Territory System, is Adjacency required?

[Hamma]

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

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

[EVILPIG]

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

[Aaron]

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

[EVILPIG]

Originally Posted by Aaron

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

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

[OnexBigxHebrew]

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

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

[Haro]

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

[Saxywolf]

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

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

[Figment]

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

[DayOne]

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

[NewSith]

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

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

[Shinjorai]

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

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

[Kalee J]

Originally Posted by DayOne

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

I have been that dude on that quad.

[Shogun]

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

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

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

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Shogun

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

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

[Ryoji]

Originally Posted by Shogun

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

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

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

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