Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Everything you read here is a lie.
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
|
2013-05-11, 05:50 AM | [Ignore Me] #1 | |||
So, I hink we've all seen the new WIP. 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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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:
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. Last edited by NewSith; 2013-05-11 at 10:34 AM. |
||||
|
2013-05-11, 06:02 AM | [Ignore Me] #2 | ||
Second Lieutenant
|
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
|
||
|
2013-05-11, 06:31 AM | [Ignore Me] #4 | ||
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. Last edited by NewSith; 2013-05-11 at 06:36 AM. |
|||
|
2013-05-11, 06:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #5 | ||
Corporal
|
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. |
||
|
2013-05-11, 07:13 AM | [Ignore Me] #7 | |||
I don't like how the areas blend into each other. Altough being colour blind I am biased in this respect 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.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature *Disclaimer: When participating in a discussion I do not do so in the capacity of a semidivine moderator. Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions.
Last edited by ChipMHazard; 2013-05-11 at 07:18 AM. |
||||
|
2013-05-11, 08:54 AM | [Ignore Me] #8 | ||
First Sergeant
|
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. |
||
|
2013-05-11, 10:28 AM | [Ignore Me] #10 | ||
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, but they will NOT be precise, unless there's a distinct visual indication of borders in the game itself. |
|||
|
2013-05-11, 10:37 AM | [Ignore Me] #11 | ||
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.
__________________
***********************official bittervet********************* stand tall, fight bold, wear blue and gold! |
|||
|
2013-05-11, 10:28 AM | [Ignore Me] #12 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
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. |
|||
|
2013-05-11, 10:33 AM | [Ignore Me] #13 | |||
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. |
||||
|
2013-05-11, 06:57 AM | [Ignore Me] #15 | ||
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. |
|||
|
|
Bookmarks |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|