The Hex system is good, is just people that don't know how to use it

Dkamanus · 2013-01-04, 06:58 AM

Hi there.

Yes, this is an afirmation of someone whos's be quite some on the game, and thinks this is a good idea, on a strategic level, being much better suited for those commanders who actually know a thing or two about map flows and can predict possible movement routes of the enemies.

I understand people think the lattice system was something way much better (yes, it did bring focus and larger numbers to battles), but on a macro vision, it didn't brought such dinamics as the Hex system, since you were still restricted to one base attack per time, not having the whole continent open for attacks.

Anyone with half a brain knows that battles will end up focusing on larger facilities and knowing when your enemy is moving does help quite a lot, with a lot of predictable paths. Besides, the hex system promotes organized play in a level I think PS1 couldn't, mostly because now you need extra squads to secure territories adjecent to the ones you're main force is on main facilities and stuff.

Even yesteday we used the hex system sucessfully in preventing TR from capping Esamir using THREE ORGANIZED SQUADS + some pubies! Two under my command and 1 from another commander named Saldar on Waterson. My Alpha Squad went to Andvari (we were going for snowshear, but it was already being capped) and Saldar went against The traverse while my Bravo squad stayed on Freyr Amp Station and defended it.

After we secured the Traverse and Andvari, we moved towards Esamir munitions corp and decided to keep the fight there. We had pushed a big TR offensive of Freyr, mostly because the hex system values outfits that branch out and grab more stuff, facilitating the securing of places. Of course an even bigger TR mass went after Esamir Munitions corp while only my bravo squad went there, so I asked if it was a good idea to go reinforce, where they said it wasn't. They fall back to Freyr and Saldar and my alpha reinforce the place, destroy completely the TR attack, pushing it back to Eisa after taking Munitions corps.

No, we aren't uber player (although we are almost concluding that the BIG majority of NC waterson are just WAY below average), and we know what to do in order to DEFEND A AMP STATION and what to attack in order to secure it. There is no need for a lattice system if the outfit/platoon leader knows what to do and where to deploy his troops.

I see leaders complain they couldn't cap a continent when they had the majority of players there. Like 60% NC/ 30% TR and 10% VS, and complain we were in Esamir defending. WTF? If my 16 guys must leave esamir in order to properly make a job 60% of NC on Amerish weren't able to do, should I really go there to fix the shit the rest of faction has no clue to do?

This is due to a lack of understanding the hex system properly, a lack of understand of map flows, and a lack of organization on their part. Jeez, if you have to throw 192 players at one single problem in order to solve it, GUESS WHAT? YOU AREN'T A GOOD LEADER OR YOUR OUTFIT SUCK COMPLETELY!

That's what I had to say. The Hex System bring huge bonuses for decent commanders and looks like shit for bad commanders who think zerging a single objective is what needs to be done. Shit, anyone with 4 platoons at their disposal should be able to lock ANY continent.

Thunderhawk · 2013-01-04, 07:12 AM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

Hi there.

Yes, this is an afirmation of someone whos's be quite some on the game, and thinks this is a good idea, on a strategic level, being much better suited for those commanders who actually know a thing or two about map flows and can predict possible movement routes of the enemies.

I understand people think the lattice system was something way much better (yes, it did bring focus and larger numbers to battles), but on a macro vision, it didn't brought such dinamics as the Hex system, since you were still restricted to one base attack per time, not having the whole continent open for attacks.

Anyone with half a brain knows that battles will end up focusing on larger facilities and knowing when your enemy is moving does help quite a lot, with a lot of predictable paths. Besides, the hex system promotes organized play in a level I think PS1 couldn't, mostly because now you need extra squads to secure territories adjecent to the ones you're main force is on main facilities and stuff.

Even yesteday we used the hex system sucessfully in preventing TR from capping Esamir using THREE ORGANIZED SQUADS + some pubies! Two under my command and 1 from another commander named Saldar on Waterson. My Alpha Squad went to Andvari (we were going for snowshear, but it was already being capped) and Saldar went against The traverse while my Bravo squad stayed on Freyr Amp Station and defended it.

After we secured the Traverse and Andvari, we moved towards Esamir munitions corp and decided to keep the fight there. We had pushed a big TR offensive of Freyr, mostly because the hex system values outfits that branch out and grab more stuff, facilitating the securing of places. Of course an even bigger TR mass went after Esamir Munitions corp while only my bravo squad went there, so I asked if it was a good idea to go reinforce, where they said it wasn't. They fall back to Freyr and Saldar and my alpha reinforce the place, destroy completely the TR attack, pushing it back to Eisa after taking Munitions corps.

No, we aren't uber player (although we are almost concluding that the BIG majority of NC waterson are just WAY below average), and we know what to do in order to DEFEND A AMP STATION and what to attack in order to secure it. There is no need for a lattice system if the outfit/platoon leader knows what to do and where to deploy his troops.

I see leaders complain they couldn't cap a continent when they had the majority of players there. Like 60% NC/ 30% TR and 10% VS, and complain we were in Esamir defending. WTF? If my 16 guys must leave esamir in order to properly make a job 60% of NC on Amerish weren't able to do, should I really go there to fix the shit the rest of faction has no clue to do?

This is due to a lack of understanding the hex system properly, a lack of understand of map flows, and a lack of organization on their part. Jeez, if you have to throw 192 players at one single problem in order to solve it, GUESS WHAT? YOU AREN'T A GOOD LEADER OR YOUR OUTFIT SUCK COMPLETELY!

That's what I had to say. The Hex System bring huge bonuses for decent commanders and looks like shit for bad commanders who think zerging a single objective is what needs to be done. Shit, anyone with 4 platoons at their disposal should be able to lock ANY continent.

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 07:13 AM

The hex system IS a lattice system.

It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.

The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

Dkamanus · 2013-01-04, 07:33 AM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

And that is one of the flaws of the zerg. It hits only one target, 90% of the time, and, the way I see it, most people don't even know how to use terrain in their favour.

What I'm going to say is a crown example, but it illustrates quite well what I'm trying to say. Most people don't know about the northern pass to exploit it, and EVEN LESS people know how to properly defend that northern passage.

The northern passage of the crown, once high enough, splits in two narrower passages. There I was, using a dual grinder MAX, with 1 engineer, 1 medic and 1 HA. Wewere destroying wave after wave after wave of, at least, 4 times our numbers. Yes, its a crown example, but its an example of knowing what to do that makes the difference.

I used the Esamir idea mostly because esamir's terrains makes predicting enemy movements "tougher". Although people say they'll zerg around, if you know where the zerg will try to hit and can hold it (like we did), they'll try to circle around and we'll try to avoid the circling as well.

It's a simple matter of focusing the zerg down. Even with air zerg, Having a few MAX units on the ground with AAs will make the zerg go away. People say its impossible to hold the zerg, but thats only half true. Base layout does influence a lot. Tawrich is an example of a tech plant that requires TOO MUCH effort to defend, mostly because on Broken Arch the attackers don't have to clash with the main gates, they can go around, on vehicles, and zerg inside anyway, so badly made defensive positions are a shit to defend.

Amp Stations and Biolabs are much more forgiving for an organized albeit smaller force. Tech Plants require more people to defend, but it can be done as well. What I'm pointing out is that most people have no idea what a chokepoint is as well in order to defend it. Example was us attacking a tech plant (eisa).

We were just 16 man strong, with 3 Vanguards (fully Upgraded) and 1 ammo/AMS sunderer. That means we had 9 people gunning/driving and 7 outside. We were destroying a huge vehicle mass that was trying to form up just outside the Eisa tech plant Vehicle bay, mostly because the organization was MUCH better than that of the zerg, and we were hitting them on a privileged position (could be better but the top tower guns were hitting us as well, we were next to their Spawn Room and not one single VS came after us).

The hex system in this case would help in order to secure faster an objective, while giving incentive for people to attack eisa if they had capped all hexes around it, or at least most, and we couldn't leave, lest we let a HUGE magrider/lightning zerg form up. People refused to attack, and decided to go head on against the Vbay of eisa, getting destroyed, while we were hoping people would go around the vbay, get the shields down and go inside.

The hex system does require a LOT more branching out, and that's what makes it interesting and an effective system. Clashing huge armies against one another is quite easy to make. Actually trying to cap a continent that has equal populations isn't something easily achieved unless people know how to effectively use the hex system and know map flows and layouts, which MOST don't, even older players.

Originally Posted by Figment

The hex system IS a lattice system.

It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.

The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

I was thinking a Pseudo Lattice system would work to direct flow, but then I rethough my position and saw it would actually be a detriment to commanding. Flanking manouvers, pinching movements. People have a natural tendency to move towards bigger objectives already so I don't think a more restricted lattice link system would be required, since combat does normally gravitate around larger bases, and it would be more destructive to defenders then to attackers if this was on (at least the way I though it could be implemented).

ShadetheDruid · 2013-01-04, 07:40 AM

Very true. The problem overall isn't hexes, which I like as a map system, it's organisation and communication.

Zergs are a separate issue from the map system. The only difference a lattice system would make to zergs is force them to fight rather than ignore each other.. and I don't think that's really that great a goal to aim for.

Zergs need to be broken up and/or controlled and given goals, not just thrown at other zergs. That's a goal for the other systems and their brokenness (the resource system, base design, etc), the map has very little to do with it.

On a lattice system in general, I don't get why we should have a predictable flow to battle (it's one thing to make logical tactical assessments of movements, it's totally another knowing exactly where your enemy will come from because it's the only "link" to where you are). That's not how battles work. What should be happening is one commander makes a decision on a target, troop movements etc, hopefully moving to get the jump on the enemy, and the enemy commander should have people scouting to ascertain those troop movements and prevent that, form a defense, etc.

This game is supposed to be about teamwork, right? If you don't know which of 4 directions the enemy will attack from, send someone out to find out! I'm sure there's plenty of people out there willing to do some scouting for you (i've done it myself before in a loosely organised group, it's quite fun relaying info from an ESF that gets your forces where they need to be with the equipment they need).

Figment · 2013-01-04, 07:51 AM

Shade, in PS1 we would send out scouts all the time. Due to the command system and sitreps and coms and globals AND proper map indicators like base hacked, facility status indicators and hot spot indicators, we'd be informed enough to make an informed decision.

PS2 is largely gambling. Due to the speed of capture, any decision you make is quickly rendered obsolete though. You should not underestimate the impact of sheer numbers and overload of sensory input on the decision making of the average player.

Dkamanus · 2013-01-04, 08:11 AM

I don't know about you guys, but If I have someone in the air, and am gonna attack something, I generally order them to scout ahead quickly in order for me to have a forward intel to work on. Command Chat is dead, and commanders aren't giving any intel on positions they are attacking or anything.

Even yesterday on Waterson, people wanted to formed a single zerg on command chat, and I had to remind them NOT to do it, cause it would help less then they think. I guess I wasn't heard cause they formed up anyway in a zerg, and we saw little in continent increase, even having 41% of NC on Esamir and 34% of VS there.

BTW, plans never survive past the planning phase, someone said one time. And its quite true. What I plan is hipothetical. Always know how to improvise and zergs DON'T allow improvising.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 08:17 AM

Campaigns are planned. Battleplans are improvised.

Figment · 2013-01-04, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

The hex system IS a lattice system.

It just has more links, you could just as easily replace terrain borders with lines and an influence strength indicator (for instance based on line length) and it'd be the exact same thing as the hex system.

It'd just be represented differently.

The main thing people refer to when they mention the lattice, is reducing the amount of links and thus directing flow. Particularly to and from the larger bases.

Just saw this in Pointman's write up:

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

Perhaps this thread and mine should be merged?

One of the studies on hexes and adjecency I did by cutting a few of those links based on actual geographical routes (not enough cutting probably) resulted in this:

Sunrock · 2013-01-04, 08:34 AM

Originally Posted by Thunderhawk

Sorry, but i disagree, all the hex system does is make it impossible to stem the flow of a zerg because "good" commanders would work round a problem rather than lose resources and men throwing them at one point. The problem at the moment is the Hexes are causing this scattered approach.

Currently, in the game now, you do have some bottlenecks where big battles occur....

West Highlands (although go take ti Alloys or NS research labs and avoid it)

Quartz Ridge (although similarly take Indar Comm array, then NS research labs and avoid it)

Regent Rock -> Xenotech labs -> Crowwroads watchtower -> Broken Arch road (although take the Russ Mesa comm station - whatever its called - and avoid it and hit south Peris without the need to)

And I think thats it.....

Hexes work and don't work depending on what you're trying to argue for or against.

I don't think you can blame the hex system on that there are no big and long battles. I think the base design has allot more to do with that. Remember a month a go when tech planets did not have the two generators outside? Remember what a meat grinder that was?

The hex system actually promotes a game play where zerging is less rewarding. Because you're waisting man power on taking one base with 150 man zerg that can be taken by 12.... As the OP pointed out. If you split up the zerg to take multiple hexes at the same time it would benefit the faction allot more.

Also it's quite easy to avoid the zerg if you have experience of the map and just cap everything around it.

Ghoest9 · 2013-01-04, 09:22 AM

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!

If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

Sunrock · 2013-01-04, 09:40 AM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!

If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

I agree. But I would still not blame the hex system for that. I would blame them not to give the conquering land a more important part of the metagame. Right now the only thing that really matters is exp/hour not how your faction progress in taking land.

Dkamanus · 2013-01-04, 10:36 AM

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

Look the OP totally failed at understanding internet games!!!!!!!

If the average player intuitvly does something over and over that leads to a bad result for everyone - its the developers fault.

Games MUST be developed with an understanding that players will not do what what you want simply because you want them too.

And that is mostly because developers are too afraid to put barriers or punish stupid behaviour in such games. They think most players are as intelligent as a door knob. Which might be true, but part of the problem comes from the fact that developers, thanks to the innate stupidity of players, think they won't help them get better by putting barriers, and so, its a vicious cicle that starts and never ends.

Quite a shame =[

Stanis · 2013-01-04, 11:28 AM

One issue that is not addressed with the change from lattice to hex is denial of benefit.

It is true the hexes can be remodeled and viewed as a tightly knit lattice system. Which results in many, many more redundant links.

We have very few benefits in game.
Only the main base benefits and the resources from the warpgate.

My opinion of failure within the hex system (which is fine for capturing territory) is it doesn't allow for denial of benefit or resource because of the redundancy in links.

This is one area that the simplified lattice system and generators allowed for more easily applied tactics on continental benefit strategy

Sunrock · 2013-01-04, 12:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

And that is mostly because developers are too afraid to put barriers or punish stupid behaviour in such games. They think most players are as intelligent as a door knob. Which might be true, but part of the problem comes from the fact that developers, thanks to the innate stupidity of players, think they won't help them get better by putting barriers, and so, its a vicious cicle that starts and never ends.

Quite a shame =[

I would not say players are as intelligent as a door knob. A more correct description IMO would be to say that players are lemmings that follow the bath of least resistance. You can see that as a lack of intelligent or that all they want to do is to "win" in the most efficient way possible.