Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: That's it! I'm not submittng quotes anymore!
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2013-05-26, 07:41 PM | [Ignore Me] #1 | ||
Lieutenant General
|
I've given the lattice a look over and although I haven't played across the entirety of Indar as of yet, my gut instinct suggests a number of these links would create just that bit of freedom some people are looking for, without removing the effect of the lattice itself.
Which of the links would you (dis)agree with? Why? Any others or alternatives? Why? Last edited by Figment; 2013-05-26 at 07:47 PM. |
||
|
2013-05-26, 10:22 PM | [Ignore Me] #2 | ||
Major
|
A lot of the links follow the actual ingame roads. I think it's intentional that they want ground armies advancing forward along them.
Just looking at your map I can say right away I don't agree with their being a link to the scarred mesa skydock like that. That place just get's abused to one hex hold Indar. That change just makes it available on demand to the side holding SW gate. Beyond that I dunno. I think the developers who have access to the heat maps showing player activity will be in a better position to decide which places are too much of a bottleneck. |
||
|
2013-05-26, 11:10 PM | [Ignore Me] #3 | ||
Contributor Major
|
I like the amount of links in the game currently, if anything I'd remove a few but w/e.
I dislike how spawning mechanics currently work with the lattice. Really need to open up the spawning options. |
||
|
2013-05-26, 11:55 PM | [Ignore Me] #5 | ||
Contributor Lieutenant Colonel
|
Personally the only addition I would add would be the introduction of a neutralizing mechanic. There may be a link or two that could be added (or removed as warrants) but the dev's would be able to tell by looking at their heat maps.
Thus far I've not really felt constricted by the lattice because even if we're currently 'stuck' I can always recall to the WG, push somewhere else on Indar until the opposing faction takes a base that opens up links for me to circle around them. |
||
|
2013-05-27, 03:48 AM | [Ignore Me] #7 | ||
Surprised that you of all people would be suggesting this Figment. Adding the links that you suggest would be a step backwards towards the old Hex system.
I personally think that they have got the lattice about right. Edit - about the only one that I would consider would be link O. Difficult to advance past Regent's Rock if the Research Lab (?) to the NW is in enemy hands, and you can't attack it directly. Last edited by psijaka; 2013-05-27 at 03:51 AM. |
|||
|
2013-05-27, 05:09 AM | [Ignore Me] #9 | ||
No, Fig, I don't really think the links need to be reworked at least for now.
But I am only completely against two: Scarred Mesa and Quartz Ridge are way too hard to take to be facilities that open up several links. Last edited by NewSith; 2013-05-27 at 05:10 AM. |
|||
|
2013-05-27, 05:45 AM | [Ignore Me] #10 | ||
I wouldn't mind having some air-lines on the map. Atm. the lines are based around the ground, not the air. An example of an air-line would be the one Figment made from Scarred Mesa to Highlands Substation. Or from Howling pass to Rashnu Tower.
They would allow a faction to circumvent an area designed to deny ground forces entry. Which would also mean that you shouldn't be able to just move armor to the point with the air-line. Not sure how that would play out, but could be an interesting thing to add in.
__________________
Any sufficiently advanced bug is indistinguishable from a feature *Disclaimer: When participating in a discussion I do not do so in the capacity of a semidivine moderator. Feel free to disagree with any of my opinions.
Last edited by ChipMHazard; 2013-05-27 at 05:52 AM. |
|||
|
2013-05-27, 06:19 AM | [Ignore Me] #11 | ||
Lieutenant Colonel
|
NO more links.
Right now its already too much like it doesnt have links. There should be only about 18 bases on the lattice system. And only they should count towards continent control and resources.
__________________
Wherever you went - Here you are. |
||
|
2013-05-27, 07:12 AM | [Ignore Me] #12 | |||
Lieutenant General
|
Most of these lines complete triangles, maintaining choke points, but allowing for a bypass sneak attack. I've also put in a few very short ones, which are basically down to the "nearest base" thing, which still maintain a front, but may require a large circling to get behind the other (takes much longer than if it were a direct link around). As you well know, I'm all for more defensibility and backland defense, but that doesn't mean there shouldn't be ways to circumvent some of the chokepoints for variety. Now, if the warpgates were capturable, the lines near the warpgates would be superfluous, but as is, those lines trap people near the warpgate with nowhere to go but back. |
|||
|
2013-05-27, 10:58 AM | [Ignore Me] #13 | ||
Brigadier General
|
Nah. No to more links really.
Remember that at some point, we will get the whole global lattice thing. At that point you will see actual 2-way fights on continents. I already fear that the current indar lattice may be to much links for two-ways, but that remains to be seen. In any way, no to more links. rather the revival of the NTU, to allow back capping, while also giving attackers a different way to get the defender out of the base (by sieging it for quite some time. ) |
||
|
2013-05-27, 12:09 PM | [Ignore Me] #15 | ||||
Lieutenant General
|
Some however, cover links between which there is fighting anyway due to proximity. Take the connections near Saurva and Tawrich. The majority of the extra links complete triangles though, which maintains the most important chokepoints, but grants some bypass routes (which can be protected, of course). Some of the longer ones are more to do with long range cap attempts, which is typical Gal drop stuff as chip already noticed.
|
||||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|