Lattice flow mechanic details (not the actual link-count, for once)

[Figment]

You know how every time we talk about the lattice/hex adjecency system, we always end up talking about how many links, etc?


But what we're never talking about, is when a link that's available, is actually NOT available!

What's this nonsense you say? Well, this is about the conditions and details of link hacking rules that might prevent a link from being usable or not.






To illustrate I'll have to refer to a detail of the lattice system in PS1 that most people here seem to have forgotten about, but that actually dominated movement and helped focus battles as well:

Only one end of the link can be hacked at the same time.


With one exception: when both ends were being hacked at the same time. This rarely happened more than once or twice a month, since it meant people would have had to start hacking the other end's control console within the same 30 seconds. These situations were rare.

The consequence of a link being viable or not, is that players start moving to make the links viable. They can't after all, attack a link that's invalid for them.

http://farn.s22.xrea.com/weblog/archives/CyssorSide.jpg

If we look at this detail image of Cyssor for instance, (in this case from a Vanu Sovereignty perspective), we can see that the links available to the Vanu are yellow. Invalid links for the Vanu are greyed out, locked links between bases of the same empire, are blue, purple or red.

If we were to look at the same image from a New Conglomerate perspective, the link leading from Nzame to the northeast and to Tore would be yellow, the link between Leza and Tore grey and the link between Mukuru and Leza would be grey, since the VS hacked the NC link, after which the console console got locked.

If the NC would want to attack Leza, they would first have to resecure Mukuru, forcing a confrontation between the attackers and defenders. This mechanic was frequently used to stall an invasion force by the smarter teams. For instance, if a defense was under threat of crumbling, when an invasion on a new continent occured, but the opening link in question would not be hacked yet, a small force could counter attack and hack the link on the other end of the warpgate. This would force the invading army to either wait till the hack was released, or to go back and defend.

In PS2, such a rule does not exist. Attackers can at all times make use of links that have adjecency, even if there's a 95% hack on the other end.


The LLU Exception
In PS1, there was an even more rare exception to this rule:
The Lattice Logic Unit (LLU) (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=LLU), for those unfamiliar with it:

http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/images/b/bd/LLU.jpg (http://wiki.planetsidesyndicate.com/index.php?title=LLU)

It was a pulsating, glowy orb that had to be brought from one base to the other and would spawn in a particular socket inside the base (not at the CC). Think capture the flag, but only attackers could hold it. If the carrier was killed, the LLU would drop and would have to be guarded by the defending party. If the LLU dropped into water, it would be destroyed.

To capture the base, the LLU would have to be taken to the Control Console on the other end of the link (which shouldn't be hacked in order to deliver it). It was destroyed if the LLU either wasn't delivered in 15 minutes, or if the Control Console hack was lost before it was delivered.

Normally, the LLU would spawn upon a base being hacked. However, if there were no free links, including the situation where both ends of the only link was hacked, where the LLU base was hacked a few seconds later, the LLU would not spawn and the base would become a normal hack and hold.

The LLU itself would be an interesting mechanic for PS2, but here it's more about the conditions under which something is and is not possible and what kind of hold may occur.

The Capital Base Exception
The second exception introduced in 2005 to the link validity rules, was the capital rules. Continent capitals had a protective force field over them, which would deactivate upon 3 out of 4 (ie. 75%) of the links being in enemy hands. But the shield being down, wasn't the only requirement to hack a Capital: In order to make use of the link when the shield was down, an enemy had to have at least two of the four links.

In practice, in a two-way fight, it frequently meant that you'd need to hold three links. Till then, the keeper of the Capital would often simply use the capital for logistical benefit, but beyond that they could ignore it and completely focus on the sub-capital bases.

I personally found this to be a very constrictive rule for the original PlanetSide, because there were just three routes through each continent. In PS2 however, we have many more links and way more routes. So many that restrictions are frequently suggested. However, many also argue that the a fixed lattice with few links is too restricted.

What restrictions are in place in PS2 at this time?
The sole restriction in place today is having a tiny grain of influence. Influence is created by having tangent regions, which serve as links. The influence can be as little as 5% in order to create a potential link.

The influence also currently affects the capture speed. However, the speed continuously varies with the surrounding bases switching hands constantly.

Due to the lack of "you can't use this link"-type rules, the bordering regions frequently change hands without you being present to defend, often not even being able to get there due to being busy. This leads to frequent ghosting, unpredictable timers and other silly things.

So how can we apply these rules to PS2 with the current hex system?
Here's where it gets interesting.

What if we combine hex influence, with some form of link validity conditions as described above?



What if:


You need a minimal amount of 40% influence to start a hack on an adjecent region?

This influence is allowed to change without any effect on the timer or possibility of hacking once the hack is actually being started?

Capture times have set length with just the influence modifier?

There is only one Control Console per base to hack and hold?

A Control Console is hacked the region's influence on surrounding areas is regarded invalid, but still counts as the same percentage? (greyed out)

The moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the duration of the hack and hold timer?


Standard timers for bases are created for set percentages of influence (up for debate):
Base outposts:

Always instant capture


Minor outposts (3 hexes or less)

40% - 60%: 5:00 mins
60% - 80%: 3:30 mins
80% - 100%: 2:00 mins

Mediocre outpost (medium region size):

40% - 60%: 10:00 mins
60% - 80%: 8:30 mins
80% - 100%: 7:00 mins


Major outpost (tower controlled regions and large regions):

40% - 60%: 12:00 mins
60% - 80%: 11:00 mins
80% - 100%: 10:00 mins


Main base:

40% - 60%: 15:00 mins
60% - 80%: 13:30 mins
80% - 100%: 12:00 mins



A resecure doesn't require a hold, just hacking the terminal back to be under your side's control?

Influence doesn't determine the resecuring holding time (for abase that is yours, but hacked by enemies), but:


The time it takes to actually hack the terminal itself (resecure time)?


The resecure times are standard for all classses, with the exception of the infiltrator (hacking certs)?



LLU's are reintroduced and the moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the time you have to escort the LLU?


LLU links are always available for running.

The higher the influence, the longer the time you have to deliver the LLU before it self-destructs.


The Remote Electronics Kit (REK) is reintroduced as an alternative tool in the Utility Slot (replaces Medkit, C4, Ammo Pack, etc.)

The certification for the REK allows faster terminal hack times:


No hacking certs: no hacking speed bonus: standard 1:30 mins
Infiltration suit: -10 seconds
Basic: -20 seconds (infil: -30 seconds)
Advanced: -35 seconds (infil: -45 seconds)
Expert: -50 seconds (infil: -60 seconds)




You would still have the same adjecency options, however, at times you'd have to create links by capturing a bit more surrounding territory first. This provides a bit more focus, without forcing extremely specific routes, since influence could be terrain occupied on opposite ends. However, it allows some territory to be temporarily safe.

It allows players to actively deny areas, by attacking adjecent territory first and denying the influence. This forces a few more direct confrontrations as players would have to watch the map more and keep terrain secure from other empires, while also actually being able to keep it secure by smart target selection.

The most important thing is to represent this graphically and intuitively (tutorial on capture mechanics would be appreciated) so players would come to understand it relatively quickly.


The change in capture system and reduction of control consoles would allow single wave resecures to be succesful. That should for instance increase the importance of Galaxy Drops.

[Rolfski]

Sry, I have not played PS1 and have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. English please. For now, I can only say that your ideas sound way too complex to me. How do you expect an average player to ever get a grasp of these mechanics?

As far as this whole lattice discussion that PS1 vets keep bringing back: The last dev meeting with Azure Twilight pretty much made it clear for me that it's a dead end. Devs don't want bigger, focused battles that bring PC's to a hold and players apparently also (Indar being the most popular continent.)

[ShadetheDruid]

The LLU concept has always seemed really weird to me, from when I first heard about it (that's not long ago, I never heard about PS1 until I heard about PS2 :p ).

I mean, from an "outsiders" perspective it seems really arbitrary, to the point where you might as well just call it a "flag" and have it flag-shaped. Seems like all they did was take a flag, make it glowy/spherical and call it an "LLU".

What would make more sense if the system was reversed and you had to bring in some sort of computer-related thingy from an owned base to the new one. For example, during the capturing procedure, someone had to go pick up a thing from an owned base (one of the larger ones) and bring it to the base you wanted to capture. Like some sort of mainframe link device to connect the new base up to your empire's computer mainframe.

I realise that's practically the same thing, just reversed, but has more of an in-world feel to it (at least to me). I also realise that I just picked out a tiny piece of your post and typed up a massive piece of nonsense, but hey.

[Dougnifico]

OK, the bringing back of the LLU is something that could be very cool but could be easily abused by griefers and saboteurs. You would have to have a system to manage that.

Making a mandatory influence level to gain access to certain facilities could be a great idea. You could do 40% for main bases, 20-30% for large outpost, and have everything else fair game. This could also give small outfits something to do by stealing away influence to deny a hack.

The REK is dead and will likely stay there. Its no fun to sit on one spot for and extended period of time and just hold down a button. The current hacking and subsequent tug of war system is a good one. Multiple points can also be a good thing. Look at bio labs. It prevents one giant clump with super-lag.

Also, remember that PS2 is made to appeal to a broader audience. It needs more depth, but it must have rules that can be quickly understood by newer and solo players.

[Figment]

On the LLU: The only reason the LLU worked was because you'd get a head start. It was a race against the clock with a hold and a stealing convoy part that'd take less time than a base hack (thus made it very attractive to reserve them for last stand enemy bases, making specific bases be captured faster and as priority targets to establish a larger foothold: you'd prioritise bases linked to LLUs, so you could quickly run the LLUs before the enemy could respond and thus expand your terrain and the base benefits your side held on that continent).

And yes, it is a capture the flag (LLU) type capture. However, it is tied to a king of the hill element: hold the Control Consoles (start and end point). There have been occasions where a LLU was thwarted by holding the LLU target base's CC without hacking it. It's far more tactical than a simple capture the flag.

But there's little point in a "bring to enemy base within X minutes" thing without first holding the other control console. Can you imagine how hard it'd be to get in if all air units on the continent converts on a position that hasn't been taken yet? There'd be no point in even trying. We've had such events in PS1 (Monolith event and rabbit), where you have to go into an area close to the enemy where they know it's going to be there. If it spawns in another base than the base under contest, it'd be logistically a lot trickier to ensure someone is there to pick it up (someone would have to want to wait over somewhere else where no fighting is occuring, meaning they can't contribute into getting control over the other base or they'd have double the travel time, which isn't exactly streamlined). It would also not be intuitive to a player at that base that they have to do something over at another base.

Now, if they see it appear on the minimap nearby, they'll instantly know this is something special. When they grab it, they get instructions on where to go (marker appears and text in screen). Hence I feel that from a player understanding perspective, it's better to do the PS1 style LLU, than to invert it.



@Rolfksi: please state the terms you don't comprehend. Everything is in pretty plain language, in fact, I think I've fully explained everything and the suggested rules are very carefully defined. If you don't know what the REK is, I suggest you look it up on the planetside syndicate wiki.

[Figment]

The REK is dead and will likely stay there. Its no fun to sit on one spot for and extended period of time and just hold down a button.

Kinda irrelevant and arbitrary, since we already do that as infils with terminals. The standing around in a random proximity of a terminal where everyone sees you're trying to hack it is IMO actually worse, because it makes a lot of people stand around the same point constantly, instead of tasking them with covering the approaches to it. The only reason we're all shown it's being hacked is because it's in a place you can't reach as defender and which isn't naturally protected. Which tbh, is simply just annoying. I'm quite annoyed with the location of the CC being always so far out of reach.

The current hacking and subsequent tug of war system is a good one. Multiple points can also be a good thing. Look at bio labs. It prevents one giant clump with super-lag.

Bio Labs are a giant clusterfuck of chaos that always leads to an eventual win by the attackers instead because the flow is bad and defenders have too many points they must control. If you look at my ideas for Bio Lab Flow, you'll see I've got some other things in mind there. And no, the Bio Dome is not properly designed, because it's very disconnected from the remainder of the base.

The multi-points design for most the bases guarantee wins for numerically advantaged enemies and don't task them with any bigger skill than farming an outdoor crossfire.

If The Crown was possible to take with a single incursion attack like a triple Galaxy drop and a one minute hold, it'd be over far more often than now.

Also, remember that PS2 is made to appeal to a broader audience. It needs more depth, but it must have rules that can be quickly understood by newer and solo players.

The current system is worse for understanding by the broader audience, especially because it's currently far too complex to manipulate for the average player that likes the RTS element.

Please don't pretend these rules aren't intuitive once applied or too hard to comprehend. In text it might seem complex, in practice it's really, really simple: you create a capture influence treshold by stating "you need this much" (could be a line, could be a green light next to a question: can be hacked?), show the influence each empire has, which are valid and which aren't and you're done.

In fact, that'd be more intuitive than the current system, which has no indicators beyond "there's some random percentage, but we won't tell you what it means in detail aside from more is good, less is bad". I mean, we're all over 16 here (and below shouldn't be playing due to rating). We're not in kindergarten anymore.


The broader audience doesn't all drool and if they do, they better find a leader cause they won't be able to lead anyway. Not in the current system or any other system.



And frankly, I get very tired with the argument that things can't be complex for "the broader audience", where the lowest 5% common denominator is usualy determined to be the audience everything has to be designed for.

Wide audience doesn't mean sanatorium audience.

[ShadetheDruid]

But there's little point in a "bring to enemy base within X minutes" thing without first holding the other control console. Can you imagine how hard it'd be to get in if all air units on the continent converts on a position that hasn't been taken yet? There'd be no point in even trying. We've had such events in PS1 (Monolith event and rabbit), where you have to go into an area close to the enemy where they know it's going to be there. If it spawns in another base than the base under contest, it'd be logistically a lot trickier to ensure someone is there to pick it up (someone would have to want to wait over somewhere else where no fighting is occuring, meaning they can't contribute into getting control over the other base or they'd have double the travel time, which isn't exactly streamlined). It would also not be intuitive to a player at that base that they have to do something over at another base.

Now, if they see it appear on the minimap nearby, they'll instantly know this is something special. When they grab it, they get instructions on where to go (marker appears and text in screen). Hence I feel that from a player understanding perspective, it's better to do the PS1 style LLU, than to invert it.

That's true, though I was focusing more on the "LLU" itself than what you do with it. Just seems a bit weird from a "roleplaying" perspective to have something nebulous like a random glowy orb, when you could've had something that made a little more sense (like a computer mainframe linking device).

I mean, maybe that's basically what an LLU is, i'm not really sure. But it's like the difference between taking a USB with information to/from a computer and taking a glowing rubber duck that just spawns out of thin air to do the same thing.

Maybe i'm just being picky. :p

[Figment]

That's true, though I was focusing more on the "LLU" itself than what you do with it. Just seems a bit weird from a "roleplaying" perspective to have something nebulous like a random glowy orb, when you could've had something that made a little more sense (like a computer mainframe linking device).

I mean, maybe that's basically what an LLU is, i'm not really sure. But it's like the difference between taking a USB with information to/from a computer and taking a glowing rubber duck that just spawns out of thin air to do the same thing.

Maybe i'm just being picky. :p

Well the orb was pretty much that: A magical techno doohicky McGuffin substitute for a flag! ;)

Eh. It made you and your vehicle light up on the map, glow in the dark as if you'd have car emergency lights and you'd be the target of all aircraft within a 5 mile radius. :p




Why do you think the fast and agile Skyguard buggy was typically used for this and the frantic calls for aircover filled the chat windows? xD

Attempt 1:
*Zergling hacks base*

Commander1: "Oh, base hacked already. Who got a Skyguard at Kisin?"

Commander 2: "Well duh, nobody, we wanted to get a Skyguard out, but we can't now the base is hacked as the base lost the Tech Link."

Commander 3: "-.-' Obviously... We and mankind are doomed."

Commander 2: "Zerg is still in tactical diapers."

Commander 4: *just arrives* "I got one!" *proud*

Commander 1-3: *pee in pants for great justice*

"Anything on us yet?"

"No. Don't see any..."

*BOOMbadaBOOMbadaBOOMbadaBOOM*

"WHERE ARE THEY!?"

"THERE'S FOUR REAVERS FIVE O' CLOCK!!! STEP ON IT!"

"I AM! I AM!"

"Mother of god... YES GOT ONE! GOT TWO!"

"SWEET?"

"SEVEN!"

"WHAT?!"

"SEVEN MORE!"

"AAACK!"

"Oh wait! 2 of our ow.... NOOOooOOooOOoooooo! He went down!"

"Got one! Another one making a pass! EVADE QUICK!"

"If I give it anymore she's gonna blow cap'n!"

*explosion*

"Quick! New transport! How's the CC holding?"

*etc.*


Aaah. Stress adrenaline rushes on command and driving level. :p

[Kerrec]

I think establishing an influence threshold for being able to hack the next hex is a good idea (40%, or whatever).

I do not think that having the hack timer change dynamically based on influence changes is silly. It gives smaller units, or people with less powerful computers a place to go to affect the fight without walking into a zerg.

I won't comment on the rest since my flame retardant suit is only so thick...

[ShadetheDruid]

Well the orb was pretty much that: A magical techno doohicky McGuffin substitute for a flag! ;)

Well if they do add the LLU to PS2, I hope they do add it as a glowy rubber duck instead of an orb! Bonus points if you can put it in a vehicle appearance slot as a hood ornament. :p

[Figment]

I won't comment on the rest since my flame retardant suit is only so thick...

Pfft, as long as you don't drop to conclusions "beyond doubt" without having experienced something first hand, there shouldn't be issues. ;)

And yes, this happens to be largely PS1 inspired, there were after all a lot of ideas on many levels that worked. That said, it's not a copy, but a new alternative that happens to mix concepts and would hopefully take the best of both worlds.

The amount of influence is a bit arbitrary though (40% suggests it's reasonably available, but the exact percentage could vary as seen fit and could vary for various base types). Really depends on the hex layout and percentages after all.

[Sturmhardt]

I love your idea about hexes that can only be hacked if you own 40% of territory around it. It would slow down the fastcapping through single persons and battles would become more concentrated. With the Hex system I find myself too often capping territory with no resistance. Very good idea.

I also like the idea of fixed timers, because it would give you time to plan on and you could estimate if it's worth fighting back or not in a splitsecond. The downside: The current capture mechanics would have to change drastically. While I would like that, I don't know if there is any real chance at this time in development that this could happen.

Also, the LLU should return, it's just an awesome mechanic. Maybe the biolabs or techplants or whatever facilitys could only be hacked through an LLU or something... it would definitely only work for some huge bases because noone would fight for the LLU if it belonged to a small outpost.

[bpostal]

Interesting ideas here, par for the course I suppose. You do neglect one thing Planetside lattice has that PS2 does not. Drains. They were a pain in the ass to clean up if the enemy was really dug in but it added in the ability to create another front (even if it's just temporary) that could be exploited by a coordinated effort.

...I can only say that your ideas sound way too complex to me. How do you expect an average player to ever get a grasp of these mechanics?

...Devs don't want bigger, focused battles that bring PC's to a hold ...

It can get really complex but once you've got the basics down the rest just falls into place. Understanding and recognition on the status and hackability of the bases comes easily and quickly enough. The depth that it added to the game, especially the global lattice, can not be understated.

As to your second point, these are true statements, but SOE's inability to deliver the massive gaming experience that was promised is not (nor should be IMHO) our primary concern. The fact is that as it currently stands the fight is typically spread thin over multiple continents instead of concentrated, via the lattice or similar mechanic. Once optimization and hardware come up to specs and the netcode (read: lag and rendering issues) has been unfucked I hope to see larger and more epic engagements, befitting of a Planetside title.

[Figment]

Well drains are a thing of its own. It is more a link generation thing, as you create new links gor everyone upon neutralisation and take some safety away, the problem is that currently bases are taken with such ease, a drain is simply too powerful. :(

If they can get defensibility to a level where a fight can last an hour or five, drains would be a worthy addition. In the current situation, anything helping the attackers strengthens the overkill of attacker's advantages.

[Mietz]

If they can get defensibility to a level where a fight can last an hour or five, drains would be a worthy addition. In the current situation, anything helping the attackers strengthens the overkill of attacker's advantages.

PS2 will not have this level of defensibility.
The dev team repeatedly stated that they don't want the hours-long base assaults/defense from PS1 and instead want to have multiple moving fronts with quick assault and re-take.

I'm not sure you will ever see a defensible (PS1 defensible) base in PS2. The game in its entirety of design and philosophy simply doesn't allow for it.

[exile]

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

[basti]

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

Then tell me such a way.

[Figment]

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

What I like about this statement is that it means you didn't read a single word of the opening post and dropped to conclusions based on the title. :rolleyes:


Why? Because it's about applying conditions to the hex system-lattice to make it more controllable without literally removing links.

[exile]

What I like about this statement is that it means you didn't read a single word of the opening post and dropped to conclusions based on the title. :rolleyes:

Why? Because it's about applying conditions to the hex system-lattice to make it more controllable without literally removing links.
I read the first 9 paragraphs you wrote, which were discussing the PS1 lattice system. And looking back now you continue talking about PS1 for about 15 paragraphs.

I'm amazed that anyone manages to get through an entire post of yours. I'm sure you have some worthwhile input but it is always buried under unfocused and unnecessary verbiage. I think your contributions to the community would be much more valuable if you would think a moment about the actual result you have in mind and try to communicate it in a straightforward, clear manner. Detailed examples can be used later to illustrate specific points, if people need them, but any reasonable mechanic shouldn't need pages of text to describe or justify.

[Figment]

Exile, you completely fail to realise the motivation and point behind my manner of writing. I have to explain in detail what it does and why for very good reasons. Yes, I explained ps1 system consequences of specific design details. Why? Because I realise most new players here didn't experience it and wouldn't understand without explanations anyway. That actually includes a lot of devs and at times the old players need a reminder how it worked again, what details existed or is talked about and what the goal is.

I don't give a fuck what you think is necessary. If I feel it is necessary, it is. People make dismissive irrelevant postings all the time that are too short to have valuable content and then you actually need to make new posts to explain concepts and then again because people havn't read all the replies first. I'm steps ahead of you and built up an argument that includes any necessary background information.

Now, if you would realise I first present a context, examples and then use new context and practical applications, you would realise I use a Vision In Productdesign (VIP) design approach. First I explain how things worked and how players interacted in the old context. Next I provide a vision of how they would interact in the future, why and why this is a good thing. But you only can realise what it does when you know the history of such limitations and the current context and why the PS1 context is relevant.

Instead, you expect me to arbitrarily say "let's combine the details for LLU, capital rules and link viability conditions to PS2 by adjusting how influence works", do you realise at all that nobody would understand what the fuck I'd mean by that? Especially new players? I'd be asked to explain each detail anyway, plus since people wouldn't have a chance to understand, I'd get more of the retarded "you just want a carbon copy of PS1" posts, like your first post in this thread.


What you call unfocused is simply providing a broader perspective and frame of reference and expecting and answering probable questions in advance. Apparently much broader than the narrowminded and short attentionspan thinking and forumpost expectations you hold. So I don't give a flying faeces about what you think of it and if you can deal with it in the way I post: Design concepts require deeper thought than 95% of the posts your average gamer is capable of or willing to put effort in: context, theory, practical implementation, side-effects, alternate uses, systems, context differences and alternate concepts, competition, abuse potential, etc. That largely includes design history of alternatives. They all have to be discussed and understood, otherwise you got a pretty crappy concept and you only begin to communicate it.


That you fail to understand why this post is not incoherent, might actually be a problem on your end. Because I had damn good reasons for the order and content of the opening post: I wanted to discuss the finer elements that within the lattice (which PS2 has as well), but since they are typically overlooked it needed a reminder. Besides, there is an intro and a conclusion. What more do you want?


Speaking of concise, next time just write tl;dr and get the hell out of my thread: it gets the same message across and doesn't contribute anything more than you did in two posts now. But that you didn't read the whole post is not my fault, but your attentionspan lacking. That you drop to conclusions is not my fault, but your prejudice and not reading the entire post first: I'm getting to the most important point at the end, since many only read the end and beginning if they want to know what it is all about. That you always fail to see structure in my postings is probably also because you lack understanding of my methodology and motivations, but considering the amount of people that do get my posts, this might be your error as well.


Please realise I don't want to talk to people with short attentionspans. They hardly ever have anything of value to contribute on a detail level. Please realise I don't want to have to retroactively explain things I could have defined clearly in the opening post.

You know, what always happens when someone makes a short post that can be interpreted in fifty ways and people have to fill in the gaps and create their own image of what is actually discussed. Why should I type in fifty arbitrary short posts throughout a thread what I can do in one at the beginning? Plus I really don't want shortattentionspan people to linger. I want meaningful indepth discussion, not superficial spam where people have incomplete information and need to be brought up to speed time and time again. Particularly those that only read the opening post.

Now stop derailing with your forumpost aesthetic demands and contribute or please ignore the thread.

[exile]

Exile, you completely fail to realise the motivation and point behind my manner of writing.
What is your motivation for posting here? What specifically are you trying to achieve?

Now stop derailing with your forumpost aesthetic demands and contribute or please ignore the thread.
I didn't actually demand anything, I was making a suggestion as to how you could communicate more effectively. Admittedly I was fairly aggressive about it, but that's because your pompous manner really bugs me :\

[Figment]

What is your motivation for posting here? What specifically are you trying to achieve?

I believe I just explained in excruciating detail in the previous post, it's about knowledge transfer, beyond simply communicating the solution alone. Why? Because it wouldn't fit with my target group. I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay: just look at the detail levels that are missing in PS2 from 10-100% driving speed controls to HUD solutions, to base layouts to why adjecency rules had to be implemented to not realising the Galaxy AMS was a bad idea.

To understand that, you have to ensure they see the bigger picture and understand previous cases and implementations and their (side-)effects, positive and negative.

- Establishing problem definition / frame of reference.
- Establishing design scope.
- Design (history) of alternatives on which the new design is based.
- Old context and interaction, vs new context and interaction.
- Visualizing the interaction of the previous system in the old context, particularly for new players.
- Refreshing the memory of old players on particular details of the old system refered to.
- Steering debate to focus on these details, rather than the lattice in general, which is what normally happens.
- Explaining new players some of the terms refered to and their impact, prior to them having to ask these questions (this is a courtesy, as well as a productive part for debate: everyone who reads it can ask directed questions and has some idea of what it is about).
- Explaining/establishing intended impact.
- Explaining/establishing objectives of design change.
- Argumenting particular method of implementation
- Concluding with a specific design suggestion.

I don't expect people to be fully aware and I want them to with as little distracting questions as possible. This is already way too much off-topic debate.

I didn't actually demand anything, I was making a suggestion as to how you could communicate more effectively. Admittedly I was fairly aggressive about it, but that's because your pompous manner really bugs me :\

It would be more effective to you perhaps. Yet if it had been really summise, it would result in a continuously off-topic derailment on definition and elaboration questions by people who simply miss the background information. Look at Rolfski's post, I'm not sure what info he doesn't 'get', but if I had straight gone for the new system suggestion, he might as well think it's a PS1 carbon copy since he wouldn't be able to compare the two contexts. Even now he has trouble with imagining what the terms mean and imply. I can't blame him for that, he simply doesn't have the same frame of reference and experience as I do, he has a different set, a different technical vocabulary. :/


As happens pretty much anytime non-PS1 (resecure) vets participate in a debate. Simply because they don't have the same(ish) vision, frame of reference, experience or scope (or understanding of that of long time peers) to appreciate particular design details without background information. They literally have no idea what "LLU" means and the PS1 wiki is hard to find. They don't intuitively have insight or recall from memory what unit acquisition rules were in place and how say a base hack or capture changed those. They simply never experienced it and its consequences.

They can't really know how enemy's responded to combinations of such systems psychologically, logistically and pre-emptively and in which situations, offensively, defensively or in what configuration and which flows occured, group size, unit types used, deployment method, routes used, speed of capture, response times, ease of capture, resecure priorities, etc. etc.

The impact is often a butterfly effect many don't even see. Let alone if they experienced neither the butterfly nor the aftermath.


If I'd start playing EVE or WoW now, I wouldn't have the balls to suggest to know what systems works or wouldn't work and what impact they'd have. Until or unless I had seen something in action in a very similar context, so one could know the context well enough to be able to predict how changes would likely effect something. Why? Because one must be able to accurately scenario build before one can pass judgment. Since it is unlikely new PS2 players can come to understand through play experience, they need to be informed differently. Anticipating questions and explaining concepts in advance saves us all time and helps discerning differences on a detail level.

Kerrec for instance often simply assumes/assumed I want a PS1 carbon copy of something, simply because he's unable to compare the sometimes subtle, other times massive differences between the two and because somewhere I referenced some system or solution from PS1. Now, I can't blame someone like him for not seeing the difference (if it's not carefully explained in both old and new context and each aren't seperately evaluted on merits for that context), but I can fault him for not accepting when someone else might have a substantially better vantage point.





So sorry, but I'm not pompous, nor exactly arrogant either. I'm simply aware not everyone has equal weight and knowledge in debate. Which isn't meant disrespectfully, it's simply a fact of life that most people don't dare point that out because they think it's rude. I'm not saying I'm omnipotent or omniscience. But when one bluntly suggests an authority distance (even if argumented) this is usualy confused with sheer arrogance, whether it is true or not due to expecting a politically correct subtle answer.

To me it would be arrogant for one who is unaware to assume otherwise based on ego alone...

[exile]

I believe I just explained in excruciating detail in the previous post, it's about knowledge transfer, beyond simply communicating the solution alone. Why? Because it wouldn't fit with my target group.

I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay: just look at the detail levels that are missing in PS2 from 10-100% driving speed controls to HUD solutions, to base layouts to why adjecency rules had to be implemented to not realising the Galaxy AMS was a bad idea.
So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

It would be more effective to you perhaps. Yet if it had been really summise, it would result in a continuously off-topic derailment on definition and elaboration questions by people who simply miss the background information.
Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!


Look at Rolfski's post, I'm not sure what info he doesn't 'get', but if I had straight gone for the new system suggestion, he might as well think it's a PS1 carbon copy since he wouldn't be able to compare the two contexts. Even now he has trouble with imagining what the terms mean and imply. I can't blame him for that, he simply doesn't have the same frame of reference and experience as I do, he has a different set, a different technical vocabulary. :/
This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.

So sorry, but I'm not pompous, nor exactly arrogant either.
The below quotes show that you really are:

I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay...

...As happens pretty much anytime non-PS1 (resecure) vets participate in a debate. Simply because they don't have the same(ish) vision, frame of reference, experience or scope (or understanding of that of long time peers) to appreciate particular design details without background information...

...Now, I can't blame someone like him for not seeing the difference (if it's not carefully explained in both old and new context...

[Mietz]

So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).


Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!


This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.


The below quotes show that you really are:

Can you stop derailing this thread?
If you have beef with him, duke it out over PM FFS.

[bpostal]

In the interest of trying to get this thread back on topic before Hamma shuts it down for the bullshit that's going on for pretty much the entirety of the second page...

PS2 will not have this level of defensibility.
The dev team repeatedly stated that they don't want the hours-long base assaults/defense from PS1 and instead want to have multiple moving fronts with quick assault and re-take.

I'm not sure you will ever see a defensible (PS1 defensible) base in PS2. The game in its entirety of design and philosophy simply doesn't allow for it.

There is one base that you can hold for hours against an overwhelming number of assaulting forces. You know the one:

|\/\/\/|
-------

Okay, so that's a pretty shitty ASCII Crown but there ya go.
Granted they just 'nerfed' the defensibility by opening up the flow of combat (and I should probably note I haven't been to the crown since the WGs have been flipped) BUT the sheer popularity of the crown should at least show a desire for long, drawn out assaults/defenses.

[exile]

Ok, sorry. Allow me to contribute constructively to the thread. Here is a summarised version of the OP, for those who didn't get through it:

---------------

The issue I'm addressing is the inability to "lock" areas in any way once they are captured which leads to the bordering regions frequently change hands without you being present to defend. This leads to frequent ghosting and unpredictable timers. I suggest a fundamental change to the influence rules to address this, as follows:

- You need a minimal amount of influence to start a hack on an adjecent region (e.g. 40%)
- Once the hack is started it is not effected by influence.
- There is only one Control Console per base to hack and hold
- The moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the duration of the hack and hold timer
- Standard timers for bases are created for set percentages of influence, with larger bases taking longer (up for debate):
- A resecure doesn't require a hold, just hacking the terminal back to be under your side's control?
- Influence doesn't determine the resecuring holding time (for abase that is yours, but hacked by enemies), but the time it takes to actually hack the terminal itself (resecure time)
- Infiltrators can cert into a new skill to speed up hacking.

I also propose a new mechanic to create a focus for fights within a base. It is modeled on the LLU from PS1 and requires what is essentially a "flag" object (suitably styled for the genre, a glowy energy source or something) that spawns at an existing base and needs to be transported from this location to the Command Console of the target base in order to complete it's takeover. The "flag" will self destruct after a certain amount of time (which could be effected the amount of influence when it spawned) and must be delivered before that happens.

With these changes you would still have the same adjecency options, however, at times you'd have to create links by capturing a bit more surrounding territory first. This provides a bit more focus, without forcing extremely specific routes, since influence could be terrain occupied on opposite ends. However, it allows some territory to be temporarily safe. The change in capture system and reduction of control consoles would allow single wave resecures to be succesful. That should for instance increase the importance of Galaxy Drops.

UI support to make these mechanics clear for new players is, of course, vital.

Discuss.

---------------

Let me know if there is any vital information that I haven't communicated.

[Mietz]

In the interest of trying to get this thread back on topic before Hamma shuts it down for the bullshit that's going on for pretty much the entirety of the second page...



There is one base that you can hold for hours against an overwhelming number of assaulting forces. You know the one:

|\/\/\/|
-------

Okay, so that's a pretty shitty ASCII Crown but there ya go.
Granted they just 'nerfed' the defensibility by opening up the flow of combat (and I should probably note I haven't been to the crown since the WGs have been flipped) BUT the sheer popularity of the crown should at least show a desire for long, drawn out assaults/defenses.

Yes, Crown stalemates are legendary and people flock to them.
The same was the case with Tech Plant pre-nerf.

However even with the TP, the defensibility only went so far as to delay the attackers success for a set amount of time.

Currently defensibility even of the Tech Plant and Crown variety only functions as a choke, but not as defense.
I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

In PS1 as I understand this was actually possible.

It would be preferable to have actual defense instead of continuously delaying the inevitable (base flip). This is only compounded by the problem that currently bases and hexes have little strategic value and so a concentrated force might be fighting at the Crown, but will quickly be isolated.

I hope this makes sense.

[bpostal]

Yes, Crown stalemates are legendary and people flock to them.
The same was the case with Tech Plant pre-nerf.

However even with the TP, the defensibility only went so far as to delay the attackers success for a set amount of time.

Currently defensibility even of the Tech Plant and Crown variety only functions as a choke, but not as defense.
I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

In PS1 as I understand this was actually possible.

It would be preferable to have actual defense instead of continuously delaying the inevitable (base flip). This is only compounded by the problem that currently bases and hexes have little strategic value and so a concentrated force might be fighting at the Crown, but will quickly be isolated.

I hope this makes sense.

It makes sense (I saw your previous post about how it's 4am where you are) and now that you point it out, I haven't seen (personally) too many instances of the defense getting pushed way back into the base (the tower proper in the case of the crown, and the superstructure of the tech plant) and then pushing the offending empire back a hex or two.

What we have currently in these locations is similar to pushing the CY to get an ANT in. It buys you time and is a nice little 'fuck you' to the other faction when you go from 10% to 40% NTU but it's only a delaying action.

In the interest of not becoming a larger hypocrite than I already am and derailing this thread myself, I'll state the fact that I personally believe that what you're referring to is an issue of supply lines and logistics (towers in Planetside, unlike the hard spawns surrounding a facility in PS2, didn't have any vpads.) and leave it at that.

Getting back on track: With adjacency % requirements and longer cap timers as is suggested slowing down the pace of strategic engagements, bases would gain some permanence. (since they're not flipping constantly)
I should say though, that the influence % shouldn't apply after the hack has gone though. That'd just bring us back to where we were at the start of beta with bases flipping because you failed to hold some ancillary outpost.

The important part of slowing cap timers (while not the direct purpose of this thread, more of a happy side effect) down would be the increase in viability of resecure and fast response gameplay. Mmm...Fast response.

As to the reimplementation of the LLU: As far as I'm aware, it's still on the list of 'things to do' and once it's in, will kick some ass. The sticky part that I see is that in Planetside, your LLU could be inside the enemy base, seconds from being capped but as long as you had an Advanced Hacker at the CC, you could resecure the base without having to track down and destroy the LLU carrier.

Whole bunch of rambling but I think ya see where I'm going with this (or will once you get some sleep!)

[ShadetheDruid]

I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

I've actually seen this more than a couple of times now since the update (might be something to do with the defensibility updates, certainly makes me think they had some sort of positive effect at least).

Just last night I was fighting a the Crossroads Watchtower (as NC, against the TR). They had both of the outer capture points and were almost finished with the cap, but we actually managed to make a last minute push and resecured (and took the fight to them instead).

We could even get out of the spawn room and defend the stairs from the garage area, which makes a massive change from what it was like before.

[Figment]

So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect).

You are not seriously suggesting the devs understand all subtleties of PS1 and even PS2's systems? They didn't even comprehend the obvious flaws nor bigger implications of galaxies as AMSes: every single point of critique in beta about gal-AMSes I had already predicted prior to alpha footage, based on the mere suggestion of a Galaxy as AMS.

"Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it." -Kup

There are so many examples. Hell, most of the defense spawnroom design updates of the previous patch can largely be attributed to my critiques and suggestions. The exact execution is theirs, but I've told them how and where to use specific design elements in great details and the difference between early iterations and the current spawnrooms are huge, so is their impact on defensibility.

I'm simply saying that playing and developing say Everquest doesn't make you understand Planetside on a command and therefore tactical and strategic flow level. And no, they don't always know. Not by a longshot. Some might, but I will assume otherwise to be certain, because I don't know who does or doesn't and if they transfer this knowledge within the team or keep it to themselves.

FFS, if they all already know everything, why are we here providing feedback and correcting them all the time?! Don't make the arrogant and stupid claim that devs always have a good idea what they are doing, are always fully aware of alternate systems and know everything of importance, never overlook details, always understand every minor aspect or notice every minor aspect.

I hope you didn't want to imply that, because it would make you look rather stupid. It'd rather share too much just in case, than too little to not offend someone by suggesting there is a chance they didn't notice.


Considering none of these systems are in place at any point in time since alpha, I believe it save to assume they either didn't look into it, missed it, or didn't realise the importance of these details. I know for a fact that Malorn was in part hired because he does have more experience than the other devs with this.

Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!
That was you.


This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.

Disagree, much more speculation would occur on the impact and much more questions would have been asked. LLU discussion is fine, been there done that now.


The below quotes show that you really are:
No, they show that you interpret them as such. As I pointed out before because you aren't capable of distinguishing between arrogance and blunt but fair critique on authority positions and knowledge.

Why are you so arrogant to assume otherwise, if all the evidence suggests the contrary?

[Mietz]

I've actually seen this more than a couple of times now since the update (might be something to do with the defensibility updates, certainly makes me think they had some sort of positive effect at least).

Just last night I was fighting a the Crossroads Watchtower (as NC, against the TR). They had both of the outer capture points and were almost finished with the cap, but we actually managed to make a last minute push and resecured (and took the fight to them instead).

We could even get out of the spawn room and defend the stairs from the garage area, which makes a massive change from what it was like before.

Thats not exactly what I'm talking about.
What I mean is you have a base fight and then you actually "secure" the facility.
i.e. the assault is done and they have to leave.

This is simply not possible because there is no condition to lock a base and prevent a flip (beyond actively fighting for it and delaying the inevitable).
The defensibility of bases is tightly tied to the actual capture mechanics, its not just a question of having more walls, turrets, shields and mans.

A guy on the SOE PS2 forums called Tuco is constantly calling for the return of minefields, spitfires, cloaked AMS and motion detectors for example.
And don't get me wrong, they would all be fun and add a certain edge for the defenders, but they wouldn't make a base defensible in the sense I understand it. They would only hold back a tide that will overpower you at some point.

What I'm talking about is actually securing the base in the sense where the defenders aren't tied up in the defense anymore but can go on the offensive in the knowledge that their job here is done.

Yes, I'm implying base-locks, but -clever- base-locks that aren't an automatic win for the defenders by just holding the facility or resecuring it (like in Beta).
Figments system would in fact give a chance for that, but it would be solely by virtue of holding and securing the outlying hexes instead of an actual mechanic for the bases themselves.

It would be a good step forward, but I'm not sure of the long term consequences as the link-structure in the current "lattice" might screw over some bases that have less links and therefore can't achieve the suggested X% of influence as not all bases have the same amount of adjecent territory that would provide influence.
So for one base you would need to take 2 outlying outposts to "unlock it" for capture, but for others you would maybe need 4.
The most obvious candidates for this to happen are outposts that are on the edge of the map as they have less territories connected and able to provide influence.

I would need to analyze the structure of the hexes for a more specific example but I'm too lazy right now.

[exile]

Hell, most of the defense spawnroom design updates of the previous patch can largely be attributed to my critiques and suggestions.
:lol:

What was that word again?

[Figment]

:lol:

What was that word again?

You being completely ignorant to my Private messaging and emailing with world designers since Gamescom?


Maybe you are not aware I have a direct line to some of them? Maybe you don't know something I do in my spare time?


Oh wait no, you have all the knowledge of the world and us players are all equal peons and plebs. :rolleyes:

Look up my spawn building redesign threads, look at what I've een suggesting and which features have been added and ffs look at Arclegger's response: loves my type of constructive critique! Look at the design suggestions and compare the shapes and placement on the new towers and spawnbuildings. The only things missing are a CC and SCU in the building itself.

Your inability to even imagine there might be some truth in it is typical of your prejudiced posting behaviour though.

What if I am responsible for them looking at these things and implementing these as I claim, is that arrogant? Sod off.

Back in alpha/beta I campaigned for the ground AMS even when the gal was deemed final and most of the changes are coincidentally the same as the things I talked about directly to the vehicle designer (who loved my AMS Mk3 thread) and Higby. At Gamescom, Higby said he loved reading my really long posts along with Malorns due to them being filled with interesting perspectives, good arguments, good examples, deep thoughts and background info that is easily missed. If you did not notice, both are major improvements to gameplay and wern't ideas or adjustments that originated in the original dev design philosophy.

I give the devs credit for undertaking an incredibly complex and ambitious product. But I don't expect them to understand everything in such a short development period. Worked with enough designers to know they all mean well, but they are all only human. Including me.

That doesn't mean I can't ever claim influence, when it is fact. You may be oblivious to it, but not all communication happens in public.


For the record, Malorn is very interested in this topic and has been discussion this internally with others and by Skype and PM with me ever since he became dev. Told him then I don't have much faith in the mass on point system and my expectation critiques turned out to be correct.

Mark my words: expect more capture system, map design and lattice composition and rules changes.



I don't like to brag, otherwise I would have claimed it before, but I can claim some credit when it is due if you make assumptive character attacks. They are just humans, they need us, US, for indepth constructive feedback and creating insight in player behaviour and psychology. Even if we risk being superfluous.

[Kerrec]

Figment, I'm not writing to say you do or don't have these amazing insider contacts. But can't you see that what you write sounds absolutely absurd?

I do mechanical (robotic) design for a living. I work with colleagues that do the same. When one of us is stuck, or can't be creative, we ask each other for help. When we get that help, we don't go to management and say, "Hey look at MY fantastic idea!". I give credit where it is due, because if I don't the ideas will dry up, or I'll damage my working relationship with my colleagues.

Therefore, I find it really unlikely that if the entire design philosophy behind something that is implemented into the game came from one person, which you claim is you, the developers wouldn't at least give you some form of public credit. I'm also sure, by the attitude you display in these recent posts, that if you DID have that kind of credit, you would be flaunting it instead of writing about it.

Regardless, what you wrote sounds alot like, "I'm the only expert that is qualified, that cares and that SOE needs, so everyone that critiques me better shut up and get lost."

[Figment]

Kerrec, you read far too selectively. I never claimed sole expert.

I claim less expertise in new players, including you.

I prefer discussions with members from particular outfits, due to their playstyle requiring experience and intricate knowledge of the systems, new and old. With you, I can only discuss what is, somewhat what could be, but not at all what was, because you are biased towarss and ignorant of the previous incarnation's subsystems and details.

It is for people like you that I explain these things first. That is called courtesy. Or did you know already everything about those ps1 systems, how and why they were implemented and their (side-)effects?


I severely doubt it. The same goes for the dev team that I can't imagine having been part of command chat or anything, seeing some of their vids where they were ingame of PS1 and their movement patterns and choices. That is fine, as long as they know they wern't the best players ever with a thorough understanding of ps1. And they kinda do admit that, which I respect. Knowing your own limitations is very important in design. I don't typically discuss certain specifics of PS(2) gameplay, because it isn't my expertise, thus not my place to make suggestions. Continent and base/outpost flow, base layouts, defenses, vehicles, infiltration, objectives and player psychology? That's my thing and no, I'm not the only authority on it. I always check with dozens of players from other outfits. Particular the resecure outfits that see more diverse fighting and have more demanding odds to take on and have been doing that for years on end. I value their critique much higher than that of most new players. With some exceptions.

I would call that realistic, not arrogant. You keep assuming negative things about me rather than taking me at face value though. I'm always honest and direct. I would find subtle and gossip unfair. However, honesty can hurt egoes. And that is what you and exile can't handle it seems. I'd accept your critique if it was fair and not selectively biased.

I don't want or ask public recognition, there are way too many players that provide good feedback. Mentioning me would not do those justice. And why do you assume they would do that? They don't mention who is to be credited within their own team, why would they credit someone outside of it if the info is provided as fair use? Doesn't make sense.

[psijaka]

Derailed thread is derailed. Seriously guys, figment went to a lot of trouble over his OP, and it deserves better than this.

As I see it, the main problem with the current implementation of the hex system is ghost capping. I'm fine with the fact that influence can change during the course of a capture or defence as this adds some real time strategy to the game; capturing an adjoining base can influence a battle at a nearby major base, especially if it has several control points. So I'm not in favour of any mechanism that would not allow influence to change dynamically.

And in my opinion, the OP ideas just seem too complicated and arbitrary; far better to have a simple system - think of the game of go, very simple rules but huge levels of complexity in how the game plays out. On the whole, I like the hex system, especially on Indar.

Now, ghost capping. A simple way to reduce this would be to require the attackers to hold the point for progress to be made, rather than just hack it and move on to the next base. No such requirement for the defenders. Simple but effective.

[Kerrec]

The thread is pretty much derailed. I do feel bad for derailing the TTK thread, since the OP wasn't involved in the derailing. However, this is Figment's thread, and he's doing the large majority of the derailing.

At post #9, I pretty much said exactly what you just said, Psijaka. I left my input at that, because I didn't want to look like I was intentionally derailing Figment's thread.

However, the last bit between Figment and Exile is just over the top. I am not defending Exile, but I am calling out Figment. His attitude to "discussion" is "Thou art not worthy, begone".

Look I don't have PS1 experience. However, I DO have 35+ years of gaming experience, across ALL KINDS of genres. I've played single player games, PVP, RVR (team vs team vs team), games with class structures, games with open character structures and the list goes on.

I even have beta testing experience. And I don't just mean being given access to open betas. I was the Mercenary Team Lead for DAoC for around 9 months. I have spent countless hours on their test server, testing "issues" to prove them right, or wrong. I compiled monthly reports, sorting thru community feedback to sift the garbage from the gems. I have experience providing feedback, as well as communicating with Devs.

Yet if I so much as call Figment out on anything he writes, I'm (and other people as well) too ignorant to know how things work? Too ignorant to know that changing one thing has consequences and side effects? Too ignorant to SEE how something that works in a subscription based game would or would not work in a F2P game? Too ignorant to realized how a good idea could be used to grief, or simply bypassed to the point it is just a hassle to players more than anything?

If Figment has quality ideas and feedback, then he should simply write what he has to say, and let the merit of what he wrote speak for his ideas. Instead, he routinely calls people stupid, ignorant, dumb, silly thinking that if he can swamp his "opponent" in walls of derogatory text, someone like a developer will side with him because of how forceful his posts are.

If people post things that are truly stupid and dumb, or would never work, then he doesn't even NEED to reply. The people he is supposedly targeting (the devs) will be able to sort the garbage from the gems all by themselves. Instead, they probably leave the thread after the first bit of flaming.

I don't care if I'm derailing the thread further, because if I was a dev, I would have stopped reading this thread a long time ago. They have plenty of places to get sources of material. They have no need to wade thru walls of text telling people they are stupid, silly and can't possibly intuitively understand how game mechanics worked or would work.

The OP is good stuff, if a bit long winded. The first page pretty much says everything that needs to be said. The other two pages are just garbage, and Figment is just as repsonsible for it than Exile, myself or anyone else that is derailing this thread.

[psijaka]

Not in favour of a 40% or whatever limit. If any of the hex territory being hacked is adjacent to territory held by the attackers, then the attack can go ahead. The penalty being that it will take ages, and under my proposal, the attacker would have to be at the control point for the attack to progress.

Also, if they get cut off from their territory, then influence is zero and the attack should fail.

Not sure if I explained what I meant correctly in my previous post, for the attack to proceed, the attackers have to be at the point, no progress if they clear off and leave A at 0/2, then nothing happens. No such requirement for the defenders though, it's their base.

[bpostal]

Well, we tried to fix it but it looks like this thread is fucked. I'm gonna to fuck about in the 666 free money thread. Cheers

[Kerrec]

Well, I have to agree with Figment. If a territory is "adjacent" because of one line on one hex, I find it pretty weak to consider that a valid hex to attack, especially since some hex groups wrap around others.

I like the idea of having a minimum adjacency requirement because:

1) it allows people that WANT to play defense to narrow down where they have to defend. Instead of playing catch-up, they can be pre-emptive.

2) it gives a way to know when the defense has won. I mean, right now you can resecure and hold an objective that was taken, and the game congratulates you with a big "base defended" pop up, but that's generally NOT the end of the defence. That may simply be an ebb in the flow of battle. There should be a point in the battle where an outfit can say, "Ok, they don't have enough adjacency anymore, now we can leave this base and push to make sure they don't get enough adjacency to try again on this base." A transition from defense to offense. That's when you start to push the front line forward and the base becomes secure, ie: completely defended.

3) Ghost capping: If it was my choice, I would not allow a base to be cappable unless all the points was fully manned. IE: you need [6/6] for the bar to progress. (no empty base being flipped scenarios)

I can only guess at how many ghost caps are just solo people trying to make a difference. I myself am part of that problem, but the game allows it, and why shouldn't I cap a base if I can? Especially if it will help with adjacency, where a big fight is happening? IMO, this IS the kind of human behavior that should be controlled by game mechanics. I would still play the game if I couldn't cap a base on my own. I would just do one less cheesy thing...