The Hex system is good, is just people that don't know how to use it

[Dkamanus]

Hi there.

Yes, this is an afirmation of someone whos's be quite some on the game, and thinks this is a good idea, on a strategic level, being much better suited for those commanders who actually know a thing or two about map flows and can predict possible movement routes of the enemies.

I understand people think the lattice system was something way much better (yes, it did bring focus and larger numbers to battles), but on a macro vision, it didn't brought such dinamics as the Hex system, since you were still restricted to one base attack per time, not having the whole continent open for attacks.

Anyone with half a brain knows that battles will end up focusing on larger facilities and knowing when your enemy is moving does help quite a lot, with a lot of predictable paths. Besides, the hex system promotes organized play in a level I think PS1 couldn't, mostly because now you need extra squads to secure territories adjecent to the ones you're main force is on main facilities and stuff.

Even yesteday we used the hex system sucessfully in preventing TR from capping Esamir using THREE ORGANIZED SQUADS + some pubies! Two under my command and 1 from another commander named Saldar on Waterson. My Alpha Squad went to Andvari (we were going for snowshear, but it was already being capped) and Saldar went against The traverse while my Bravo squad stayed on Freyr Amp Station and defended it.

After we secured the Traverse and Andvari, we moved towards Esamir munitions corp and decided to keep the fight there. We had pushed a big TR offensive of Freyr, mostly because the hex system values outfits that branch out and grab more stuff, facilitating the securing of places. Of course an even bigger TR mass went after Esamir Munitions corp while only my bravo squad went there, so I asked if it was a good idea to go reinforce, where they said it wasn't. They fall back to Freyr and Saldar and my alpha reinforce the place, destroy completely the TR attack, pushing it back to Eisa after taking Munitions corps.

No, we aren't uber player (although we are almost concluding that the BIG majority of NC waterson are just WAY below average), and we know what to do in order to DEFEND A AMP STATION and what to attack in order to secure it. There is no need for a lattice system if the outfit/platoon leader knows what to do and where to deploy his troops.

I see leaders complain they couldn't cap a continent when they had the majority of players there. Like 60% NC/ 30% TR and 10% VS, and complain we were in Esamir defending. WTF? If my 16 guys must leave esamir in order to properly make a job 60% of NC on Amerish weren't able to do, should I really go there to fix the shit the rest of faction has no clue to do?

This is due to a lack of understanding the hex system properly, a lack of understand of map flows, and a lack of organization on their part. Jeez, if you have to throw 192 players at one single problem in order to solve it, GUESS WHAT? YOU AREN'T A GOOD LEADER OR YOUR OUTFIT SUCK COMPLETELY!

That's what I had to say. The Hex System bring huge bonuses for decent commanders and looks like shit for bad commanders who think zerging a single objective is what needs to be done. Shit, anyone with 4 platoons at their disposal should be able to lock ANY continent.

[Thunderhawk]

Hi there.

Yes, this is an afirmation of someone whos's be quite some on the game, and thinks this is a good idea, on a strategic level, being much better suited for those commanders who actually know a thing or two about map flows and can predict possible movement routes of the enemies.

I understand people think the lattice system was something way much better (yes, it did bring focus and larger numbers to battles), but on a macro vision, it didn't brought such dinamics as the Hex system, since you were still restricted to one base attack per time, not having the whole continent open for attacks.

Anyone with half a brain knows that battles will end up focusing on larger facilities and knowing when your enemy is moving does help quite a lot, with a lot of predictable paths. Besides, the hex system promotes organized play in a level I think PS1 couldn't, mostly because now you need extra squads to secure territories adjecent to the ones you're main force is on main facilities and stuff.

Even yesteday we used the hex system sucessfully in preventing TR from capping Esamir using THREE ORGANIZED SQUADS + some pubies! Two under my command and 1 from another commander named Saldar on Waterson. My Alpha Squad went to Andvari (we were going for snowshear, but it was already being capped) and Saldar went against The traverse while my Bravo squad stayed on Freyr Amp Station and defended it.

After we secured the Traverse and Andvari, we moved towards Esamir munitions corp and decided to keep the fight there. We had pushed a big TR offensive of Freyr, mostly because the hex system values outfits that branch out and grab more stuff, facilitating the securing of places. Of course an even bigger TR mass went after Esamir Munitions corp while only my bravo squad went there, so I asked if it was a good idea to go reinforce, where they said it wasn't. They fall back to Freyr and Saldar and my alpha reinforce the place, destroy completely the TR attack, pushing it back to Eisa after taking Munitions corps.

No, we aren't uber player (although we are almost concluding that the BIG majority of NC waterson are just WAY below average), and we know what to do in order to DEFEND A AMP STATION and what to attack in order to secure it. There is no need for a lattice system if the outfit/platoon leader knows what to do and where to deploy his troops.

I see leaders complain they couldn't cap a continent when they had the majority of players there. Like 60% NC/ 30% TR and 10% VS, and complain we were in Esamir defending. WTF? If my 16 guys must leave esamir in order to properly make a job 60% of NC on Amerish weren't able to do, should I really go there to fix the shit the rest of faction has no clue to do?

This is due to a lack of understanding the hex system properly, a lack of understand of map flows, and a lack of organization on their part. Jeez, if you have to throw 192 players at one single problem in order to solve it, GUESS WHAT? YOU AREN'T A GOOD LEADER OR YOUR OUTFIT SUCK COMPLETELY!

That's what I had to say. The Hex System bring huge bonuses for decent commanders and looks like shit for bad commanders who think zerging a single objective is what needs to be done. Shit, anyone with 4 platoons at their disposal should be able to lock ANY continent.

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

[Figment]

The hex system IS a lattice system.


It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.


The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

[Dkamanus]

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

And that is one of the flaws of the zerg. It hits only one target, 90% of the time, and, the way I see it, most people don't even know how to use terrain in their favour.

What I'm going to say is a crown example, but it illustrates quite well what I'm trying to say. Most people don't know about the northern pass to exploit it, and EVEN LESS people know how to properly defend that northern passage.

The northern passage of the crown, once high enough, splits in two narrower passages. There I was, using a dual grinder MAX, with 1 engineer, 1 medic and 1 HA. Wewere destroying wave after wave after wave of, at least, 4 times our numbers. Yes, its a crown example, but its an example of knowing what to do that makes the difference.

I used the Esamir idea mostly because esamir's terrains makes predicting enemy movements "tougher". Although people say they'll zerg around, if you know where the zerg will try to hit and can hold it (like we did), they'll try to circle around and we'll try to avoid the circling as well.

It's a simple matter of focusing the zerg down. Even with air zerg, Having a few MAX units on the ground with AAs will make the zerg go away. People say its impossible to hold the zerg, but thats only half true. Base layout does influence a lot. Tawrich is an example of a tech plant that requires TOO MUCH effort to defend, mostly because on Broken Arch the attackers don't have to clash with the main gates, they can go around, on vehicles, and zerg inside anyway, so badly made defensive positions are a shit to defend.

Amp Stations and Biolabs are much more forgiving for an organized albeit smaller force. Tech Plants require more people to defend, but it can be done as well. What I'm pointing out is that most people have no idea what a chokepoint is as well in order to defend it. Example was us attacking a tech plant (eisa).

We were just 16 man strong, with 3 Vanguards (fully Upgraded) and 1 ammo/AMS sunderer. That means we had 9 people gunning/driving and 7 outside. We were destroying a huge vehicle mass that was trying to form up just outside the Eisa tech plant Vehicle bay, mostly because the organization was MUCH better than that of the zerg, and we were hitting them on a privileged position (could be better but the top tower guns were hitting us as well, we were next to their Spawn Room and not one single VS came after us).

The hex system in this case would help in order to secure faster an objective, while giving incentive for people to attack eisa if they had capped all hexes around it, or at least most, and we couldn't leave, lest we let a HUGE magrider/lightning zerg form up. People refused to attack, and decided to go head on against the Vbay of eisa, getting destroyed, while we were hoping people would go around the vbay, get the shields down and go inside.

The hex system does require a LOT more branching out, and that's what makes it interesting and an effective system. Clashing huge armies against one another is quite easy to make. Actually trying to cap a continent that has equal populations isn't something easily achieved unless people know how to effectively use the hex system and know map flows and layouts, which MOST don't, even older players.

The hex system IS a lattice system.


It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.


The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

I was thinking a Pseudo Lattice system would work to direct flow, but then I rethough my position and saw it would actually be a detriment to commanding. Flanking manouvers, pinching movements. People have a natural tendency to move towards bigger objectives already so I don't think a more restricted lattice link system would be required, since combat does normally gravitate around larger bases, and it would be more destructive to defenders then to attackers if this was on (at least the way I though it could be implemented).

[ShadetheDruid]

Very true. The problem overall isn't hexes, which I like as a map system, it's organisation and communication.

Zergs are a separate issue from the map system. The only difference a lattice system would make to zergs is force them to fight rather than ignore each other.. and I don't think that's really that great a goal to aim for.

Zergs need to be broken up and/or controlled and given goals, not just thrown at other zergs. That's a goal for the other systems and their brokenness (the resource system, base design, etc), the map has very little to do with it.

On a lattice system in general, I don't get why we should have a predictable flow to battle (it's one thing to make logical tactical assessments of movements, it's totally another knowing exactly where your enemy will come from because it's the only "link" to where you are). That's not how battles work. What should be happening is one commander makes a decision on a target, troop movements etc, hopefully moving to get the jump on the enemy, and the enemy commander should have people scouting to ascertain those troop movements and prevent that, form a defense, etc.

This game is supposed to be about teamwork, right? If you don't know which of 4 directions the enemy will attack from, send someone out to find out! I'm sure there's plenty of people out there willing to do some scouting for you (i've done it myself before in a loosely organised group, it's quite fun relaying info from an ESF that gets your forces where they need to be with the equipment they need).

[Figment]

Shade, in PS1 we would send out scouts all the time. Due to the command system and sitreps and coms and globals AND proper map indicators like base hacked, facility status indicators and hot spot indicators, we'd be informed enough to make an informed decision.


PS2 is largely gambling. Due to the speed of capture, any decision you make is quickly rendered obsolete though. You should not underestimate the impact of sheer numbers and overload of sensory input on the decision making of the average player.

[Dkamanus]

I don't know about you guys, but If I have someone in the air, and am gonna attack something, I generally order them to scout ahead quickly in order for me to have a forward intel to work on. Command Chat is dead, and commanders aren't giving any intel on positions they are attacking or anything.

Even yesterday on Waterson, people wanted to formed a single zerg on command chat, and I had to remind them NOT to do it, cause it would help less then they think. I guess I wasn't heard cause they formed up anyway in a zerg, and we saw little in continent increase, even having 41% of NC on Esamir and 34% of VS there.

BTW, plans never survive past the planning phase, someone said one time. And its quite true. What I plan is hipothetical. Always know how to improvise and zergs DON'T allow improvising.

[Figment]

Campaigns are planned. Battleplans are improvised.

[Figment]

The hex system IS a lattice system.


It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.


The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

Just saw this in Pointman's write up:

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/bare-bones-hex-system-ps2-beta.jpg

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/?p=37

Perhaps this thread and mine should be merged?

One of the studies on hexes and adjecency I did by cutting a few of those links based on actual geographical routes (not enough cutting probably) resulted in this:

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/IndarHexMinorLattice.jpg

[Sunrock]

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

I don't think you can blame the hex system on that there are no big and long battles. I think the base design has allot more to do with that. Remember a month a go when tech planets did not have the two generators outside? Remember what a meat grinder that was?

The hex system actually promotes a game play where zerging is less rewarding. Because you're waisting man power on taking one base with 150 man zerg that can be taken by 12.... As the OP pointed out. If you split up the zerg to take multiple hexes at the same time it would benefit the faction allot more.

Also it's quite easy to avoid the zerg if you have experience of the map and just cap everything around it.

[Ghoest9]

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!


If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

[Sunrock]

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!


If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

I agree. But I would still not blame the hex system for that. I would blame them not to give the conquering land a more important part of the metagame. Right now the only thing that really matters is exp/hour not how your faction progress in taking land.

[Dkamanus]

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!


If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

And that is mostly because developers are too afraid to put barriers or punish stupid behaviour in such games. They think most players are as intelligent as a door knob. Which might be true, but part of the problem comes from the fact that developers, thanks to the innate stupidity of players, think they won't help them get better by putting barriers, and so, its a vicious cicle that starts and never ends.

Quite a shame =[

[Stanis]

One issue that is not addressed with the change from lattice to hex is denial of benefit.

It is true the hexes can be remodeled and viewed as a tightly knit lattice system. Which results in many, many more redundant links.

We have very few benefits in game.
Only the main base benefits and the resources from the warpgate.

My opinion of failure within the hex system (which is fine for capturing territory) is it doesn't allow for denial of benefit or resource because of the redundancy in links.

This is one area that the simplified lattice system and generators allowed for more easily applied tactics on continental benefit strategy

[Sunrock]

And that is mostly because developers are too afraid to put barriers or punish stupid behaviour in such games. They think most players are as intelligent as a door knob. Which might be true, but part of the problem comes from the fact that developers, thanks to the innate stupidity of players, think they won't help them get better by putting barriers, and so, its a vicious cicle that starts and never ends.

Quite a shame =[

I would not say players are as intelligent as a door knob. A more correct description IMO would be to say that players are lemmings that follow the bath of least resistance. You can see that as a lack of intelligent or that all they want to do is to "win" in the most efficient way possible.

[p0intman]

I would not say players are as intelligent as a door knob. A more correct description IMO would be to say that players are lemmings that follow the bath of least resistance. You can see that as a lack of intelligent or that all they want to do is to "win" in the most efficient way possible.

as a ps1 cr5 that actually knew how to lead and how to conduct strategy, i can and will confirm that most zergling casual players are as bright and logical as a rusty, filthy doorknob. Also, I am not convinced that the OP actually knows what he is talking about, in fact, quite the opposite.

[Ghoest9]

I agree. But I would still not blame the hex system for that. I would blame them not to give the conquering land a more important part of the metagame. Right now the only thing that really matters is exp/hour not how your faction progress in taking land.

Ive never said that a hex system is inherently bad.
I would say that for the sum of various reasons the current system fails.

Im just weary of the brillant noob in every game that decides to blame the players for massive systemic failures involving the majority of the game population.

[Dkamanus]

as a ps1 cr5 that actually knew how to lead and how to conduct strategy, i can and will confirm that most zergling casual players are as bright and logical as a rusty, filthy doorknob. Also, I am not convinced that the OP actually knows what he is talking about, in fact, quite the opposite.

Ellaborate.

[Dkamanus]

Ive never said that a hex system is inherently bad.
I would say that for the sum of various reasons the current system fails.

Im just weary of the brillant noob in every game that decides to blame the players for massive systemic failures involving the majority of the game population.

The hex system does work and it does its job. People seem to be too accostumated to the "Lattice 1 obj at a time PS1 promoted", or the "FUCK THIS, IMMA GONNA SHOOT THIS MOTHAFUCKA!" Rambo stuff. I say PS2 did a pretty decent job of trying to be a more tactical/more arcade FPS, while not excelling in both. Yet Id say.

I'm not saying the PS1 battles weren't epic, but for nowadays people, they aren't interested in stalemates (can't figure out why) and the sense of rewards for most is just to shoot and not to be shot in the face. Problem is, this games plays MUCH more asymetrical compared to more linear CoD and battlefields that most player can't get a grip of a lot of little nuances (i'd say) in order the minimally know HOW to play this game.

Although shooting is a vital part, knowing what to do is another VERY vital part, and most don't seem to have the cerebral power to even turn their curiosities on in order to explore the game before actually playing it. And were not talking something in the scope of difficulty an EVE Online brings (which would be a total midfuck for most humans beings). This game adds MUCH more to it.

In one hand I see PS1 vets saying the game adds nothing and actually takes off, and maybe it does, but it still has the benefit of time in its hand (and I hope it does bring stuff from PS1 like ANTs in order to give more tactical gameplay). But the lattice system was a mechanic that made people all converge into one location and duke it out for that location.

It isn't a bad system, but its rather limited, if we consider the scope of the maps nowadays and how tecnology evolved. The hex system is a much more fluent and, unfortunately, for the average joe that plays videogames, which must be cattered to do stuff, its just a too complex system in order for him to take advantage. The Lattice systems of PS1 would compare to modern day FPS shooters "follow this". It was much clearer what needed and could be attacked.

In PS2, new players haven't the benefit of actually understanding where to go, and what to do (no thanks to the tutorial), and since a "lattice" system like the hex system is something MOST kids born in the nineties haven't seen while growing up, and do have a tendency to be MUCH more impatient, wanting to jump on the action and rambo everything (I've got some on my outfit, which I already pulled their leashes in order to stop, calm down and undestand the game) it isn't that hard to see why most people can't understand the hex system, even more in those little details.

[gunshooter]

Who can know if the Hex system is good or not? At no point have we actually had a chance to try it with well-designed bases.

And blaming the players for the failings of the game designers is the worst kind of fanboyism.

[Figment]

The problem is getting overwhelmed continuously, because players automatically concentrate themselves more than optimum spread. In ps1 you may have had four optional targets, but players could only muster a defense for one main territory, while all others were left to small groups to deal with. Including the major offensives.

The same thing happens here. Just the big offensive to ward off is so big and requires so many troops that the other groups are just steamrolled. That is primarily down to base design and these same small groups, even when more numerous, simply not having enough groups to ward off the second major offensive and their small teams. Especially not because logistics are never really favourable to small groups. And that has a lot to do with unit design.

The ps1 lattice initially had a few more options pre-capital system introduction. The force dome gameplay removed one central route from the lattice and made defense much easier and enemies too predictable. So while it would be okay to have two or three more routes total in PS2, we now, as shown by pointman's image, get several dozens of options that, due to lack of intercontinental system, are constantly changing hands and are impossible to hold on to even once captured. Again, due to defensibility and having to leave it undefended and without passive defenses and warning systems (CE) and ways to keep an eye on that (report/scout/command system lacks, even local chat lacks).


The tools are missing, it is too complex for the average player and even if you can read a map as most PS1 Cr5 can, you quickly become apathic as you realise this game is tailored to zerging when it comes to attack and you can do nothing but let it rage till it loses momentum by itself and some combat avoidance on your hand, more than by your direct actions. Indirect strategies like cutting of the enemy zerg is fine and we all do that, but you still want to feel you beat an opponent directly at times and you still want to actually fight and make an epic stand against all odds or at least give it your best shot. But the overabundance of one hit kill (aoe) weapons and armour presence and base design won't let you fight for that cc even when you do predict an enemy move. There is simply too little means to funnel and channel an attack in a way that let's you control direction and make them root you out.

You always end up feeling like a duck in a barrel when in direct base defense. You always feel like you are just sightseeing and allowed to take whatever undefended outpost, you feel like exploiting when you camp an enemy spawn, you feel annoyed and frustrated when an enemy zerg five times your size shows up in solo tanks and your one or two squads can't even return fire more than once before being spawncamped, lib bombed or grenaded out of your base hold. You don't feel useful when you switch a point before a base turns after a lot of hard work to even get there in time and then having the enemy overwhelm you, make your trip worthless and continue where you broke them off.

[yadda]

The Hex system is beyond terrible and I'll sum it up in 2 words

ghost
capping

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to chase around a group dedicated to just capping and running and avoiding all forms of confrontation? You confront one group and another is capping 2 other spots. Oh boy oh boy, this is fun.

Not really.

[AThreatToYou]

The Hex system is good, is just people that don't know how to use it

That's why it's bad, you derphead

[artifice]

The problem SOE is faced with is that simply giving better rewards to defend a base won't encourage anything because the zerg favors attacking regardless of the reward. The second issue is that slowing down the capturing has the side effect of being boring as you sit around waiting for the base to cap and the zerg still won't defend it.

The third issue is that Planetside 1 players don't want the possible solution of NPC fodder defending bases and thus giving the attackers something to do as they clear out a base. If they had to kill all NPCs in the base to conquer a base, it would slow them down and give the advantage to the defenders. NPC defenders also prevents ghost capping by a few.

[Vashyo]

I really dislike how the hex-system cuts from the focus of the battle.

In PS1 you had clear indication on whats the next target(s) and the battles happened naturally in between the locations or at the bases, now everytime you cap a base, you got like upto 6 choices where to go so it splits people.

But it doesnt even split people, expect the ghost cappers which are an annoyance, because the way I want to play the game (actually waging war instead of 10 minutes of blitzkrieg battles) is made harder by the annoying backhackers that cut you off so you have to constantly go reset the damn bases. :mad:


I do hope they find a way to make the hex system fun, but we'll see. as of now, I see it being a mistake idea.

[Figment]

The third issue is that Planetside 1 players don't want the possible solution of NPC fodder defending bases and thus giving the attackers something to do as they clear out a base. If they had to kill all NPCs in the base to conquer a base, it would slow them down and give the advantage to the defenders. NPC defenders also prevents ghost capping by a few.

PvP game.

One of the main reasons to play is not fighting NPCs who act predictable.

Plus you already die so quickly, why would you want to die even quicker when there already are more enemies than you? NPCs also benefit large groups.

Static defenses like Spitfire turrets would be accepted though as they would be placed by players.

[p0intman]

Ellaborate.
Will do, though this may deserve a larger post, so you may need to wait a bit.

[SeraphC]

The Hex system is beyond terrible and I'll sum it up in 2 words

ghost
capping

Do you have any idea how annoying it is to chase around a group dedicated to just capping and running and avoiding all forms of confrontation? You confront one group and another is capping 2 other spots. Oh boy oh boy, this is fun.

Not really.

Well, you can see on the map when a territory is being capped. You can also see how far they are into the cap attempt and an estimation of how many enemies there are. Those are two great tools. We just need to have the chance to use them.
Capping should take more time and/or scale a lot stronger with the number of people involved. That or they should implement the need to hold multiple points at the same time to initiate the capture or any other method that would force a longer/more numerous presence to cap a territory.

[ringring]

The hex system is just a lattice as Figgy said with a resource lumped on to try to give a reason to fight.

As a whole it doesn't work.

But the hex system doesn't stand-alone. Many different or even all systems in the game interlock to make the game what is it.

The hex system, the resource system, defensibility, air/armour/infantry balance, capture times, map deficiencies, lack of control and coordination systems, lack on continents, no sanctuaries, no home continents, no global meta game.

Everything links to everything else.

Unfortunately all of these will need to be address or adjusted to put the game right. 6-12 months.

[Rolfski]

Maybe I've played too many turn based strategy games but a hex system feels more "modern" and "strategic" to me, where a lattice system feels "limited", "linear", "old-fashioned" and "gamey".
Whether this is true or not doesn't matter. It's a feeling many other players also might have and can become a factor in how people perceive this game.

As if the hex system can really work, I think it can. It's already very useful in dealing with zergs and as said above, there are many other factors in play that determine its success. Resolving issues like ghost capping and indefensible bases will for sure help a lot.

[Figment]

Even so rolfski, in hex based games like Civilization, you have very different means of territory control, good overview and you can maintain borders without having to defend each hex border simultaneously.

I played loads of turn based and RTS based conquest games, some with literal hexes, many with representations. For instance turn based: Civ 1-5, "Robert E. Lee - Civil War General", Ceasar II, Age of Wonders, RISK of course and then there's RTS games like Europa Universalis II and III, Crusader Kings II and many Total War games. And the list goes on and on. Most of these even have a way to even ignore adjecency rules as you can take territory at will, you just like good solid borders because that let's you focus your forces on the border areas and stop threats well before they get to your core territory.

And most of these force players to engage each other directly at some point, typically through front lines where there's a unit per hex and you have to try and break through to encircle, in PS2 you don't have to try to breakthrough, you just do.


They're all lattices. But within those, you control the linearity and the game constantly warns you on what is happening. Note also that there's a huge difference between turn-based and RTS gaming, even within these very similar games.

RTS provides you with far less time to plan and respond and often requires you to pause the game in order to come up with a plan to micromanage everything. In PS2, you can't even macro-manage everything, let alone micro-manage, because all the units do whatever the hell they please.

[MuNrOe]

There is no logical progression with the hex system. The bases are not linked meaning they have no purpose.

Take a PS1 Base behind enemy lines. You take that out you limit the enemys ability to spawn tank and reavers. Takes 15 mins of the enemy having to defend the hack you delay their forces and can go back and re-secure.

Take a PS2 Base behind enemy line's and ??????? nothing it serve no purpose and whats worse is that it can be recapped in a very short period of time so all that work now is gone.


The hex system also stems the flow of battle out too far over the map. If a point is too hard to take instead of fighting for it you just zerg around it ghost capping everything.

So many times ive seen massive armour columns just completely avoid each other where in PS1 and the lattice system they were force to fight in the field to make it to the next objective in PS2 they just go around.

I like to thing the zerg is like electricity in the way that it takes the path of least resistance. Unless you force it to move threw the resistance it will simply go around. Instead of a logical progression of 2-3 attack fronts in PS1 you now have 12-13 at most times.

Combine that with really bad defencible bases and everything just becomes a storm and camp easy fest. I dont know about anyone else but im missing the "Having to work my ass off" to cap a base as opposed to the easy mode gaming to suit short term smal minded play style we have now.

Combine that with really pathethic AA thats purpose is to deterr instead of kill and we have the Air Camp Festival we currently see in game.

Its got nothing to do with "People Not Knowing" how to use the hex system, people know how to use it the problem is that the system itself is flawed and simply DOESNT WORK.