Territory System, is Adjacency required?

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Yep. Adjacency has greatly improved territorial stability (along with the slightly increased timers).

In my opinion - it incresed stability of the central region, the outer reaches are still switching back and forth all the time.

And also what do you mean by "increased timers"?

[OnexBigxHebrew]

Originally Posted by vVRedOctoberVv

Yep. Adjacency has greatly improved territorial stability (along with the slightly increased timers). What it means is that what you do actually matters, at least for a little while. Previously, capturing a major base like Zurvan was anti-climactic to say the least. Five minutes after you left, somebody took it away from you.

PS1, territory changes would last hours, possibly overnight or longer (depending on circumstances). Before they tweaked the adjacency system, you get up, go to take a piss, come back, and everything was different :P

I agree. The map changing hands so quickly actually game me a sinking feeling about the scale of the game mattering.

[Alderego]

I got to say that I'm happy with the change.
The game went from wack-the-back-hacking people (of which you usually only had a handfull) to a war-like game.

For those that didn't experience it: those handful of back-hackers could and would constantly cut you off from your warpgate, taking every single piece of territory that they could. This would result in 1) resource starvation and 2) constantly pulling people away to drive to the little far away outposts.
Now this might seem like a valid tactic, but in all honesty it's just plain boring to have to drive all the way back to something behind your lines when you had no indication whatsoever that something was being taken. It just felt cheap.

Now there is more of a frontline feel: you know that the enemy is going to push from their hexes and if they take one or 2 of yours they'll fight tooth and nail to keep it. (this since all the major facilities are linked up from the middle of the map easily once you take 2-3 small facilities. Facilities that usually have a spawn point as well, not unimportant for your assault)

In short: it's good fun now, you still have the pushes along the flanks or even downright down the middle. But at least you know that it's an organized thing now, not just one guy on a flash driving around to be annoying and get easy exp by sitting at cap-points.

There has been word of bringing back the back-hacking in one way or another too: I could support this if it required 1) some effort: either certing or using a special tool and 2) the defending faction got a warning that a back hack was happening. (Since it does provide a foothold, which with the adjacency system can create a major invasion)

Anyway, I can't wait to see how it'll turn out

[oosik]

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?

Given the speed with which a base can be turned, adjacency is definitely required to prevent the boredom of whack-a-mole and establish some frontlines. You can still flank an enemy through less occupied outposts but unless you have decent support, cutting such penetrations off is not difficult. Since Beta began 4 weeks ago, the game has progressed tremendously. Initially in Beta crashes were happening all the time, there were serious fps issues for many participants, and lots and lots of bugs. Now PS2 battles are beginning to feel more and more like PS1 battles.

[mcargo]

I would definitly 100% say the adjecency system is MUCH better. As many have said, it takes away the "Whack-A-Mole feel and turns it into a full out war for control of every inch you gain. Nice work devs!

[Echor]

IMO little has changed!

A team of 5 or 6 of us simply cut a line through enemy territory in a few mins hacking adjacent hex's in a line.

We cut the enemy WG off in less than 5 mins, admittedly they had it back a few mins later, but it drew people from a 'big' fight.

The system needs more resilience somehow, another rule before it can be broken or longer timers, these 'instant' hacks are little more than an annoyance most of the time.

[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.

[HeatLegend]

Can't say much more other than what has already been said- it was a step in the right direction.

[Kipper]

Yes, it's required to fix the way the game was playing - but it should be a short term fix. Freedom to back hack should remain, but to balance it it should be incredibly hard.

Let's say for a start that nothing less than full squad should be able to start affecting points on a hex that's surrounded by enemy territory (major facilities even more), and each defender should probably stack against 5 or 6 attackers for balance - so two defenders in friendly territory would be able to take a point in the same time as 12 attackers.

Maybe full non adjacent hexes should have the benefit of a console which has to be hacked by an infiltrator prior to to being able to take any points, which triggers a warning to all defenders on the server.

In short - it should require a well organised force with sufficient numbers, but it should be doable.

[Tobax]

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.

This is not acurrate of the change.
It is only bases that must be connected to your terratory in order to be hack, other points like resource outposts can still be hacked anywhere on the map. This means enemy can still hack points all over the map very quickly which is then the connection to a base which they then hack, so it did not fix the problem that we were having.

[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.

[Crator]

^^^ Then don't? Create a 2ndary front line? Shouldn't be too hard if there's enough pop, no?

[Tobax]

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.

Adjacency has only just come in and no it hasn't turned everything into a huge front line because you can still hack anything anywhere apart from bases, so people are still back hacking and then using that as the link for the base.

[MonsterBone]

You misunderstand. Adjancy means NO backhacking period. That is terrible.

[batfastard]

Keep adjacency but extend hack time as well as time to capture. Add a capture clock to maps as well so teams know how long they have to defend it and what bases are being captured.