Why It Doesn't Matter Whether We Have Links or Hexes... - Page 3

capiqu · 2013-05-11, 06:35 PM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

The new lattice doesn't mean we can't have territory. While it doesn't functionally matter whether or not we have lattice, we should get either SOI on bases or clearly defined territorial lines if we do get the new lattice.

Personally I'm in favor of using hexes for territory, but lattice for base links. Facilities (bio labs/amp station/interlink/tech plant) should be linked only by lattice. Smaller bases like The Crown and The Stronghold can keep the hex-based territorial capture method.

- No lattice link to a facility, no facility capture.
- We can experiment with whether or not hex-linked bases are capture without a link. Personally I am in favor of letting outposts be open to capture. This is so the attackers can move on after disabling a facility and are waiting for capture.
- Hex-bases must be linked to a facility in order to send/receive resources. Facilities must be linked to the warpgate via the hex system in order to send-receive resources. Facility benefits stretch based on hex (territory) connections.

I am so with you on this.

capiqu · 2013-05-11, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

A well defined border doesn't matter.

Tell that to North and south Korea. LOl

Ssential · 2013-05-11, 07:16 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

I say that in the OP, but my point is a little bit different. All I said in the OP I can sum up by saying:
If they remove territory, they will "automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame".

You wrote "Links will automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame" which isn't true because:

Links =/= removal of territory
Who says you can't have links AND territory? The links or lattice system isn't the problem here but you mention them as the problem. That's why people here are so confused.

Mightymouser · 2013-05-11, 07:33 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

Originally Posted by Punker

So you can still have enemy and friendly territory, from a TR perspective, blue and purple areas are enemy territories. Red is friendly. One small adjustment to sharpening the gradient and you have something that works better than the hex system ever could.

Okay, now plese draw the line where TR territory ends and NC/VS territory starts... Give me a clear definition on where I exit my land and enter enemy's.

Personally, I don't think we need distinct lines to be able to incorporate territory control; the areas where there is not a clear delineation are simply areas were no one has total control of the region. The more surrounding area you have, the stronger your regional influence, and the further your reach extends.

You can still incorporate everything on your list into the game, it just doesn't apply to the region where the land is 'jointly contested'. And honestly that makes more sense from a logical point of view. The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

It's not a clear delineation on the map, but all that is needed to solve that is a HUD element telling you the respective percentages of 'control' for the region you're in; and a mouse over on the map could do the same thing.

Plus there is the advantage that this map just looks nicer than the hex maps...

Lonehunter · 2013-05-11, 08:44 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

If they remove territory, they will "automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame".

HOW? I read your OP, you talk about different mechanics that could be implemented, all based off ownership of "territory". I understand specific uses for things in enemy territory, limiting use of things in enemy territory, etc. Some of that is in PS1 and could add another tactical choice if added in PS2.

But I still think the hex system was irrelevant to this, as in it could still be implemented with it.

and now without the hex system, it could still be implemented.

Previously when you crossed a hex you were in another territory by label only. You could still be so far from the base or outpost and you don't get any status updates or xp from caps. So your so far from the relevance of that territory you have NO IMPACT, but you've still crossed territories, an imaginary line. If you implement any equipment or bonuses, like Company of Heroes, based on who owns a territory, in my opinion you'd have to set a sphere of influence around the outpost to use anyway. You can't set restrictions/bonuses for units/equipment based on territory control in open areas that have no meaning to any base and are just filler in the overall hex system because nothing can be "not hexed"

With the new system, just use the Sphere of influence on a base to grant/prevent territory units.

Baneblade · 2013-05-11, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by capiqu

Tell that to North and south Korea. LOl

Tell us again how North and South Korea have a hot war and a constantly shifting territorial claim.

NewSith · 2013-05-12, 06:25 AM

Originally Posted by Ssential

You wrote "Links will automatically cut off the possibility of implementation of a whole level of metagame" which isn't true because:

Links =/= removal of territory
Who says you can't have links AND territory? The links or lattice system isn't the problem here but you mention them as the problem. That's why people here are so confused.

Don't you just see that on the WIP pic? The way they do it is a step away from definite territory. And it's not even an assumtion.

Originally Posted by Lonehunter

With the new system, just use the Sphere of influence on a base to grant/prevent territory units.

That's a valid point, but my personal opinion on the matter is that Territory > SOI.

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

You can still incorporate everything on your list into the game, it just doesn't apply to the region where the land is 'jointly contested'. And honestly that makes more sense from a logical point of view. The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

You'll be surprised but even with "joint territories", there's gonna be that one point stepping over which locks you out of the abilities... Though, I do like the idea behind it.

Mightymouser · 2013-05-12, 07:36 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

You'll be surprised but even with "joint territories", there's gonna be that one point stepping over which locks you out of the abilities... Though, I do like the idea behind it.

I'll be less surprised than you might imagine:

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

The idea that you cannot do something on one coordinate, but if you move 2 steps back you can purely because of an arbitrary hex size is silly. The idea of 'mushy' SOIs allows control to flow from one area to the next; there will still be a point where you can/cannot do something based on a two foot distance, but it will be because you are a determined distance from your controlled territory, better still you could have various abilities that you lose as you drift further out of your territory into enemy territory.

NewSith · 2013-05-13, 02:23 AM

Originally Posted by Mightymouser

I'll be less surprised than you might imagine:

I definitely missed that line.

Figment · 2013-05-17, 11:19 AM

Originally Posted by NewSith

I definitely missed that line.

NewSith, Mouser is like Figgy. We hide important stuff in other stuff.

It's our job as infils.

But yes, clear defined borders aren't per definition necessary for every single thing you want to have an affect for.

You could have a strength effect related to the distance from a base, ie. a dynamic effect. This could be amplified (cumulative) by being closer to another base. Take for instance Bio Lab regeneration. Imagine the effect is 100% within the immediate SOI of the base, then weakens the further away you get. If you're however in between two bases you own, the effect could stack.

Similarly, getting closer to an enemy base could create interference and a reduction of the effect.

You could even have some overlap between territories. And why not? Think of a PS1 situation where you own the tower and they own the base, but the tower SOI lays within the SOI of the base: both of you can now place CE stuff in that overlapping area, where otherwise only one could.

In this sense, having clear defined borders - especially as arbitrary as grids - makes it less logical, because distance to a base doesn't mean squat. You could be right next to a Bio Lab, but not get its effect, because you're close to an enemy base and that means you're in its hex.

What you could do, is simply show all the applicable effects somewhere in the HUD (could be a pop up or overlay) with a strength indicator next to it.

Tbh NewSith, you need to think outside the bo... hex a bit.

NewSith · 2013-05-17, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Tbh NewSith, you need to think outside the bo... hex a bit.

It's not about the boxes I think in. It is in reality about how "readable" that sphere is. With definite borders, there's no need to calculate the "probability" (figurally speaking). I had it said some posts ago here, that your proposal(s) is not a broken system. I only said that it is abundantly complex if you compare it to the grid. Well, at least if it works the way it's represented in the picture, where you don't have that strict line, be it a hex border or SOI from PS1.

RANDOMpercent · 2013-05-17, 12:56 PM

The way they have it right now on PTS is its basically the hex territories with the lattice connections between bases. So the things posted by the OP are still possible.

Figment · 2013-05-17, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

It's not about the boxes I think in. It is in reality about how "readable" that sphere is. With definite borders, there's no need to calculate the "probability" (figurally speaking). I had it said some posts ago here, that your proposal(s) is not a broken system. I only said that it is abundantly complex if you compare it to the grid. Well, at least if it works the way it's represented in the picture, where you don't have that strict line, be it a hex border or SOI from PS1.

But for the things you mentioned in the start, how many do you need strict knowledge of if they're a tiny little bonus? Most of the things you mentioned in the OP are thing you aren't even strictly aware of as a player, so it's all in all pretty irrelevant and the remainder can be solved by HUD elements (for instance, show deployment ranges for engineering items).