There is no legitimate reason to attack backline Hexes.

[Captain1nsaneo]

Before I start I want to define a few things so we don't misunderstand each other.

(Based on information as of 7/24/12.)

There are 3 resources, there are 71 capturable territories. (~23 per side, ~8 per side per resource)

Territories that are adjacent to enemy territories take longer to capture.

Everyone has a pool of resources that has a cap on how much can be stored.

Tactical gameplay is figuring out how to take a base. Strategic gameplay is figuring out how to take a cont and which cont to attack afterward.

------------

The only justification I've heard from a dev source so far to attack an enemy territory behind their lines is to deny a resource as to take away a type of vehicle or upgrade. These territories have a longer cap time and a quicker recap time. There won't be any surprise advantage for the attacker as the mission system will probably produce missions to stop attackers when they start taking nodes. To pull such a capture off I'd need to use my best players and put a lot of effort into planning the attack if I'm going to hope to hold it for any length of time and make it more effective. This won't win me any yahtzee bonus chips with my squadmates as the best exp and resources are going to be along the boarders not deep in enemy territory. If I do manage to capture a territory, the other empire still has on average 7 other territories still producing that resource and they're getting that resource for fighting anyway.

So what have I done? I've taken my best troops away from the main fight, I've spent a lot of time to do something that can be corrected in a short period of time, and all for a slight decrease in my opponent's resource generation.

At this point it seems that attacking a backline territory would actually hurt my own side more than it would help it. It feels like there's been a lot of time and effort put into the tactical side of planetside 2 (with base generators, building placement, and dispersed capture nodes) but very little thought has been put into a larger strategic picture of the game. This worries me and I'd love to hear what their plans are just to know that they have one and are thinking about this.

tl;dr: See thread title.

[Stardouser]

Forced meatgrinding along the front line, and denial of sandbox tactics/strategies, no thanks.

[GreatMazinkaise]

The influence system will come into this, I think. It was implied that splitting enemy territories in two will reduce the influence of the cut off hexes, thus decreasing SOI size, cap times, spawn timers, and myriad other things. It's not implemented as of right now, so I think flipping bases in the tech test is ridiculously easy.

[Sephirex]

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

[Zulthus]

nvm.

[ringring]

So in PS1 terms was there a reason to do a gen hold?
The purpose of a gen hold was to deny a benefit, it was also fun. It appears that you wouldn't want this option?
If this kind of thing persists, ps2 will be a lesser game than ps1.

[Dloan]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Forced meatgrinding along the front line, and denial of sandbox tactics/strategies, no thanks.

That's what people said when the lattice system was introduced.

[noxious]

I remember a thread Malorn started a while ago about the resource system and capture mechanics where we came up with a lot of ideas to improve the system. I hope we're all just wrong, and that the system will work better in practice than it does in theory, but I worry about this part of the game as well.

[Atlas]

I can think of 3 legit reasons;

Distraction & Diversion - 'Oh hay, we're getting attacked deep in our own territory...noobs. Someone will clean them up' then 'Oh noes, they capped that hex deep in our territory, better send some boyos to clean them up'. And that could give you a brief opportunity to break through a previously impenetrable line

Trolling your enemy/For the lulz

That tech plant 2 hexes away from the impenetrable base you're fighting at currently is closer than the tech plant you own 9 hexes away. Lets take it and get some tanks in the fight or whatever.

[GreatMazinkaise]

Originally Posted by ringring

So in PS1 terms was there a reason to do a gen hold?
The purpose of a gen hold was to deny a benefit, it was also fun. It appears that you wouldn't want this option?
If this kind of thing persists, ps2 will be a lesser game than ps1.

I thought the purpose of a gen hold was to a) keep the Vanu out of it and b) if in an enemy base it was to keep asshats from your own side from spoiling a good fight that we were already winning.

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by Atlas

I can think of 3 legit reasons;

Distraction & Diversion - 'Oh hay, we're getting attacked deep in our own territory...noobs. Someone will clean them up' then 'Oh noes, they capped that hex deep in our territory, better send some boyos to clean them up'. And that could give you a brief opportunity to break through a previously impenetrable line

Trolling your enemy/For the lulz

That tech plant 2 hexes away from the impenetrable base you're fighting at currently is closer than the tech plant you own 9 hexes away. Lets take it and get some tanks in the fight or whatever.

Reasons 1 & 3 are why it was first allowed.
Reason 2 is why it was stopped.

[MorioMortis]

It's all about creating lose/lose scenarios for the enemy; if they move troops from the frontline, they risk losing those territories (which are also easier to cap) , but if they don't, than they lose territory in the back, and risk being encircled and denied access to resources. Increasing the time it takes to make backcaps compared to on the frontlines only gives the other team a longer response time and makes it harder to solo cap. The fact that other team may get missions to go there works in your empire's favor, because even more people will get drawn away from the front.

I think we have to think of backcaps in PS2 as more in the line of WW2 style paratrooper drops; they are there to disrupt the enemy, not to topple him over, and they need support from the rest of the army if you don't want to be whipped out rapidly.

[Chrispin]

Originally Posted by Sephirex

If you can draw off 100 enemy troops off the front line with only 20 of your own, that is a success right there whether you hold the base or not.

I agree. If the other team gets a mission generated for them to defend a back base, it can only be a nuisance for the guys that need help at the front lines. Imagine if you single-handedly took a point (not even an entire hex) behind enemy lines. You know there's going to be a bunch of enemys that will want to stop what they're doing and run back to where you are, giving your team's front-line a slight advantage. That is unless your team starts spawning at the new base behind enemy lines. In that case it's really variable.

[QuantumMechanic]

I think all of this is subject to change during beta base off of feedback just like yours - except during beta and on the beta forums.

[feuerdog]

I agree that the system doesn't look economically strategic enough, I do think much of this will be explored in beta as the territory we fight over is expanded.

The risk/reward outline potential for behind the lines strategies are there however.