale of the game mattering.

[Alderego]

I got to say that I'm happy with the change.
The game went from wack-the-back-hacking people (of which you usually only had a handfull) to a war-like game.

For those that didn't experience it: those handful of back-hackers could and would constantly cut you off from your warpgate, taking every single piece of territory that they could. This would result in 1) resource starvation and 2) constantly pulling people away to drive to the little far away outposts.
Now this might seem like a valid tactic, but in all honesty it's just plain boring to have to drive all the way back to something behind your lines when you had no indication whatsoever that something was being taken. It just felt cheap.

Now there is more of a frontline feel: you know that the enemy is going to push from their hexes and if they take one or 2 of yours they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it. (this since all the major facilities are linked up from the middle of the map easily once you take 2-3 small facilities. Facilities that usually have a spawn point as well, not unimportant for your assault)

In short: it's good fun now, you still have the pushes along the flanks or even downright down the middle. But at least you know that it's an organized thing now, not just one guy on a flash driving around to be annoying and get easy exp by sitting at cap-points.

There has been word of bringing back the back-hacking in one way or another too: I could support this if it required 1) some effort: either certing or using a special tool and 2) the defending faction got a warning that a back hack was happening. (Since it does provide a foothold, which with the adjacency system can create a major invasion)

Anyway, I can't wait to see how it'll turn out :)

[oosik]

For those of you unaware, recently the devs changed it so that in order to capture territory you have to own adjacent territory. The thought is this will create a viable front line and stop the whack a mole territory system.

Do you think this is a viable option? Or do you think you should still be able to capture any territory regardless of adjacency?

Given the speed with which a base can be turned, adjacency is definitely required to prevent the boredom of whack-a-mole and establish some frontlines. You can still flank an enemy through less occupied outposts but unless you have decent support, cutting such penetrations off is not difficult. Since Beta began 4 weeks ago, the game has progressed tremendously. Initially in Beta crashes were happening all the time, there were serious fps issues for many participants, and lots and lots of bugs. Now PS2 battles are beginning to feel more and more like PS1 battles.

[mcargo]

I would definitly 100% say the adjecency system is MUCH better. As many have said, it takes away the "Whack-A-Mole feel and turns it into a full out war for control of every inch you gain. Nice work devs!:D

[Echor]

IMO little has changed!

A team of 5 or 6 of us simply cut a line through enemy territory in a few mins hacking adjacent hex's in a line.

We cut the enemy WG off in less than 5 mins, admittedly they had it back a few mins later, but it drew people from a 'big' fight.

The system needs more resilience somehow, another rule before it can be broken or longer timers, these 'instant' hacks are little more than an annoyance most of the time.

[Kalee J]

Until you've spent an hour chasing one dude on a quad that is backhacking all your bases then you wont know how needed the adjacency system is.

I have been that dude on that quad. :p

[HeatLegend]

Can't say much more other than what has already been said- it was a step in the right direction.

[Kipper]

Yes, it's required to fix the way the game was playing - but it should be a short term fix. Freedom to back hack should remain, but to balance it it should be incredibly hard.

Let's say for a start that nothing less than full squad should be able to start affecting points on a hex that's surrounded by enemy territory (major facilities even more), and each defender should probably stack against 5 or 6 attackers for balance - so two defenders in friendly territory would be able to take a point in the same time as 12 attackers.

Maybe full non adjacent hexes should have the benefit of a console which has to be hacked by an infiltrator prior to to being able to take any points, which triggers a warning to all defenders on the server.

In short - it should require a well organised force with sufficient numbers, but it should be doable.

[Tobax]

For those of you unaware, recently the devs changed it so that in order to capture territory you have to own adjacent territory. The thought is this will create a viable front line and stop the whack a mole territory system.

This is not acurrate of the change.
It is only bases that must be connected to your terratory in order to be hack, other points like resource outposts can still be hacked anywhere on the map. This means enemy can still hack points all over the map very quickly which is then the connection to a base which they then hack, so it did not fix the problem that we were having.

[MonsterBone]

Adjacency has to go. It turns the entire battle into a huge war over a front line. There are many people that dont want to fight over 3 bases for two hours and get nowhere. Whats the point of that. It was fun to run around and back hack.

Be careful. People dont like back capping but the alternative is much worse. But when playing back capping is fun.

[Crator]

^^^ Then don't? Create a 2ndary front line? Shouldn't be too hard if there's enough pop, no?

[Tobax]

Adjacency has to go. It turns the entire battle into a huge war over a front line. There are many people that dont want to fight over 3 bases for two hours and get nowhere. Whats the point of that. It was fun to run around and back hack.

Adjacency has only just come in and no it hasn't turned everything into a huge front line because you can still hack anything anywhere apart from bases, so people are still back hacking and then using that as the link for the base.

[MonsterBone]

You misunderstand. Adjancy means NO backhacking period. That is terrible.

[batfastard]

Keep adjacency but extend hack time as well as time to capture. Add a capture clock to maps as well so teams know how long they have to defend it and what bases are being captured.

[DarkMesa]

I would like to see a system in which the more territory your faction controls, the closer they have to be to an already controlled point. Owning a fair amount of territory will get eventually only allow you to cap adjacent points. Owning little will allow you to cap just about anywhere on the map.

This would allow you to organize more surprise style attacks in order to gain territory when your faction isn't doing so well.

I feel as though having to fight on the frontlines when you are forced back to your foothold would be rather difficult, and this would help the enemy presence feel less concentrated and potentially overwhelming.

[HeatLegend]

Adjacency has to go. It turns the entire battle into a huge war over a front line. There are many people that dont want to fight over 3 bases for two hours and get nowhere. Whats the point of that. It was fun to run around and back hack.

Be careful. People dont like back capping but the alternative is much worse. But when playing back capping is fun.

Seriously? I think I have the exact opposite view on it, I love the frontline and think it's a lot more fun to fight and actually see your territory in one mass instead of weird hexes a little here and there. Also I think the map changes too quickly; One hour the NC have pushed far into someone's territory, but then one or two hours after that the territories have changed dramatically- bases just go around however. It doesnt make it feel very special to capture a base cause it'll just be recapped again in a little while. Hopefuly they do something to change this.

[Mox]

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!

I suggest a system of districts connected by a lattice. A district is a main base (e.g., bio dome) including its near surroundings (hexes with smaller outposts). If you want to hack hexes in a district, you have to do it in a district which is connected through the lattice to a district that is already under full control of your faction.

What do you think about it?

[Mox]

Something like that:

[zhurkov]

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!

I suggest a system of districts connected by a lattice. A district is a main base (e.g., bio dome) including its near surroundings (hexes with smaller outposts). If you want to hack hexes in a district, you have to do it in a district which is connected through the lattice to a district that is already under full control of your faction.

What do you think about it?

I think it's a pretty good idea.

[Kipper]

Personally I think a lattice is a step backwards.

The ability to attack anything, anytime is more realistic and allows real tactical play rather than everyone being forced to do everything in a predictable and eventually boring way.

It's just that the ability to attack anything anytime needs to be more balanced, with impossible capture times for small squads on unconnected/unadjacent hexes, and longer capture times all round.

Factors that influence capture time should be:

Adjacent friendly hexes
Adjacent enemy hexes
Adjacent third faction hexes
Connection to friendly warpgate
Connection to enemy warpgate
Number of present friendly troops
Number of present enemy troops
The current effectiveness of the troops


I can't come up with a formula to take the above into account, but they all should factor - making deeply held enemy hexes impossible to capture unless you take vastly overwhelming forces (requiring organisation to do, not just one guy on a bike).

Current effectiveness is the only one requiring explanation - but simply relates to kills being made in an area, so its possible to tip the balance if you have even forces but one side is just out-killing the other side.

[Grimster]

I think they should take it one step further and make all territories needing adjacency to be captured.

Right now you have solo guys capping minor outposts behind the front lines which sucks imo.

Map is big enough so you can actually have more than one front line and don't need to fight in the same place all the time.

[HeatLegend]

I think they should take it one step further and make all territories needing adjacency to be captured.

Right now you have solo guys capping minor outposts behind the front lines which sucks imo.

Map is big enough so you can actually have more than one front line and don't need to fight in the same place all the time.

That's what they're not doing with this system- you can't cap the bases behind the lines. You need a hex connected to the ones you capture.

[Fenrys]

The only thing I don't like about the new system is the short capture timers, and you can't re-secure a capture point you are guarding if it gets cut off from adjacent hexes. A few times I've been guarding a hex adjacent to a base we were attacking, ambushing Flash drivers as they roll up to cap it, and been unable to re-secure the hex after killing all the attackers. I wish I had a little more time to kill them all before the capture point goes neutral.

At times like that I really wish there was a cert in the Flash tree to call in an orbital drop pod with an unarmed ATV to get you back into the fight.

Until you've spent an hour chasing one dude on a quad that is backhacking all your bases then you wont know how needed the adjacency system is.

Or spent several evenings being that driver, and watching half the map turn your color because everyone else just wants to shoot at things ;)

And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot.

All day yesterday, I saw more than 3 teammates in the same place exactly twice, and never more than 8 teammates in the same place. East 03 at primetime is slower than Planetside 1 at 4AM, but it's the only server where I get decent performance.

[Blue Sam]

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!


It's a closed beta. There aren't enough people in the game to get a properly epic zerg going.


Anyway, it doesn't appear that adjacency is actually achieving its goal. The maps have been as much, if not more, of a scatter-fest since they put it in as they were before it.

[Venator]

Yes please!!!!

Game is MUCH more fun when you see actual groups of people attacking and defending and the fire fights are much larger. None of this lone galaxy flying around capping bases way in the back of your territory.

[HeatLegend]

It's a closed beta. There aren't enough people in the game to get a properly epic zerg going.


Anyway, it doesn't appear that adjacency is actually achieving its goal. The maps have been as much, if not more, of a scatter-fest since they put it in as they were before it.

Not sure if I can agree on that... I think it got much better.

[kytanos]

Actually, there was a HUGE threadnaught on the beta forums coming out against adjacency. One person complained about the removal of back hacking, and then we had thirty pages of "bring it back, or *signed*", with the occasional constructive comment every 10 to fifteen posts.

The dev's immediately caved and reverted to the old system. I saw reports of facility's being backhacked again on the forms, but had to test it myself. At 6:58 PST I took a Terran outpost 3 territory's away from the nearest New Conglomerate capture point no problem.

It seems the COD and BF2 twichies won't be satisfied until we dumb the game down to their level. Might as well remove shield generators, spawn terminals, and just let them spawn directly inside the enemy facility so we can have a good old fashion skirmish style battle. No need to travel or organize. Lord forbid they have to engage their cerebral cortex for more then five seconds at a time.

Sorry, Im very bitter at the moment.

[Stardouser]

Adjacency is required, BUT there must be SOMETHING you can do to harm the enemy in their backfield.

What about a compromise adjacency? For example, you cannot capture MAIN bases without adjacency but you can capture minor outposts?

Krytanos, I haven't played in a couple days, are you saying there is no adjacency in right now? That's a very bad decision but I am curious why you blame Battlefield 2 players? You should be blaming BF3 players, grouping BF2 vets in with CoD is a massive and inaccurate insult.

[Mox]

Actually, there was a HUGE threadnaught on the beta forums coming out against adjacency. One person complained about the removal of back hacking, and then we had thirty pages of "bring it back, or *signed*", with the occasional constructive comment every 10 to fifteen posts.

The dev's immediately caved and reverted to the old system. I saw reports of facility's being backhacked again on the forms, but had to test it myself. At 6:58 PST I took a Terran outpost 3 territory's away from the nearest New Conglomerate capture point no problem.

It seems the COD and BF2 twichies won't be satisfied until we dumb the game down to their level. Might as well remove shield generators, spawn terminals, and just let them spawn directly inside the enemy facility so we can have a good old fashion skirmish style battle. No need to travel or organize. Lord forbid they have to engage their cerebral cortex for more then five seconds at a time.

Sorry, Im very bitter at the moment.

If they stay with this "Hack everywhere you want" - system, they will ruin the game.

No lattice (or at least: no adjacency) =

No real progress (make the map red :D)
+
No real frontline
+
No real epic zerg

= NO Plantside feeling

I am really concerned regarding this issue.
I hope SOE remember what PS1 was and what PS2 should be.
=> SIze always matter = 2000 Players fighting against each other in a huge battle (not 2000 player are fighing each other on 40 hexes :huh: )

[Stardouser]

If they stay with this "Hack everywhere you want" - system, they will ruin the game.

No lattice (or at least: no adjacency) =

No real progress (make the map red :D)
+
No real frontline
+
No real epic zerg

= NO Plantside feeling

I am really concerned regarding this issue.
I hope SOE remember what PS1 was and what PS2 should be.
=> SIze always matter = 2000 Players fighting against each other in a huge battle (not 2000 player are fighing each other on 40 hexes :huh: )

I'm glad you mention that. 2000 players per battle isn't really a realistic expectation, where "battle" is defined as within a 750 meter radius wherein everyone there can affect anyone else either by shooting at, or traveling a few seconds then shootiner. 2000 in one hex would wreck lower end machines I would think. Though it would be nice if we had some sort of feedback on what kind of numbers we have reached per continent and per hex peaks in the beta. This of course doesn't mean we can't expect to see 500-600 in a battle, and that's still bigger than entire continents in PS1 could sustain.

Which brings me to another point. Adjacency is going to become really important when we have multiple continents, otherwise you'll have to play intercontinental whack-a-mole. And another point is, we still don't know their plans for server populations. A continent may hold 2000 but that doesn't mean that each server will be designed to reach a 6000 filled-to-the-brim peak every night. Unless SOE has shed some light on their plans and I have missed it, I still think they're going to have maybe a 4500 pop cap per server so that all 3 continents won't necessarily always have fighting everywhere.

But it remains key that even if there isn't full backcapping, there still has to be some way you can hurt the enemy in their backfield.

[ClockworkAug]

I would say that to force adjacency is absolutely vital. Otherwise it becomes whackamole.

HOWEVER.

This doesnt mean it has to be completely implemented. I would prefer a system where instead of backhacking a base a group can 'uncapture' it.

By which i mean that i can roll up to a base and then wait until its influence bar with the enemy faction becomes zero. I cant capture it or use it myself - i have to have an adjacent square for that. Neither do i gain any points for capping, since i havent. But i can make it unusable by the enemy. All i need to do is keep the enemy from recapturing it - which is something they should be able to do at a quickened rate once im eliminated.

This means that a quick push into territory is still very possible. it simply requires massive tactical timing to make it work. Alternately, it preserves the idea of attacking a base to prevent things like armour or aircraft attacking.

It also opens the possibility to more complex tactics. Are you a VS with your front being attacked by the TR? Why not go into the squares near the NC and uncapture the TR base nearest to the one attacking your own. When the NC pour in, suddenly the TR have an entirely new front to fight - taking pressure off of your VS base.

This i think would be the best of both worlds. Tactics would be restored, but the joy and skill of covert backhacking would still be preserved. plus the now limited usefulness would mean that only people with more tactical mindsets would attempt it, instead of someone just hopping on a quad to capture bases for points.

[HenchAnt]

Adjacency is required, BUT there must be SOMETHING you can do to harm the enemy in their backfield.

What about a compromise adjacency? For example, you cannot capture MAIN bases without adjacency but you can capture minor outposts?


That's how I feel.

Adjacency was a step in the right direction. But in the end, teams should be able to do behind-the-line incursions. The Adjacency-for-main-bases-only might be nice next step to balance that.
But it simply won't do much against the single ghosthacker-rampage, so something more would be needed to balance things out.

[Kipper]

Adjacency is not needed. All that's needed is a massive increase in the length of time it takes to hack somewhere that doesn't have adjacent hexes. That was the 'original' plan, I swear I heard/saw/read that from Mr H himself.

Once that's in place, backhacking is still viable but requires more people and more organisation. Tweak to the point where it is at an acceptable/strategic level without being silly.

[Sunrock]

For those of you unaware, recently the devs changed it so that in order to capture territory you have to own adjacent territory. The thought is this will create a viable front line and stop the whack a mole territory system.

Do you think this is a viable option? Or do you think you should still be able to capture any territory regardless of adjacency?

Well they did not enforce this on all bases. Only a few bases that they are testing it on. You can still back hack in the game.

What they sad was that they still want you to be able to back hack some bases but not all... And I think thats a good idea. Backhacking can be quite anoying and split up the forces maybe too mush. But if you are totally outnumbered and a faction owns every thing on a continent and just camp the safe zone being able to back hack is the only way to be able to get some decent game experience.

[HeatLegend]

Adjacency is not needed. All that's needed is a massive increase in the length of time it takes to hack somewhere that doesn't have adjacent hexes. That was the 'original' plan, I swear I heard/saw/read that from Mr H himself.

Once that's in place, backhacking is still viable but requires more people and more organisation. Tweak to the point where it is at an acceptable/strategic level without being silly.

Yeah I remember them saying this too. It would be nice, some system that discourages you from going whackamole unless you have a formidable force doing it; keeping people to the zerg with massive battles but not removing the option to go behind enemy lines to sabotage.

[Archonzero]

I like the new Adjacency system, it works. I really got tired of the wackamole backhacking that was going on. You can really just look at the adjacency system as a logistical territory control system, you need assured lines of support in order to maintain a hold. You can hold out in a cut off territory so long as the enemy doesn't gain ticks on that hex, and hopefully your empire faction will be able to surge back an regain lost territory an link back to the cut off players. It truly does inspire some very dynamic epic battles.

Until they address more clear systems to inform the players to information on the maps, ie status of facilities, possible numerical presence of enemy forces (ie low, strong, heavy), spawn status, shield status, gen status.. an so on.

Back Hacking... for now I think it should remain out of the picture

Back Hacking Ideas
Significant time to control increased.
Marker noting Facility security protocols are being bypassed. Shown on map.
Get rid of the group up cap the CP method
Require an Infiltrator cert'd for advanced encryption bypass to hack the CP.

Limit the number of hex types that can be backhacked?
Facilities with skeletal resources/terminals
ie spawn, equipment terminal an a Flash terminal.

[elementHTTP]

Make it that only a full squad can backhack, then put it on a timer of
5 minutes, that they have to hold for the backhack to be successful.

Very good idea ! Let me mod-it a bit :D

- full squad is needed to back hack - what if somebody dies you cannot capture point

Maybe better idea is to have something like this:
Half-rule : for each solder you have cap timer is reduced by half

- one solder at cap - 30 min timer or infinite (balance dependent)
- 2 solders at cap - 15 min
- 3 - 7 min
- 4 - 3 min
- 5 - 2 min
- 6+ - 1 min

+ 5 min defend and some sort of map indication that point is being hacked
This can encourage team based spec-ops

[Scotsh]

I prefer the current hex system over the PS1 lattice system. It offers way more flexibility and with the bigger population caps it is vital that there are more than 1 or 2 hotspots on the map.
But it needs adjacency, at least in its current form. Hacking small bases with only 1 control point is ridiculously easy, even if you got 0 surrounding hexes.

I for one like maps with territoral integrity, clear frontlines moving in accordance of the effectiveness of the fighting empires.

Just from a gut feeling i would say this games needs:
- adjacency
- way longer capture times for smaller outpost
- longer lockout timers
- bigger penalties for having a low number of adjacent hexes


But honestly that is very hard to say, because keep in mind, there is currently only one continent available.
With 3 continents some things might drastically change, for instance there could be 1 on 1 empire fights over one continent. Currently that is not possible.


While its unlikly to change, i would love to see a different system:

1. Divide the continent map into territories. Territories are much bigger than the current zones and each territory is associated with a major base. To control (i.e paint the territory map in your empire color) a territory you have to control the base.
2. Current zones and outposts remain and can be occupied. Occupying is not capturing, meaning formally the zone is still controlled by the owner of the nearby major base. However, occupied zones allow the occupants to spawn there and get vehicles (tho getting vehicles in occupied zones could be more expensive). Also occupied zones could mean less resources for the owner of the territory.
3. This system could be combined with a lattice system connecting the territories (respectively major bases), allowing you only to occupy zones adjacent territories your empire controls.

[Wandering Mania]

Adjacency has to go. It turns the entire battle into a huge war over a front line. There are many people that dont want to fight over 3 bases for two hours and get nowhere. Whats the point of that. It was fun to run around and back hack.

Be careful. People dont like back capping but the alternative is much worse. But when playing back capping is fun.

Look who is talking one of the guys that meny TR and VS have been chaseing arround on a quad or in a lightning getting bord takeing back your worthless hacks. For every 1 person that likes the back hacking the old way, there 100 more that like the new way because of you annoying NC guys. I think the NC's New motto should be "If we drive out the all the other 2 factions players from the game we win." Or at least that is how you guys seem to play.

That back hacking stuff you guys do may be fun for you, but in truth the one or 2 that notice your handy work are sick of being board chaseing you down and getting no kills and a measly 500 to 700 BR expearince trying to fix your stupidity.
The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

[Crator]

The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

You bring up a good point. Not everyone may enjoy the heavy firefights. I'm sure there are several reasons for this (Low FPS, can't handle the twitch gun-play mechanics, can't seem to find where the majority of their empire is, etc.). But these players do enjoy contributing to the war and are using the system in place to do this. I believe giving more options (especially in the area of back-line support roles) to support the war efforts will help tremendously with these sorts of players. I'm not talking against adjacency btw.

[Stardouser]

Look who is talking one of the guys that meny TR and VS have been chaseing arround on a quad or in a lightning getting bord takeing back your worthless hacks. For every 1 person that likes the back hacking the old way, there 100 more that like the new way because of you annoying NC guys. I think the NC's New motto should be "If we drive out the all the other 2 factions players from the game we win." Or at least that is how you guys seem to play.

That back hacking stuff you guys do may be fun for you, but in truth the one or 2 that notice your handy work are sick of being board chaseing you down and getting no kills and a measly 500 to 700 BR expearince trying to fix your stupidity.
The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

Your post highlights the need for SOE to have the right system in place. Whack a mole isn't fun, but neither is meatgrinding. This game should have strategic aspects that aren't limited to attacking the same route every time.
If the only way to do anything useful in the game is to go to the huge battles and stay in the same firefight for hours at a time, then that's a failure on the part of the devs. I mean, simply having more players, but they all have to fight in the same place, that doesn't make the game more strategic.

Now, even with adjacency(which, to be clear, I support adjacency, but I do not support a system that's going to force all 2000 players to go to the same battle), if the main battle line is a spear thrust through the hexes in the middle of the map, you can still take a smaller force and push along the edges of the map - the only difference with adjacency is that you have to start from a hex you own, you can't go deep in the backfield and start.

The point is that not wanting to sit in the same firefight for 3 hours doesn't mean you suck at fighting and can't avoid dying 100 times per 10 minutes. When things take that long, they are stalemates, and if your goal is to get the upper hand on the enemy in the overall sense, you need to be able to redeploy and go somewhere else. Otherwise, Galaxy dropping onto the capture point and spawn control unit rooms in a surgical strike, to end the fight quickly, would be cheap tactics. Personally I want tactics and strategy to matter just as much as shooting skill - if you don't want the enemy kicking you out by taking your SCU out, defend it.

[Rivenshield]

/waves hands

Guys? I think we're arguing over the symptom, not the disease. The problem is -- save at a few strategic chokepoints -- fights simply don't *last* long enough to attract players for the epic battles. By the time most of them notice the new hotspot, it's mostly over.

The problem is an utter lack of defense. All we have right now are two competing zergs running and gunning towards each other, and the side that even slightly outnumbers the other will win in short order... just as in a conventional FPS. One of the hallmarks of PS is that a smaller group with its act together can stop -- or at least frustrate -- an unorganized zerg. Where are the lines standing shoulder to should manning the walls? Where are the epic gen holds...?

None of this is going to be ameliorated by yelling about adjacency. We need shorter hack times. We need more choke points. And by God, we need *walls.*

[HeatLegend]

Yeah, the fights need to go on for much longer. I dont like it how quickly the map and territories switch around right now, makes taking a base feel a lot less heroic than it could've been or as I had expected from looking at the game.

And I do without a doubt want walls! At least on some of the bases- or just smaller ones of the smaller bases.

[Kipper]

I made a post last night in the official forums with some mathematical formulas which I think - with the right values - could handle base capture times taking into account adjacency and world status. Have a look:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/some-maths-relating-to-capture-points.12811/

Feel free to repost, I'm working from my mobile at the moment so it's a bit of a nightmare for me to do :)

[Timealude]

The only thing I really find annoying with the Adjacency system is if your all the way spear heading into enemy territory they can come in from the side and cut off your adjacency to mess up your flow, IMO this seems more like an anti zerg system.

[Stardouser]

I don't think we need base walls on a blanket basis, but we need for most bases to be in some variable way defensible. For one base it might be walls, for another it might be not fully walled in but it's on the peak of a mountain. Note: I'm not talking about the Crown, I'm talking about a MAIN base on top of a REAL mountain peak. I'm talking a steep peak where ground assaults not coordinated with air would be suicide as fire rains down on your head.

Other bases might have a significant presence of AA or ground to ground turrets. And yes, that means you'll have to take them out with coordinated strikes, instead of attacking one player at a time then rushing to the forums to ask for turret nerfs.

[Tamas]

I prefer adjacency - first I remember Frontlines: Fuel of war - I love the front fighting and being pushed back/push yourself.

[Oryon22]

I fully approve the adjacency system. We'll see how it matures through beta.

[Kipper]

I approve of adjacency if for making bases (much) easier to capture. Just not for making back hacks impossible. They should be allowed, but difficult to do.

[MaxDamage]

I feel it's an improvement.

We need base walls in a hurry.

They have gorgeous wall models available to use.
The siege system was cool in Planetside.

Not sure if every base needs that.
There is a lot of variety I think to base layouts and capture strategies, I particularly enjoy raiding Bio Labs. Great fun!

[Ryoji]

a system is needed, but i loved the ps1 system most. i just don´t know how to transate it to ps2.

we need indicators on map like the flags in ps1, and enough time to react if one shows up.

the status of bases on the map as it was in ps1, was extremely valuable. can we get something equivalent? i want to click on a base and get a summary window with all relevant data. status of capture points, status of generators, shields, terminals, etc.
my main concern is lack of information about anything.
right now it plays like a normal arena shooter. click a random instant action point and kill someone there. coordinating anything is extremely hard right now.

Haven't played yet with the adjacency system active - looking forward to see how it changes things and agree with you that more useful base info should come through via the map. Sorely miss the info you could glean from PS1 map and hope that similar info is brought in for PS2.

[Malorn]

Should be no surprise to beta players but I love the adjacency rule.

[ziegler]

My thoughts are....why have a class called infiltrators then?


I would be ok with adjusting how a non-adjacent base is captured. Perhaps a 10 minute timer to capture it and only by the relevant sniper class.

Or auto AA on non-adjacent territory to make gal dropping on back lines harder.


I am against arbitrary ...Thou SHALT NOT DO this thing or that thing.....

[Raka Maru]

TBH, Backhacking is fun sometimes. I get out of the meat grinder for a while and get to concentrate on fighting small organized recovery teams. Plus, for now at least, I don't lag to 5 FPS when I'm away from the front.

Hack timers are fine IMHO, it's the reencryption timers that are too low. The highest I've seen is like 5 min? Some last just 1 min. Say a backhacker takes a base, or a recovery team resecures it, that base should stay the faction color for 30 minutes allowing the back hacking empires to have time to either send a force (by spawning there) to take the next hex or for the dominant empire to ignore it for that time knowing it is secure, for now.

This is how you develop a real 2nd front line.

Backhacking a big facility alone or with only 1 other person is already almost impossible because of the distances to the other capture points and the speed of the controlling empire's timer. Don't put an arbitrary number of people required to hack it, just adjust the timers for balance. Then the backhackers will need to coordinate.... Ready, set, capture!