Territory System, is Adjacency required? - Page 4

Stardouser · 2012-09-01, 02:39 PM

Originally Posted by Mox

If they stay with this "Hack everywhere you want" - system, they will ruin the game.

No lattice (or at least: no adjacency) =

No real progress (make the map red

)
+
No real frontline
+
No real epic zerg

= NO Plantside feeling

I am really concerned regarding this issue.
I hope SOE remember what PS1 was and what PS2 should be.
=> SIze always matter = 2000 Players fighting against each other in a huge battle (not 2000 player are fighing each other on 40 hexes

)

I'm glad you mention that. 2000 players per battle isn't really a realistic expectation, where "battle" is defined as within a 750 meter radius wherein everyone there can affect anyone else either by shooting at, or traveling a few seconds then shootiner. 2000 in one hex would wreck lower end machines I would think. Though it would be nice if we had some sort of feedback on what kind of numbers we have reached per continent and per hex peaks in the beta. This of course doesn't mean we can't expect to see 500-600 in a battle, and that's still bigger than entire continents in PS1 could sustain.

Which brings me to another point. Adjacency is going to become really important when we have multiple continents, otherwise you'll have to play intercontinental whack-a-mole. And another point is, we still don't know their plans for server populations. A continent may hold 2000 but that doesn't mean that each server will be designed to reach a 6000 filled-to-the-brim peak every night. Unless SOE has shed some light on their plans and I have missed it, I still think they're going to have maybe a 4500 pop cap per server so that all 3 continents won't necessarily always have fighting everywhere.

But it remains key that even if there isn't full backcapping, there still has to be some way you can hurt the enemy in their backfield.

ClockworkAug · 2012-09-01, 04:09 PM

I would say that to force adjacency is absolutely vital. Otherwise it becomes whackamole.

HOWEVER.

This doesnt mean it has to be completely implemented. I would prefer a system where instead of backhacking a base a group can 'uncapture' it.

By which i mean that i can roll up to a base and then wait until its influence bar with the enemy faction becomes zero. I cant capture it or use it myself - i have to have an adjacent square for that. Neither do i gain any points for capping, since i havent. But i can make it unusable by the enemy. All i need to do is keep the enemy from recapturing it - which is something they should be able to do at a quickened rate once im eliminated.

This means that a quick push into territory is still very possible. it simply requires massive tactical timing to make it work. Alternately, it preserves the idea of attacking a base to prevent things like armour or aircraft attacking.

It also opens the possibility to more complex tactics. Are you a VS with your front being attacked by the TR? Why not go into the squares near the NC and uncapture the TR base nearest to the one attacking your own. When the NC pour in, suddenly the TR have an entirely new front to fight - taking pressure off of your VS base.

This i think would be the best of both worlds. Tactics would be restored, but the joy and skill of covert backhacking would still be preserved. plus the now limited usefulness would mean that only people with more tactical mindsets would attempt it, instead of someone just hopping on a quad to capture bases for points.

HenchAnt · 2012-09-01, 05:36 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Adjacency is required, BUT there must be SOMETHING you can do to harm the enemy in their backfield.

What about a compromise adjacency? For example, you cannot capture MAIN bases without adjacency but you can capture minor outposts?

That's how I feel.

Adjacency was a step in the right direction. But in the end, teams should be able to do behind-the-line incursions. The Adjacency-for-main-bases-only might be nice next step to balance that.
But it simply won't do much against the single ghosthacker-rampage, so something more would be needed to balance things out.

Kipper · 2012-09-01, 06:41 PM

Adjacency is not needed. All that's needed is a massive increase in the length of time it takes to hack somewhere that doesn't have adjacent hexes. That was the 'original' plan, I swear I heard/saw/read that from Mr H himself.

Once that's in place, backhacking is still viable but requires more people and more organisation. Tweak to the point where it is at an acceptable/strategic level without being silly.

Sunrock · 2012-09-01, 07:23 PM

Originally Posted by 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?

Well they did not enforce this on all bases. Only a few bases that they are testing it on. You can still back hack in the game.

What they sad was that they still want you to be able to back hack some bases but not all... And I think thats a good idea. Backhacking can be quite anoying and split up the forces maybe too mush. But if you are totally outnumbered and a faction owns every thing on a continent and just camp the safe zone being able to back hack is the only way to be able to get some decent game experience.

HeatLegend · 2012-09-01, 07:41 PM

Originally Posted by Kipper

Adjacency is not needed. All that's needed is a massive increase in the length of time it takes to hack somewhere that doesn't have adjacent hexes. That was the 'original' plan, I swear I heard/saw/read that from Mr H himself.

Once that's in place, backhacking is still viable but requires more people and more organisation. Tweak to the point where it is at an acceptable/strategic level without being silly.

Yeah I remember them saying this too. It would be nice, some system that discourages you from going whackamole unless you have a formidable force doing it; keeping people to the zerg with massive battles but not removing the option to go behind enemy lines to sabotage.

Archonzero · 2012-09-01, 09:39 PM

I like the new Adjacency system, it works. I really got tired of the wackamole backhacking that was going on. You can really just look at the adjacency system as a logistical territory control system, you need assured lines of support in order to maintain a hold. You can hold out in a cut off territory so long as the enemy doesn't gain ticks on that hex, and hopefully your empire faction will be able to surge back an regain lost territory an link back to the cut off players. It truly does inspire some very dynamic epic battles.

Until they address more clear systems to inform the players to information on the maps, ie status of facilities, possible numerical presence of enemy forces (ie low, strong, heavy), spawn status, shield status, gen status.. an so on.

Back Hacking... for now I think it should remain out of the picture

Back Hacking Ideas
Significant time to control increased.
Marker noting Facility security protocols are being bypassed. Shown on map.
Get rid of the group up cap the CP method
Require an Infiltrator cert'd for advanced encryption bypass to hack the CP.

Limit the number of hex types that can be backhacked?
Facilities with skeletal resources/terminals
ie spawn, equipment terminal an a Flash terminal.

elementHTTP · 2012-09-02, 05:09 AM

Originally Posted by DjEclipse

Make it that only a full squad can backhack, then put it on a timer of
5 minutes, that they have to hold for the backhack to be successful.

Very good idea ! Let me mod-it a bit

- full squad is needed to back hack - what if somebody dies you cannot capture point

Maybe better idea is to have something like this:
Half-rule : for each solder you have cap timer is reduced by half

- one solder at cap - 30 min timer or infinite (balance dependent)
- 2 solders at cap - 15 min
- 3 - 7 min
- 4 - 3 min
- 5 - 2 min
- 6+ - 1 min

+ 5 min defend and some sort of map indication that point is being hacked
This can encourage team based spec-ops

Scotsh · 2012-09-02, 06:08 AM

I prefer the current hex system over the PS1 lattice system. It offers way more flexibility and with the bigger population caps it is vital that there are more than 1 or 2 hotspots on the map.
But it needs adjacency, at least in its current form. Hacking small bases with only 1 control point is ridiculously easy, even if you got 0 surrounding hexes.

I for one like maps with territoral integrity, clear frontlines moving in accordance of the effectiveness of the fighting empires.

Just from a gut feeling i would say this games needs:
- adjacency
- way longer capture times for smaller outpost
- longer lockout timers
- bigger penalties for having a low number of adjacent hexes

But honestly that is very hard to say, because keep in mind, there is currently only one continent available.
With 3 continents some things might drastically change, for instance there could be 1 on 1 empire fights over one continent. Currently that is not possible.

While its unlikly to change, i would love to see a different system:

1. Divide the continent map into territories. Territories are much bigger than the current zones and each territory is associated with a major base. To control (i.e paint the territory map in your empire color) a territory you have to control the base.
2. Current zones and outposts remain and can be occupied. Occupying is not capturing, meaning formally the zone is still controlled by the owner of the nearby major base. However, occupied zones allow the occupants to spawn there and get vehicles (tho getting vehicles in occupied zones could be more expensive). Also occupied zones could mean less resources for the owner of the territory.
3. This system could be combined with a lattice system connecting the territories (respectively major bases), allowing you only to occupy zones adjacent territories your empire controls.

Wandering Mania · 2012-09-02, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by MonsterBone

Adjacency has to go. It turns the entire battle into a huge war over a front line. There are many people that dont want to fight over 3 bases for two hours and get nowhere. Whats the point of that. It was fun to run around and back hack.

Be careful. People dont like back capping but the alternative is much worse. But when playing back capping is fun.

Look who is talking one of the guys that meny TR and VS have been chaseing arround on a quad or in a lightning getting bord takeing back your worthless hacks. For every 1 person that likes the back hacking the old way, there 100 more that like the new way because of you annoying NC guys. I think the NC's New motto should be "If we drive out the all the other 2 factions players from the game we win." Or at least that is how you guys seem to play.

That back hacking stuff you guys do may be fun for you, but in truth the one or 2 that notice your handy work are sick of being board chaseing you down and getting no kills and a measly 500 to 700 BR expearince trying to fix your stupidity.
The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

Crator · 2012-09-02, 09:58 AM

Originally Posted by Wandering Mania

The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

You bring up a good point. Not everyone may enjoy the heavy firefights. I'm sure there are several reasons for this (Low FPS, can't handle the twitch gun-play mechanics, can't seem to find where the majority of their empire is, etc.). But these players do enjoy contributing to the war and are using the system in place to do this. I believe giving more options (especially in the area of back-line support roles) to support the war efforts will help tremendously with these sorts of players. I'm not talking against adjacency btw.

Stardouser · 2012-09-02, 10:07 AM

Originally Posted by Wandering Mania

Look who is talking one of the guys that meny TR and VS have been chaseing arround on a quad or in a lightning getting bord takeing back your worthless hacks. For every 1 person that likes the back hacking the old way, there 100 more that like the new way because of you annoying NC guys. I think the NC's New motto should be "If we drive out the all the other 2 factions players from the game we win." Or at least that is how you guys seem to play.

That back hacking stuff you guys do may be fun for you, but in truth the one or 2 that notice your handy work are sick of being board chaseing you down and getting no kills and a measly 500 to 700 BR expearince trying to fix your stupidity.
The olny reason I can think you don't like the frount lines is because your no damn good and can't last 10 seconds in a real firefight with out dieing 100's of times.

P.S. And to any person that may think this statement is trying to troll this guy. I am not, just trying to make him see the light on how the old system was driveing people out of the game before it was launched.

Your post highlights the need for SOE to have the right system in place. Whack a mole isn't fun, but neither is meatgrinding. This game should have strategic aspects that aren't limited to attacking the same route every time.
If the only way to do anything useful in the game is to go to the huge battles and stay in the same firefight for hours at a time, then that's a failure on the part of the devs. I mean, simply having more players, but they all have to fight in the same place, that doesn't make the game more strategic.

Now, even with adjacency(which, to be clear, I support adjacency, but I do not support a system that's going to force all 2000 players to go to the same battle), if the main battle line is a spear thrust through the hexes in the middle of the map, you can still take a smaller force and push along the edges of the map - the only difference with adjacency is that you have to start from a hex you own, you can't go deep in the backfield and start.

The point is that not wanting to sit in the same firefight for 3 hours doesn't mean you suck at fighting and can't avoid dying 100 times per 10 minutes. When things take that long, they are stalemates, and if your goal is to get the upper hand on the enemy in the overall sense, you need to be able to redeploy and go somewhere else. Otherwise, Galaxy dropping onto the capture point and spawn control unit rooms in a surgical strike, to end the fight quickly, would be cheap tactics. Personally I want tactics and strategy to matter just as much as shooting skill - if you don't want the enemy kicking you out by taking your SCU out, defend it.

Rivenshield · 2012-09-02, 02:11 PM

/waves hands

Guys? I think we're arguing over the symptom, not the disease. The problem is -- save at a few strategic chokepoints -- fights simply don't *last* long enough to attract players for the epic battles. By the time most of them notice the new hotspot, it's mostly over.

The problem is an utter lack of defense. All we have right now are two competing zergs running and gunning towards each other, and the side that even slightly outnumbers the other will win in short order... just as in a conventional FPS. One of the hallmarks of PS is that a smaller group with its act together can stop -- or at least frustrate -- an unorganized zerg. Where are the lines standing shoulder to should manning the walls? Where are the epic gen holds...?

None of this is going to be ameliorated by yelling about adjacency. We need shorter hack times. We need more choke points. And by God, we need *walls.*

HeatLegend · 2012-09-02, 02:32 PM

Yeah, the fights need to go on for much longer. I dont like it how quickly the map and territories switch around right now, makes taking a base feel a lot less heroic than it could've been or as I had expected from looking at the game.

And I do without a doubt want walls! At least on some of the bases- or just smaller ones of the smaller bases.

Kipper · 2012-09-02, 04:41 PM

I made a post last night in the official forums with some mathematical formulas which I think - with the right values - could handle base capture times taking into account adjacency and world status. Have a look:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...-points.12811/

Feel free to repost, I'm working from my mobile at the moment so it's a bit of a nightmare for me to do