Why It Doesn't Matter Whether We Have Links or Hexes...

[NewSith]

So, I hink we've all seen the new WIP (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=54989). The problem I see with it is that links will automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame.


What I imply is following, let's take Company of Heroes for example. Being on a friendly territory gives you certain abilities, or to put it properly being on an enemy, neutral or unconnected territory gives you penalties.

Here're the examples:

You can only build defensive structures on a friendly territory.
You cannot upgrade buildings outside friendly territory.
You cannot upgrade units outside friendly territory.
Certain units (British) move slower on enemy territory unless they have a commander unit with them.
Certain abilities, like Scorched Earth (Automated Artillery working for a certain period of time, hitting enemies) only work on friendly territory.

...and so forth... There were certain units and companies (a-la generals from CnC Generals) that specialized entirely in fighting on enemy territory, like Airborne Company for Americans, Royal Commandos Support for Brits, etc. Now PlanetSide 2 doesn't unfold the territories potential at all, that's why people only see territories as something tied only to resources.

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

The removal of territories can completely eradicate such interesting concepts as territory denial or, hell even outfit benefits and facility ownership. Let's take a look at what we'll never get then:

AMS having a longer spawn timner on an enemy territory.
Squad Spawning only available on enemy territories for specialized outfits.
Special Facilitiy upgrades

Reducing 2D/3D spotting time on the territory
Reucing respawn time on the territory
Adding territory radar
...etc


Special Commander abilities, tied to territory
CE metagame, like having some CE deployable only outside enemy territory, like say MANA turrets or special terminals...
...and opening the ability via Outfit specialization.


I can come up with lots of stuff on this matter, but there's one final point. The new small hexes allow territory to be set by them and not just be radial, like in PS1 with its SOI's. This means that the benefits mentioned above will be valid on the whole entirety of the frontline.


TL;DR Think twice before embracing the Good Ol' Lattice, represented by links instead of hexes.

[Phantomdestiny]

they could work out an algorithm which adds the SOI of basses together and fill the gaps around the front line . also it would be more organic than the hex SOI were you quickly move from territory to territory. But obviously this doesn't seem simple

[Punker]

Was just going to say something about the SOI, but you beat me to it.

What phantom said.

[NewSith]

I just fail to see why they need to break a simple system, to create an even simpler system, but with handicaps, to later implement an extremely complex system, that would only turn away new players. This is what one of the problems of PS1 was, it was way too complex where it shouldn't have been.


EDIT: Besides if they do the first 2 steps, I doubt they will EVER go for the third one (the one with the complex system). They are not renown for this.

[Punker]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130509_518c2a7600789.png

So you can still have enemy and friendly territory, from a TR perspective, blue and purple areas are enemy territories. Red is friendly. One small adjustment to sharpening the gradient and you have something that works better than the hex system ever could.

[NewSith]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130509_518c2a7600789.png

So you can still have enemy and friendly territory, from a TR perspective, blue and purple areas are enemy territories. Red is friendly. One small adjustment to sharpening the gradient and you have something that works better than the hex system ever could.

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

[Punker]

One small adjustment to sharpening the gradient and you have something that works better than the hex system ever could.
Please draw a line around what you didn't read.

[NewSith]

Please draw a line around what you didn't read.

Sharpening the gradient won't do at all. Because the line is still gonna be blurry. And by your one smal adjustment I assume you don't mean drawing a stroke between the territories, since the hex system does exactly the same.

So, please, don't accuse me of not reading what you said, because what you said was pretty much a double standard.

[Punker]

I'm pretty sure you're drawing a stroke. Didn't mean to be so harsh and shut you down like that but you're arguing semantics. Yes your grand little idea can work with both systems so this entire thread is essentially you saying you like the hex system better, just because.

[AThreatToYou]

The new lattice doesn't mean we can't have territory. While it doesn't functionally matter whether or not we have lattice, we should get either SOI on bases or clearly defined territorial lines if we do get the new lattice.

Personally I'm in favor of using hexes for territory, but lattice for base links. Facilities (bio labs/amp station/interlink/tech plant) should be linked only by lattice. Smaller bases like The Crown and The Stronghold can keep the hex-based territorial capture method.

- No lattice link to a facility, no facility capture.
- We can experiment with whether or not hex-linked bases are capture without a link. Personally I am in favor of letting outposts be open to capture. This is so the attackers can move on after disabling a facility and are waiting for capture.
- Hex-bases must be linked to a facility in order to send/receive resources. Facilities must be linked to the warpgate via the hex system in order to send-receive resources. Facility benefits stretch based on hex (territory) connections.

[NewSith]

I'm pretty sure you're drawing a stroke. Didn't mean to be so harsh and shut you down like that but you're arguing semantics. Yes your grand little idea can work with both systems so this entire thread is essentially you saying you like the hex system better, just because.

No, I'm just saying that there's absolutely no point in rebuiling something that is already appealing enough. Plus I'm saying that knowing SOE, they will (if they didn't already) abandon the idea of territories once they their WIP goes live.

[ChipMHazard]

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

Agreed. That is something that I do want to change. They didn't have to remove the hexes entirely, could still have used them as a way to better define borders, UI wise.
I don't like how the areas blend into each other. Altough being colour blind I am biased in this respect:p

I can certainly see your point about the possibilities tied in with having territories, Sith. Not sure I really care what system they go with though, as long as they pick one and stick with it. The current hex system has potential, which has yet to be tapped.
I'm sure they will add in an AOI if needed, which I do hope becomes needed in some fashion. But still, the game is very far away from being able to expand on either with player placed/owned buildings, special buildings that give benefits to an area (Like a radar dish) etc.

[Carbon Copied]

I think the end result will be that the territory boundaries between factions are going to go on the "territory control" tick box filter; I'd be very suprised if they don't.. as although the lattice lines give a good push/pull direction without the need for the individual hex blocks it doesn't give a clear front line to some.

Changing colour intensity will probably help (I'm partially colour blind and have to have them on primary Red/Blue/Dark Purple in order to see them more clearly on the map/HUD); but a hexed zig-zag line will just help define it I think along with the lattice lines. I do like what they've done though.

[Baneblade]

This is what one of the problems of PS1 was, it was way too complex where it shouldn't have been.

What was complex about PS1?

[NewSith]

What was complex about PS1?

Let's just put it this way - I doubt that your very first acquaintance with PlanetSide 1 was in any way resembling your first time with any game of, say, BF series. Or, if you like it more that way, UT2004's (and further) Assault/Onsluaght modes.


The way the lattice worked, the inventory tetris, the certs, the objectives (Generators, CCs), inter-continental travel, it was all VERY hard to swallow at once, while the information itself was essential to just play the game properly. And what I mean was complex, is not the presence of the aspects, but their presentation.

[Phantomdestiny]

you could always add a line between both gradients or to make it even clearer by having a no mans land corridor between both factions territories

[Baneblade]

Let's just put it this way - I doubt that your very first acquaintance with PlanetSide 1 was in any way resembling your first time with any game of, say, BF series. Or, if you like it more that way, UT2004's (and further) Assault/Onsluaght modes.


The way the lattice worked, the inventory tetris, the certs, the objectives (Generators, CCs), inter-continental travel, it was all VERY hard to swallow at once, while the information itself was essential to just play the game properly. And what I mean was complex, is not the presence of the aspects, but their presentation.

I don't think it was overly complex. Sure it took different amounts of time for newbies to figure out gold ammo was very situational, but it was just a learning curve. A lot of people actually thought PS should have been more complex, myself included.

[fierce deity]

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

Here you go.

http://i.imgur.com/FwjL2er.jpg

[Rahabib]

Territories still exist. The new system makes sense as bases are the main objective not territory or roads.

[NewSith]

Here you go.

http://i.imgur.com/FwjL2er.jpg

You do realise you only strenghtened my point with this drawing? It eludes me why people keep making posts like these, knowing that the original message was rethorical...

I can also draw lines as much as I want (http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o287/NewSith/20130509_518c2a7600789_zps2fd1d6df.png), but they will NOT be precise, unless there's a distinct visual indication of borders in the game itself.

[Lonehunter]

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

There isn't, and really there never was with the hex system. Because it's irrelevant. It's not like you're within range of a base to get it's cap xp or status updates when you're in it's hex. It was just a way to try to map out the map, and SOE admitted it wasn't perfect.

It's like a tailbone now, there but not needed.

Battles are never defined by territory borders either, this is what hot spots are for.

[NewSith]

There isn't, and really there never was with the hex system. Because it's irrelevant. It's not like you're within range of a base to get it's cap xp or status updates when you're in it's hex. It was just a way to try to map out the map, and SOE admitted it wasn't perfect.

It's like a tailbone now, there but not needed.

Battles are never defined by territory borders either, this is what hot spots are for.

I say that in the OP, but my point is a little bit different. All I said in the OP I can sum up by saying:
If they remove territory, they will "automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame".

But if the community doesn't need the game to be strategically deeper, then I have no problem with it myself. And I'm not implying anything here.

[Shogun]

Here you go.

http://i.imgur.com/FwjL2er.jpg

exactly.

just a matter of tweaking the visibility of the borders.
something soe should be able to do.

and the rest of the wip pic simply is boss! we need the links (or lanes or what they call it) to be visible at a glance. and the wip delivers!
could be even a little more visible like with thicker lines.

the map as it is, is not very useful. you have to stare and search for everything. it needs simple and clear elements, and the wip pic is a big step in the right direction.

[Baneblade]

A well defined border doesn't matter.

[Shogun]

A well defined border doesn't matter.

it matters if you want to know where to expect benefits, penaltys and for ressource denial/aquisition

things that are not too important right now, but might become important in a possible metagame at some point.

but hexes look so 80s and stupid. and it takes away too much of the visibility of other things on the map.

[Rahabib]

it matters if you want to know where to expect benefits, penaltys and for ressource denial/aquisition

things that are not too important right now, but might become important in a possible metagame at some point.

but hexes look so 80s and stupid. and it takes away too much of the visibility of other things on the map.
They could just tie in resources to bases and not land. It would make sense to me anyway.

[NewSith]

They could just tie in resources to bases and not land. It would make sense to me anyway.

But we're not talking about resources here, are we?

*cough*
Now PlanetSide 2 doesn't unfold the territories potential at all, that's why people only see territories as something tied only to resources.
*cough*

[ShadoViper]

If all these people are failing to meet your point, perhaps its time to revise what you're saying and explain it in a different way.

[NewSith]

If all these people are failing to meet your point, perhaps its time to revise what you're saying and explain it in a different way.

They don't fail to meet my point, it's just a classic case of "OP's tl;dr, I'll just figure out what it says by comments". More than half people here commented right on point, so I doubt that it's the clearness of my thought's that's lacking, it's more about the formatting. And in regards to this subject, I assure you, I tried to get it properly several times, so what you see is the best I managed to accomplish.

[Climhazzard]

Here you go.

http://i.imgur.com/FwjL2er.jpg

Actually... You've counted the VS territory in the upper left of that screenshot as "TR Territory", so maybe his point is more valid than you might think.

[capiqu]

The new lattice doesn't mean we can't have territory. While it doesn't functionally matter whether or not we have lattice, we should get either SOI on bases or clearly defined territorial lines if we do get the new lattice.

Personally I'm in favor of using hexes for territory, but lattice for base links. Facilities (bio labs/amp station/interlink/tech plant) should be linked only by lattice. Smaller bases like The Crown and The Stronghold can keep the hex-based territorial capture method.

- No lattice link to a facility, no facility capture.
- We can experiment with whether or not hex-linked bases are capture without a link. Personally I am in favor of letting outposts be open to capture. This is so the attackers can move on after disabling a facility and are waiting for capture.
- Hex-bases must be linked to a facility in order to send/receive resources. Facilities must be linked to the warpgate via the hex system in order to send-receive resources. Facility benefits stretch based on hex (territory) connections.


I am so with you on this.

[capiqu]

A well defined border doesn't matter.

Tell that to North and south Korea. LOl

[Ssential]

I say that in the OP, but my point is a little bit different. All I said in the OP I can sum up by saying:
If they remove territory, they will "automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame".

You wrote "Links will automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame" which isn't true because:

Links =/= removal of territory
Who says you can't have links AND territory? The links or lattice system isn't the problem here but you mention them as the problem. That's why people here are so confused.

[Mightymouser]

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130509_518c2a7600789.png

So you can still have enemy and friendly territory, from a TR perspective, blue and purple areas are enemy territories. Red is friendly. One small adjustment to sharpening the gradient and you have something that works better than the hex system ever could.

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

Personally, I don't think we need distinct lines to be able to incorporate territory control; the areas where there is not a clear delineation are simply areas were no one has total control of the region. The more surrounding area you have, the stronger your regional influence, and the further your reach extends.

You can still incorporate everything on your list into the game, it just doesn't apply to the region where the land is 'jointly contested'. And honestly that makes more sense from a logical point of view. The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

It's not a clear delineation on the map, but all that is needed to solve that is a HUD element telling you the respective percentages of 'control' for the region you're in; and a mouse over on the map could do the same thing.

Plus there is the advantage that this map just looks nicer than the hex maps...

[Lonehunter]

If they remove territory, they will "automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame".
HOW? I read your OP, you talk about different mechanics that could be implemented, all based off ownership of "territory". I understand specific uses for things in enemy territory, limiting use of things in enemy territory, etc. Some of that is in PS1 and could add another tactical choice if added in PS2.

But I still think the hex system was irrelevant to this, as in it could still be implemented with it.

and now without the hex system, it could still be implemented.

Previously when you crossed a hex you were in another territory by label only. You could still be so far from the base or outpost and you don't get any status updates or xp from caps. So your so far from the relevance of that territory you have NO IMPACT, but you've still crossed territories, an imaginary line. If you implement any equipment or bonuses, like Company of Heroes, based on who owns a territory, in my opinion you'd have to set a sphere of influence around the outpost to use anyway. You can't set restrictions/bonuses for units/equipment based on territory control in open areas that have no meaning to any base and are just filler in the overall hex system because nothing can be "not hexed"

With the new system, just use the Sphere of influence on a base to grant/prevent territory units.

[Baneblade]

Tell that to North and south Korea. LOl

Tell us again how North and South Korea have a hot war and a constantly shifting territorial claim.

[NewSith]

You wrote "Links will automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame" which isn't true because:

Links =/= removal of territory
Who says you can't have links AND territory? The links or lattice system isn't the problem here but you mention them as the problem. That's why people here are so confused.

Don't you just see that on the WIP pic? The way they do it is a step away from definite territory. And it's not even an assumtion.

With the new system, just use the Sphere of influence on a base to grant/prevent territory units.

That's a valid point, but my personal opinion on the matter is that Territory > SOI.

You can still incorporate everything on your list into the game, it just doesn't apply to the region where the land is 'jointly contested'. And honestly that makes more sense from a logical point of view. The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

You'll be surprised but even with "joint territories", there's gonna be that one point stepping over which locks you out of the abilities... Though, I do like the idea behind it.

[Mightymouser]

You'll be surprised but even with "joint territories", there's gonna be that one point stepping over which locks you out of the abilities... Though, I do like the idea behind it.

I'll be less surprised than you might imagine:
The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

[NewSith]

I'll be less surprised than you might imagine:

I definitely missed that line.

[Figment]

I definitely missed that line.

NewSith, Mouser is like Figgy. We hide important stuff in other stuff.


It's our job as infils. ;)



But yes, clear defined borders aren't per definition necessary for every single thing you want to have an affect for.

You could have a strength effect related to the distance from a base, ie. a dynamic effect. This could be amplified (cumulative) by being closer to another base. Take for instance Bio Lab regeneration. Imagine the effect is 100% within the immediate SOI of the base, then weakens the further away you get. If you're however in between two bases you own, the effect could stack.

Similarly, getting closer to an enemy base could create interference and a reduction of the effect.

You could even have some overlap between territories. And why not? Think of a PS1 situation where you own the tower and they own the base, but the tower SOI lays within the SOI of the base: both of you can now place CE stuff in that overlapping area, where otherwise only one could.

In this sense, having clear defined borders - especially as arbitrary as grids - makes it less logical, because distance to a base doesn't mean squat. You could be right next to a Bio Lab, but not get its effect, because you're close to an enemy base and that means you're in its hex.


What you could do, is simply show all the applicable effects somewhere in the HUD (could be a pop up or overlay) with a strength indicator next to it.

Tbh NewSith, you need to think outside the bo... hex a bit. ;)

[NewSith]

Tbh NewSith, you need to think outside the bo... hex a bit. ;)

It's not about the boxes I think in. It is in reality about how "readable" that sphere is. With definite borders, there's no need to calculate the "probability" (figurally speaking). I had it said some posts ago here, that your proposal(s) is not a broken system. I only said that it is abundantly complex if you compare it to the grid. Well, at least if it works the way it's represented in the picture, where you don't have that strict line, be it a hex border or SOI from PS1.

[RANDOMpercent]

The way they have it right now on PTS is its basically the hex territories with the lattice connections between bases. So the things posted by the OP are still possible.

[Figment]

It's not about the boxes I think in. It is in reality about how "readable" that sphere is. With definite borders, there's no need to calculate the "probability" (figurally speaking). I had it said some posts ago here, that your proposal(s) is not a broken system. I only said that it is abundantly complex if you compare it to the grid. Well, at least if it works the way it's represented in the picture, where you don't have that strict line, be it a hex border or SOI from PS1.

But for the things you mentioned in the start, how many do you need strict knowledge of if they're a tiny little bonus? Most of the things you mentioned in the OP are thing you aren't even strictly aware of as a player, so it's all in all pretty irrelevant and the remainder can be solved by HUD elements (for instance, show deployment ranges for engineering items).