Territory System, is Adjacency required? - Page 3

DarkMesa · 2012-09-01, 01:26 AM

I would like to see a system in which the more territory your faction controls, the closer they have to be to an already controlled point. Owning a fair amount of territory will get eventually only allow you to cap adjacent points. Owning little will allow you to cap just about anywhere on the map.

This would allow you to organize more surprise style attacks in order to gain territory when your faction isn't doing so well.

I feel as though having to fight on the frontlines when you are forced back to your foothold would be rather difficult, and this would help the enemy presence feel less concentrated and potentially overwhelming.

HeatLegend · 2012-09-01, 01:52 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.

Seriously? I think I have the exact opposite view on it, I love the frontline and think it's a lot more fun to fight and actually see your territory in one mass instead of weird hexes a little here and there. Also I think the map changes too quickly; One hour the NC have pushed far into someone's territory, but then one or two hours after that the territories have changed dramatically- bases just go around however. It doesnt make it feel very special to capture a base cause it'll just be recapped again in a little while. Hopefuly they do something to change this.

Mox · 2012-09-01, 04:55 AM

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!

I suggest a system of districts connected by a lattice. A district is a main base (e.g., bio dome) including its near surroundings (hexes with smaller outposts). If you want to hack hexes in a district, you have to do it in a district which is connected through the lattice to a district that is already under full control of your faction.

What do you think about it?

Mox · 2012-09-01, 06:07 AM

Something like that:

zhurkov · 2012-09-01, 06:08 AM

Originally Posted by Mox

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!

I suggest a system of districts connected by a lattice. A district is a main base (e.g., bio dome) including its near surroundings (hexes with smaller outposts). If you want to hack hexes in a district, you have to do it in a district which is connected through the lattice to a district that is already under full control of your faction.

What do you think about it?

I think it's a pretty good idea.

Kipper · 2012-09-01, 06:34 AM

Personally I think a lattice is a step backwards.

The ability to attack anything, anytime is more realistic and allows real tactical play rather than everyone being forced to do everything in a predictable and eventually boring way.

It's just that the ability to attack anything anytime needs to be more balanced, with impossible capture times for small squads on unconnected/unadjacent hexes, and longer capture times all round.

Factors that influence capture time should be:

Adjacent friendly hexes
Adjacent enemy hexes
Adjacent third faction hexes
Connection to friendly warpgate
Connection to enemy warpgate
Number of present friendly troops
Number of present enemy troops
The current effectiveness of the troops

I can't come up with a formula to take the above into account, but they all should factor - making deeply held enemy hexes impossible to capture unless you take vastly overwhelming forces (requiring organisation to do, not just one guy on a bike).

Current effectiveness is the only one requiring explanation - but simply relates to kills being made in an area, so its possible to tip the balance if you have even forces but one side is just out-killing the other side.

Grimster · 2012-09-01, 06:40 AM

I think they should take it one step further and make all territories needing adjacency to be captured.

Right now you have solo guys capping minor outposts behind the front lines which sucks imo.

Map is big enough so you can actually have more than one front line and don't need to fight in the same place all the time.

HeatLegend · 2012-09-01, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by Grimster

I think they should take it one step further and make all territories needing adjacency to be captured.

Right now you have solo guys capping minor outposts behind the front lines which sucks imo.

Map is big enough so you can actually have more than one front line and don't need to fight in the same place all the time.

That's what they're not doing with this system- you can't cap the bases behind the lines. You need a hex connected to the ones you capture.

Fenrys · 2012-09-01, 09:12 AM

The only thing I don't like about the new system is the short capture timers, and you can't re-secure a capture point you are guarding if it gets cut off from adjacent hexes. A few times I've been guarding a hex adjacent to a base we were attacking, ambushing Flash drivers as they roll up to cap it, and been unable to re-secure the hex after killing all the attackers. I wish I had a little more time to kill them all before the capture point goes neutral.

At times like that I really wish there was a cert in the Flash tree to call in an orbital drop pod with an unarmed ATV to get you back into the fight.

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.

Or spent several evenings being that driver, and watching half the map turn your color because everyone else just wants to shoot at things

Originally Posted by Mox

And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot.

All day yesterday, I saw more than 3 teammates in the same place exactly twice, and never more than 8 teammates in the same place. East 03 at primetime is slower than Planetside 1 at 4AM, but it's the only server where I get decent performance.

Blue Sam · 2012-09-01, 09:55 AM

Adjacency is not enough. There are still far too much options for ghost hackers. And where is the zerg? I haven't seen a real epic zerg fighting in PS2 yet. Maybe i saw 300 players or so fighting over one spot. That's far not enough! Some kind of lattice is needed!

It's a closed beta. There aren't enough people in the game to get a properly epic zerg going.

Anyway, it doesn't appear that adjacency is actually achieving its goal. The maps have been as much, if not more, of a scatter-fest since they put it in as they were before it.

Venator · 2012-09-01, 10:07 AM

Yes please!!!!

Game is MUCH more fun when you see actual groups of people attacking and defending and the fire fights are much larger. None of this lone galaxy flying around capping bases way in the back of your territory.

HeatLegend · 2012-09-01, 10:25 AM

Originally Posted by Blue Sam

It's a closed beta. There aren't enough people in the game to get a properly epic zerg going.

Anyway, it doesn't appear that adjacency is actually achieving its goal. The maps have been as much, if not more, of a scatter-fest since they put it in as they were before it.

Not sure if I can agree on that... I think it got much better.

kytanos · 2012-09-01, 12:21 PM

Actually, there was a HUGE threadnaught on the beta forums coming out against adjacency. One person complained about the removal of back hacking, and then we had thirty pages of "bring it back, or *signed*", with the occasional constructive comment every 10 to fifteen posts.

The dev's immediately caved and reverted to the old system. I saw reports of facility's being backhacked again on the forms, but had to test it myself. At 6:58 PST I took a Terran outpost 3 territory's away from the nearest New Conglomerate capture point no problem.

It seems the COD and BF2 twichies won't be satisfied until we dumb the game down to their level. Might as well remove shield generators, spawn terminals, and just let them spawn directly inside the enemy facility so we can have a good old fashion skirmish style battle. No need to travel or organize. Lord forbid they have to engage their cerebral cortex for more then five seconds at a time.

Sorry, Im very bitter at the moment.

Stardouser · 2012-09-01, 12:38 PM

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?

Krytanos, I haven't played in a couple days, are you saying there is no adjacency in right now? That's a very bad decision but I am curious why you blame Battlefield 2 players? You should be blaming BF3 players, grouping BF2 vets in with CoD is a massive and inaccurate insult.

Mox · 2012-09-01, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by kytanos

Actually, there was a HUGE threadnaught on the beta forums coming out against adjacency. One person complained about the removal of back hacking, and then we had thirty pages of "bring it back, or *signed*", with the occasional constructive comment every 10 to fifteen posts.

The dev's immediately caved and reverted to the old system. I saw reports of facility's being backhacked again on the forms, but had to test it myself. At 6:58 PST I took a Terran outpost 3 territory's away from the nearest New Conglomerate capture point no problem.

It seems the COD and BF2 twichies won't be satisfied until we dumb the game down to their level. Might as well remove shield generators, spawn terminals, and just let them spawn directly inside the enemy facility so we can have a good old fashion skirmish style battle. No need to travel or organize. Lord forbid they have to engage their cerebral cortex for more then five seconds at a time.

Sorry, Im very bitter at the moment.

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

)