Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: You mean there's more to this site than quotes?!
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
2012-09-11, 12:10 AM | [Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Sergeant Major
|
Prefix:
Being not yet in the Beta myself, I spend plenty of time reading. Some of the most common complaints, are to do with the current capture system, and the "openness" thereof. More specifically, that there is too much incentive to attempt to bypass/give up a heavily engaged location and go for another location, thus diffusing battles, and causing many players to end up scattered or going around capping empty bases. Strategically important but not necessarily the most enjoyable thing to do. I can understand the logic behind these complaints, but I do not have enough knowledge to fully say whether or it is bad enough to really be an issue rather than a complaint of some few individuals, whether they will fix themselves with air being more balanced, etc. However, since I can understand the concern, I thought I'd make a suggestion I haven't seen discussed much for it (at least not on these forums). Suggestion: At present it is my understanding that the current system uses "Adjacency" bonuses to try and form a front line. That is, to enhance the ability to capture or defend a location based on the number of adjacent hexes controlled by your Empire. There have also been experiments with having it be a requirement, though I'm not sure what the response was to that. I think a sort of half-way-point could be in order. That is, rather than requiring direct Adjacency, you could go after a given Hex within a certain distance of your controlled territory, but not far beyond it. I think it would have to be at least 3 Hexes, in order to preserve the ability to disrupt supply lines, allow capturing of "back-line" hexes and special ops, and to be able to do so without getting overly worried about losing a single hex and thus ruining your carefully planned and coordinated attack. However the distance is mutable, and the final distance would require testing. It could end up being as much as 4 or 5 hexes for example. Optionally the time to capture could increase based on that distance. For example, an adjacent location would be X seconds to capture. 2 Hexes out it could be an additional 20%-30%, 3 Hexes 40%-50% longer, etc, again to be determined through raw testing. Put simply: The suggestion is essentially to have each Hex (possibly more for specific locations like Warp Gates* or even large bases**) extend capture capability a certain distance, with a cutoff point beyond a point disabling the capability. Personal thoughts: As I said, I don't know if it would be necessary, but it might be worth trying out regardless, and seeing how people like it; and whether it is overly restrictive for those of us that like Spec Ops or Take and Hold deep in enemy territory. I think it may be a good compromise from having a hard Lattice system or strict Adjacency, while still helping to focus combat, provide more logistics concerns, and concentrate players within a given map. *(To help facilitate an Empire to get out if they are pushed back that far.) **(As a means of encouraging fighting for them, though if other Base specific bonuses are put in it may not be necessary). |
||
|
2012-09-11, 12:28 PM | [Ignore Me] #2 | ||||
First Sergeant
|
Still leaves backhacking an option, but restricted. |
||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|