[Guide] Why Nay-Sayers to the Prototype Hex System are Wrong

Ok fine. Lets look at your argument, in so far as your argue it does not simply the game or reduce player freedom.

Well..

Here your argument is, reducing the number of options, does not actually reduce the number of strategies. Why, because games have limits.

Which would work if the game space did not allready have limits, it does. I can't deploy flying everyone on jetpacks across the entire map as a strategic redeployment.

Yet, there are still a limit to possible strategies that can be used, and thus. I can predict the enemy won't be doing certain things like suddenly emerging out of the floor. Whislt at the same time, being able to try and estmiate his likely movements.

what reducing the bases can be attacked to and from, your reducing the number of vectors of approach. Which In doing so reducines the number of possible strategies you are, reducing player freedom and simplifying the game.

Going on about RTS games and 'strategy' and predictable (indeed your entire argument hinge on their being an important functional analogy in PS2 and RTS games, which.. I really don't see, not just the zerg. But commanding a squad or platoon could not be more different to simply ordering units an RTS - a real issue here is also a lot of RTS are actually very simple games), is not say anything that changes that. That there will be stategies in a new system is besides the point. Having less possible options, and increasing linearity simplifies the game.

So to recap. It hinges on the following.
1) That for PS2 to have strategy, it needs to have more linear and predictable movements of players. Which I don't think really is that compelling a point and I don't think entirely gives credit to PS2's current room for strategy.
2) This important functional analogy between RTS games and PS2 which I don't think holds, certainly not from a command perspective.
3) and banishing the evil of ghost capping - which could be fair easy accomplished by changes to min cap populations.

Thus, I'm sorry but you have not advanced some sort of QED proof, that we have nothing to worry about.

If you want more complexity, and if we must go down this silly route. I propose whats in my sig to add second layer of stategy to the game.

You sir are what the ancient Romans might call a tool.

But that is the problem. Every defense in this game is REACTIONARY. Because people see OH SOMEBODY IS CAPPING THIS, LETS MOVE THERE. There is no defense preparation because when you arrive the enemy is already there.

What this game needs is Defense preparations, meaning "Okay guys we have 10 minutes until TR will be at this base, lets set up proper defenses." However thats impossible with the current system because you have NO idea where the enemy will strike UNTIL its already too late to set up a defense, and all you can do is react and spawn in.

I have yet to see a base where you already have 100+ defenders in position BEFORE the enemy hits. Because that is what I am missing from PS1.

In PS1 when a battle for a bridge on Cyssor failed you hastily retreated to the base behind you, and you knew you had only minutes until the enemy was there too, so you quickly built up a defense while calling for reinforcments BEFORE the storm hit you.

This. Nine out of ten times any 'defense' in PS2 is a steel rain, armor push or mass galaxy drop that kicks the attackers out of the base while they are sitting around waiting on the cap.

Not entirely sure what to make of this system - it's interesting but it feels like it's missing something.

On a side note, I think the OP is wrong in almost everything he says.

Double post.

See here's the thing for me, My outfit allready does this a fair bit. as normally its a good bet that certain targets will be prioritsed after other ones due to the terrain. For example excavation tends to get hit after quartz ridge. So if quartz ridge is about to go, pull back there, mine the **** out of it, get turrets and HA up and waiting.

The game doesn't need to be altered to make that happen. entirely possible right now, the only trade off is sometimes waiting around and nothing comes. Which is obviously just the worst thing ever.

Also, Again, we don't need to make the game more linear, to better communicate this to people not in an outfit. Just an improvement to the /orders system. Which is basically being able to tweet ever 5 minutes at present.

This thread is hilarious. There's so many weapons and vehicles, various means of transportation and attack vectors to any base available to you, the number of ways you can take in an assault grows exponentially in all these options.
You can still travel the same roads as before, only you have to have a coherent front line if you want to attack as many bases compared to the current system. Honestly, I can't see this make a load of difference most of the time. What I hope it will do is make defense worthwhile.
Right now, defense means spawning at a base that's flashing on the map, ticking backwards even. This was OK for some time, but I'm fed up with it now. I want to be able to prepare for an oncoming onslaught! I want all turrets manned and people on the walls, shooting at everything that moves! Walls don't matter right now, because they're being overrun almost instantly. I want defenders to have an advantage (they're defending for crying out loud!) and attackers to actually thinking and find the weak point in the defense instead of blindly rushing in. This can only work if we put some predictability in player behavior, hence the lattice.
Right now, attackers and defenders are essentially in the same boat. Most people arrive when **** has already hit the fan and it's one chaotic struggle. Some people might follow some strategy (those fabled super-outfits that don't win because of super-numbers, but super-strategy), but please don't tell me you're using advanced tactics in battle. It doesn't work. Whichever faction spams more bullets wins.

That just doesn't work. We either need some kind of high command that tells us what to do (super linear), or we need some options removed from the game. If all of the dozens of squads, platoons and outfits would communicate in the manner that is needed to actually get a meaningful global strategy set up and maintained, the amount of talking would be absolutely insane.
The number of pairwise communication "channels" grows quadratic. It's fine for a few leaders, say less then 10, but after that it goes bat**** crazy.

to me this is like instead of just taking point a, b and c and then moving on, itll be take and hold base a, b and c before moving on.
im looking forward to it.

Communication doesnt work when the game consists of 70% people that never listen to orders anyway (the Zerg) and 30% of zergfits that just do what THEY think is best.

If the players dont do stuff themselves, then you have to restrict them. You cannot possibly expect that all of this comes down to players.

The game should give the players incentives to do stuff, not the other way round.

See I find the average player, on Nc miller at least if you make the case to them. Hey come here it'll be fun, and we are doing this as a larger thing. Will normally respond pretty positively.

the problem is
1) People have been abusing the **** out of /orders recently. I've seen outright arguments on it and /report requests. Not what its for. I'm beginning to think the bar for entry should be a little higher and it should be moderated.
2) People struggle to recognize who's saying what and it just becomes noise.
3) People trying to make the case for more interesting stuff have to fight with requests for 'moar people at crown'.
4) People are bit too needy on it. Have to remember your offering someone a choice come fight with me here, not actually giving an order.

Problem is 3) especially is quite difficult with only 140 characters to use and outfit tags next to the name would go a long way to wards 2) as often there can't be the same person on all night, despite there being the same 'plan'.

Indeed a better communication structure would do far more to fostering engaging (not large, engaging is whats important) fights than restricting the number of things players can do.

I agree, there should be more incentives. been giving a lot of thought to it.

however I think the outfit community, really needs to step up to the plate as well, they are the largest actors in the gamespace and always will be. If everyone is just zerging the crown in indar. If your involve in the command structure of an outfit of 100 people. You can actually do something about that.

The funny thing though is that all of this worked so perfectly in PS1 (okay, it worked after about 1-2 years after release).

Communication worked, fights worked...

I guess a major part of all this is also that PS1 was niche and attracted people that were ready to do teamwork, whereas PS2 is mainstream and F2P and attracts all sorts of, well... unwilling players...

For one thing, the proposed system is a compromise between the lattice and hex systems. You remove some of the chaos of the current system without becoming quite as restrictive as the lattice system was. While you may not be directly capable of side stepping the zerg along one lane, you can still move down the others, forcing the enemy to divide forces or risk a few taking the other lane and opening a main base to attack. So, you have a situation, now, where the zerg has to diverge through the smaller facilities and converge on main facilities. This sort of battle flow is already the optimal way to move for larger forces, as is (regardless of whether or not people actually do it, it does work beautifully.)

So, we should try to keep in mind: a) this is still a prototype b) It is quite obviously seeking a middle ground between a current system that is clearly too chaotic and an older system that is clearly too restrictive. Troubling, though, is how few are looking at this as compromise, and how few seem willing to do so. Seriously, one might think we are the U.S. Congress with they way people are treating each other here. On one side are those completely opposed to the lattice, and see the prototype as a complete loss. The other side is full of people for the lattice system, and see the prototype as a total victory. They are both wrong, it is compromise.

On a productive note. If they do go through with the prototype, one major change should, indeed, take place. The large base benefits should be completely removed, stay with me here. instead, allow only the main facilities to spawn tanks, aircraft, and add galaxies to all of them. This way, they become staging points for operations down the line, and become places of extreme strategic importance. Then, remove vehicle refill towers from all the small facilities except the tower bases, so those become important refueling stations for your forces. Ammo refill sunderers may need to be changed for this, but I am sure that can be accommodated.

We could also introduce consoles or generators in the main facilities that can be either hacked to prevent some vehicles to be spawned for a set period of time or destroyed to prevent certain vehicles from being spawned until repairs can be made. This way, we can get some black ops infiltrations sort of missions available (which are sorely missing from the game as is), while at the same time, ensuring the base will remain populated enough to react to these sort of operations since people will constantly be returning to the main facilities to pull/refuel vehicles.

And that is my two certs for the day.

PS1 was a very cult game and from waht I can gather from 1st hand accounts and my own limited experience was allmost entirely community driven by the time they'd balanced the game in the 2 or so year (still giant robots with shields and the lasher, oh lawd).

I think in the sandbox space we've got now, you can make a lot more engaging fights by doing extremely simple ****. For example a current effort of mine.

Hey VS/TR outfit, want to meet us at base here at 6 pm Sunday and then use /orders to tell everyone. - Sure.


The problem in a big way is the community is still in a very embyronic stage and I really don't see enough effort from people to actually direct it for the better enjoyment of everyone at the moment.

So the solution is to restrict

As i've said though, my opposition to this system also largely hinges on the fact that a meaningful meta-game of the kinda I propose (though its not just my idea), does not exist currently and this was cited as a point for people from my perspective 'not to worry'. And so, in virtue of that ti reduces the game to a series of zerg v zerg fights.


I also really worry how much solo play can ever really work in this kind of game space, and I think causal play does need some concession, but I don't see why this has to either completely involve alternating game mechanics, or in a way that hards possible options at the strategic level.

That looks a lot like a false dichotomy to me, why is my approach not viable?

I sometimes run comms officer in a alliance structure, its 4 separate channels at once, and that about works. Its a pain, sure. But it can occasional create very involving situations for the guys actually playing and not having to worry about this.

As i've said, I think outfits have to step up a bit. I know mine is.

If you distribute command such that not everyone has comms with everyone else (you don't need to and this literally never happens IRL) it can work without becoming too much.

As i've said, I don't pretend to have fully fleshed out answers to how everything on the community side needs to change, I aim to have a stab at it over the next few weeks. I'm also hopefully as I know there are quite a few 'alliances' springing up now and are managing to do it in a great ad hoc basis by using multiple comms programs.

The thing thats awesome about this new system is that they can bring in supply lines. The logistics side of this game can expand and be simple so everyone understands how it works, itll be clear cut and visual. Resources will actualy mean something and be transported to bases and those supply lines can be messed with. Tactics and stratgeies can evolve from just run to this base and hold said space. With the current system none if this will be possible to much area to cover for resource transport which they have stated they wish to add to the game.

They should add the supply lines first, then see if any territory connectivity changes are even needed.

The explanation is right below that sentence. Your reason to be against these changes is that it's beside the point and the community should take care of any deficits the game currently has. My problem with that sentiment is that the community has had time all through beta and now 3 months after release and it hasn't happened. It probably won't happen before the game dies. This game is too big for hierarchies to form spontaneously like in PS1. And you badly need these hierarchies similar to real military to avoid communication overhead like I explained.

Well see what they do i would love to see it added it could make bases more important dont keep it supplied you dont keep it capped and it goes netural. Hopefully the resource revamp they want to do coming up in the future is this. Only time will hopefully.

Ok two things.

1) Beta was a far, far, far, far, far smaller community. We are at something like 50k now.
2) what exactly is a reasonable time frame for this? beta + 3 months? We passed it already, you sure? Why not beta + 6 months. Hell it took them years to work the kinks out of the original.

sorry man, I got bored of the game is dying chorus back in November. Its clearly not dying. Its also got an utterly unique 'USP' in being the only game where I can potentially get shot up by more than 128 people at once.

And, as i've said. I think how the community on a sever, or map even interacts is to me still a very open question. Not going to pretend I have answers before I do. What I would put my name to, like all my silly suggestions is in my sig/info bit of my profile. I do think theres room for improvement here and subtle changes could net fairly large charges at the level of behavior in game.

I have yet to see a strategy on this game,