Are there too many outposts/targets?

Figment · 2013-01-04, 05:45 AM

I've been wondering about this for quite some time:

Say we defend and hold Sungrey's southern outpost with our squad... What is stopping people from avoiding us altogether and strike directly at the base or take both other outposts and subsequently use those vehicle spawns against us and the base?

We can't be in four places at once, certainly not over such a large terrain. We don't have the manpower to cover that terrain alone and are forced to concentrate the ones we do have in one place.

Ps1 only allowed limited options over long distances (more akin to Esamir) though with only instantly recapturable towers without vehicle pads present As fixed foothold. Not only were those easier to sort out with a subtle or quick strike, but it focused your defense on two points and at most two directions (two empires) and made the enemy predictable, plus gave the local base holder the vehicle acquisition advantage.

PS2 logistics and base layout mean there is always one undefended outpost nearby where you can get vehicles. You effectively can't bottleneck enemies and funnel your attackers: your frontline always has holes and since this is a game, one cannot expect to station people on guardduty indefinitely. Not being able to bottleneck an enemy, means you are not able to stall until reinforcements arrive. In fact, enemies move around you so fast, bothering to ask for backup rarely happens: they will be too late anyway and your request will be obsolete well before you can make another /orders.

The only plug we have now is the adjecency rule, but with six sides to each territory (often leaving three to four choices for the enemy from one area alone, total choices can be a dozen), you cannot stop all advances against ghosthacks. All you can do is move into enemy territory yourself and pray you take it before they take yours. Again compare to ps1 where due to less links (lattice is a form of adjecency rule), the entire (enemy) empire had between one and five options.

Now you might say "we have four times the pop now!", so assuming same spread it should be roughly equal. But population does not scale that way as they tend to group together. In fact, population density works as gravity. In ps1 there usualy was something undefended. Balling together to face bigger enemy pops is a natural phenomenon that occurs primarily where a fight lasts longer. Take Mani, Mani requires more and more people to hold and take, acting as a sponge on surrounding terrain. The surrounding terrain then often falls quickly and the base effectively becomes a weakness, because it's not acting as a plug, but has the exact opposite effect.

Now, combat and populace flow theory and decision making (in both PS1 and PS2) is based on several things:

1. Zerg uses nearest base principle: the zerg is attracted by any direct fighting in the immediate area. It will behave like a child seeing a shiny object. It will gravitate towards the nearest enemy base (sometimes regardless if they have a link to it or not). In PS2 this means that a zerg with little territory will focus and with a lot of territory will start to disperse as they have less options at first and more nearby options later.

2. Nearest spawn principle: people tend to spawn closest to the fight, to minimalise the logistical distance to overcome.

3. Ignoring unimportant areas principle: In PS1 in particular you could often see towers in the middle of nowhere flip, or not be contested the entire battle (perhaps at the end when the continent was cleaned out after all other towers switched and this was the nearest tower spawn remaining). Basically, priorities were set for outposts (towers) with a direct threat to the empire through the lattice. In priority order: direct base capture threat (particularly LLU bases or those with significant linked benefits or hard to regain: Interlinks -> DSC -> Tech -> AMP -> Bio), linked facility benefit threat through gen holds (quick to sort) and lastly, drains (typically relied on covert use of AMSes).

4. Best Farm Principle: Interlinks, DSCs, Tech and bases on isolated areas created the best farming potential. The easier to hold, the higher the priority. In PS2: ex-Tech plants and... The Crown. Note that strong defensive positions surrounded by multiple factions are the easiest to hold, because both enemy factions frustrate the other's efforts.

5. Best starting point advantage principle: When opening continents, one choses those warpgates with beneficial links or strong fortifications that are easy to hold with small groups. Hence the order would be Tech -> Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. Note the shift.

6. Best tactical benefit (removed from enemy): the order in which you'd want to cut them off would be Tech / Interlink -> DSC -> AMP -> Bio. However, since these are lattice linked benefits, you will prioritise any nodes that cut off the majority of bases at once. In PS2, this sort of thinking leads to trying to surround your enemy, though since the effect is less immediate most the time and easier to negate because small territories are quick to turn hands, it's not a very strong drive in PS2. This also goes for continental benefits. One reason why Oshur (Battle Islands) was attacked so frequently by TR was the repair benefit it procided.

7. Path of least resistance principle: If you have little opposition, it is an opportunity you can't ignore. If you can bypass an enemy to gain some sort of positional (or exp) advantage, you will exploit it. PS2 in particular allows this a lot as indicated above. PS1 typically required hard logistics for this, though often these low resistance paths would be taking LLU bases behind enemy lines or sending an outfit to say Kusag from Enkidu or Chuku from Aja. Basically you'd select those bases with few troops in them, where you can expect little response due to the zerg being far away or that can be captured rapidly. In PS2's three warpgate owned setup, the enemy zerg or populace is never far away though, nor are your links now, so you just take the holes in the frontline and keep pushing till something pushes back or you get cut off yourself.

8. Driving an enemy into another enemy: basically a combination of several theories, but it was based on luring an enemy into a fight with another enemy (typically a nearest base principle and having no alternate options), then moving such that you create a front with both enemies in order of one another as you moved through the enemy bases: basically, you tried to ensure that both enemies would be in close proximity so they'd fight each other primarily, then get behind them, bring both down to one base and then finish them off in succession, in part based on the likely invasion targets and in part with what the fastest order would be. Ideally you'd leave their last bases to be a LLU base, AMP Station or Bio Lab.

9. Nice borders principle: having nice rounded borders not only makes the map look prettiest divided (don't underestimate subconscious aesthetics), but also provides the best security. Particularly in an influence system. It minimises the enemy links in an adjecency (and thus also a lattice) system.

10. Home ground principle: general rule of thumb: the closer to an enemy home (sanc/warpgate), the more likely a fight. Not just due to easier logistics for the enemy, but also a matter of "national security" and not to forget, a matter of personal and factional pride.

In PS2, every base provides some lattice benefit that can lead to becoming surrounded. Prioritising is hard for the defender, where the attacker has ample choice. Meanwhile there's little incentive to defend smaller places because they're not exactly built for defense. In PS1, choice was less intuitive and more based on reason. In PS2, it seems to me the more intuitive flow mechanisms are most strongly incentized and that has a lot to do with the amount of targets available. As reasoning your next target becomes less of an argumented process, defensive reasoning becomes more reactive, rather than preventive. Basically, defenders will always be lagging behind attackers.

p0intman · 2013-01-04, 06:25 AM

in PS1, tactics were based on logic, reasoning, predictability and forcing the third and fourth empires to do what you wanted by forcing them to pick and choose where to strike and attack, and where you were OK with giving up temporarily for better benefits elsewhere.

there was LOGIC to that lattice (puts new meaning to LLU) which doesn't exist whatsoever in ps2.
edit: here is something i archived written by orange soda explaining how to implement a lattice on a cont like indar.
http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/?p=10

ringring · 2013-01-04, 06:43 AM

I think the profilferation of outposts on Indar was partly reflection of the Devs desire to spread the fighting out and therefore avoid or minimise potential performance issues.

Similarly, the layouts of the main bases having some many different capture points (at least initially) spread people around.

The problem being at some point or other during the conquest of a continent the populations of empires will inevitably converge on the point of the final battle.

And if these were the continental design compromises they made to be able to get 2000 on a continent instead of say half that, and if true then I think what we lost outweighs what we gained.

Having said all of that, I do prefer the layout of esamir with regards to the locations of outposts and bases. In this sense less is more.

The devs have spoken about the possibility of creating new base types with the development of Searhus and Oshur (is that the other one) and they also mention a further possibility of putting a drop ship onto Indar etc. So I would prefer if they'd remove several outposts and use the space to add in the new bases.

In all the discussions that have taken place I haven't talked about 'lattice', after all it's simply a way of representing the next base along (which you say in different words) but there should be some way of reducing the options for the next base to make it more predictable in order for a battle to occur.

One other point I'd like to make is that when considering capturing a continent or a chunk of land the capture time is important. And simply put a base you have captured isn't secure if if can be recaptured in a couple of minutes and as your empire is driving forward it can be too easily outflanked and at a rapid pace and most of this would be done without a major fight occuring.

Also a low capture time reduces the importance or a win or a loss at a base. If a base can the quickly caputured it can just as quickly be recaptured by the other side. Winning or losing doesn't mean that much (anymore).

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-04, 06:57 AM

I don't understand why Lattice systems were not preferred to what we have now. Lattice systems solved all these issues you speak of and made frontlines easier to manage, for both defenders and attackers.

You could see from looking at a map how to use strategy to get the zerg to do some jobs for you, how to funnel the enemy towards another objective (where you have a platoon or 2 waiting to obliterate them) and made tactical play much more managable.

Why was this thrown out ? - Hexes split the fight all over the place, as described by your post, and the whole proliferation of Zergs rolling over empty bases is a result.

I don't want to sound like a broken record but this was all mentioned on the Tech test forums, then Beta forums, and now here.....

I even went as far to do a long winded post about Lattice systems making game play much more predictable without any loss of "fun" which seems to be the dev's biggest fear, but sadly my post got a few agrees and then got lost in the ehter of all the whine posts about whatever was flavour of the week.

I even still have a diagram I drew of Indar with lattices, giving all 3 empires equal number of AMP station, bio lab, and tech plant, as well as working out the equal number of steps required for each empire to move form their WG to the enemies WG (and thus kick someone off a continent).

Take a look for yourselves

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-04, 07:03 AM

Just to add, you can have Towers (new PS2 style towers) jotted all over the place, even facilities for "resources", but not have the Hexes at all determining what is capturable next and what isn't.....

Basically the towers or mines or "mini bases" all have an importance regarding resources acquisition, but dont need hexes or even connectivity to the WG to function....

This allows Smaller Outfits to specilaise in taking Air resource bases..... Zergs will flow along the latices...... small outfits can have their fun taking the mini bases that are all over the place with no need for any hex adjacency, and just make it free for all

bpostal · 2013-01-04, 07:09 AM

Hossin, I think is after Searhus IIRC.

Given enough space between hexes, I think it is possible, but much more difficult, to turn the hex system into a kind of lattice system.
I also agree that, in the case of Indar, there may be too many outposts at the moment which, due to their highly indefensible layouts, results in a high turnover rate for the bases which reduces the sense of permanence that the areas have.

The larger facilities should be the areas of confluence, which draws the three zergs together for those massive, Planetside scale battles. Personally I think this works well on Amerish, although I will admit I don't get nearly as much play time on that cont as I would like due to Outfit commitments.

Amerish, I will concede, is slightly hampered by it's mountainous terrain which reduces the speed, and thus viability, of ground based movement but for the Galaxy minded it's a blast.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 07:15 AM

Here's a thought (just to hypothesize and theorise):

What would happen if you merged hexes together around larger bases?

I'm sure we can predict what would change by changing the meaning and incentives of bases and outposts.

SeraphC · 2013-01-04, 07:35 AM

I agree that the current system is largely rotten, all of it has been discussed several times. I you want it fixed there's only one option: come to a consensus about what you want, what would actually work and keep hammering the devs with it.

I don't agree that a link system is the way to go. It is way too artificial.

I would like to address your opening statement though:

Originally Posted by Figment

I've been wondering about this for quite some time:

Say we defend and hold Sungrey's southern outpost with our squad... What is stopping people from avoiding us altogether and strike directly at the base or take both other outposts and subsequently use those vehicle spawns against us and the base?

We can't be in four places at once, certainly not over such a large terrain. We don't have the manpower to cover that terrain alone and are forced to concentrate the ones we do have in one place.

You shouldn't be able to defend all over the place with a limited amount of people. The thing that will more and more determine success is inter outfit organisation. The sad thing is that the game provides very little tools for this. (Crappy text chat, crappy voice chat and basically nothing else).

p0intman · 2013-01-04, 07:39 AM

tbh, i saw this coming a lightyear away. i wish people would have listened rather than following all the hype.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 07:40 AM

Originally Posted by SeraphC

I would like to address your opening statement though:

You shouldn't be able to defend all over the place with a limited amount of people. The thing that will more and more determine success is inter outfit organisation. The sad thing is that the game provides very little tools for this. (Crappy text chat, crappy voice chat and basically nothing else).

While I agree with poor communication tools and not having to be able to hold everything at once, I'm demonstrating the uselesness of trying to be a plug if there are just too many routes to plug.

You're not a plug in PS2. You're just a minor rock in the river around which the water flows freely and turbulently.

In PS1, doing something similar meant you were a dam. A small one maybe, but one the river couldn't ignore until the water level rose high enough that it overflowed or had enough concentrated pressure that the dam broke at a weakpoint.

And in PS1, a small group could be a dambuster (surgical, crippling strike).

bpostal · 2013-01-04, 07:47 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Here's a thought (just to hypothesize and theorise):

What would happen if you merged hexes together around larger bases?

I'm sure we can predict what would change by changing the meaning and incentives of bases and outposts.

If one were to do that, I assume the hardspawns would be removed as their logistical purpose would be filled by the previous outposts/towers.

In my personal experience and thinking:
This would increase the logistical pressure on the offensive force by, in some areas, doubling the distance vehicles and AMSs would have to travel. This would likely change the presence of ground vehicles into a form of 'waves' instead of 'omnipresent'. Air vehicles would have larger turnaround time as well, but not nearly to the point of ground vehicles.

This would lead to a larger 'playground' for the defensive team. Objectives within their playground would be much easier to prioritize as there's no need to weigh them against outside requirements (Hexes.)

This would also make large facilities much harder to encircle, again due to the larger footprint.

Just a few thoughts, probably neither correct nor incorrect.

p0intman · 2013-01-04, 08:14 AM

There was a lot of stuff written on the Beta Forums that the devs and others didn't read or simply didn't pay attention to. Such as why the hex system will never work.

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/?p=37

RykerStruvian · 2013-01-04, 08:16 AM

Originally Posted by p0intman

in PS1, tactics were based on logic, reasoning, predictability and forcing the third and fourth empires to do what you wanted by forcing them to pick and choose where to strike and attack, and where you were OK with giving up temporarily for better benefits elsewhere.

there was LOGIC to that lattice (puts new meaning to LLU) which doesn't exist whatsoever in ps2.
edit: here is something i archived written by orange soda explaining how to implement a lattice on a cont like indar.
http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/?p=10

Literally, it made sense to attack particular targets in PS1. In PS2, it comes down to defending continental benefits followed by tech plants. Outside of that, anything is typically fair game unfortunately.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by p0intman

There was a lot of stuff written on the Beta Forums that the devs and others didn't read or simply didn't pay attention to. Such as why the hex system will never work.

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/?p=37

One other thing to note, was reading through and came to Conclusion V, is that the potential power distance (small vs big group) can be substantially larger than in PS1 due to the leverage a large group brings and groups in PS2 can be much larger. Average groups are just that: average. They can be based on big extremes.

This is further aggravated by one man main battle tanks.

p0intman · 2013-01-04, 08:41 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

One other thing to note, was reading through and came to Conclusion V, is that the potential power distance (small vs big group) can be substantially larger than in PS1 due to the leverage a large group brings and groups in PS2 can be much larger. Average groups are just that: average. They can be based on big extremes.

This is further aggravated by one man main battle tanks.

https://twitter.com/j_smedley/status...02782540578816

John "We want a different player base" Smedley

welp...