Battle flow improvements: Battle lanes, Neutral Hex and a traditional lattice/hex hybrid proposal

[WARNING: Sorry this is a long post. Summed up at the end with a special note to SOE]

In my opinion battle flow improvements are needed but this is something that should be dealt with after SOE adds Hossin (possibly Searus too) and implements continent locking as well as polishing up some other things that really need it more.
SOE is testing out the "Battle lane" system in the PTS now but the thing is, well it is absolute crap right now and I hope it never goes live. There seems to be some other good solutions that I and many others would be much happier with.

Problems that I, many others in my outfit and many other forum members have with the current battle lane system (AKA "Zerg lanes"):

• It is WAY TOO restricting. This dumbs down the entire game by eliminating the majority of choice of where to attack/defend and the types of battles that take place in general. It also gives the feeling that you can only have combat within the lanes (although this is not actually the case) and this could, but not necessarily, lead to a large amount of continent space not being utilized as much. How a system FEELS is just as important as how it works, some times more so.
• It decreases value of the territory capture meta game and changes it from an open world approach to being a pretty much linear one within an open world (especially with the elimination of the influence mechanic; This in itself dumbed the capture meta down. I'm on the fence with this change, at least the territory influence aspect of it. Having to sit on point sucks and I'm somewhat glad to see it go).
• Enemy/ally movements are too predictable.
• It encourages the use of massive zergs only and greatly decreases the effective use of small squads in many situations. This is also detrimental to small outfits that can only muster up small squads/platoons most of the time as they have little choice but to join the zerg. It ends up becoming a massive snowball effect.
• More people in a smaller area generally leads to frame rate drops/dragging (at least for lower end computers/laptops), if this is the case generally wherever you go due to the "Zerg-lines", than this is a very bad thing.
• It is harder to change how the bases are linked once in game. The map had to be changed to make this system work better on Indar, this should not have to be the case. Major changes to any map should be to improve the area or map overall not twist it to fit a particular half baked game play system that is slapped on after the fact (granted I am enjoying many, but not all of the Indar changes, cough, The Crown, cough cough).
• Front lines are less clear and defined, this was one of the main reasons SOE went with the hex system over a pure lattice system to begin with.

Other than the things mentioned above this system works really well (too well) at leading combat. It leads to some massive battles in a small space. Paths to the next conquest are clearly marked although this is something that would be a permanent fixture on the map forced to everyone and some people would at least like the option of an overlay or GPS for this purpose instead of building it into the actual capture mechanic...

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

OK so there are a few really good ideas and alternative systems that could be implemented with much the same positive effects and much fewer negative ones (theoretically).

• One member (Alarox) suggested adding more interconnecting lanes to the current battle lane system to form more of a web, it would be less restricting for choice and still add predictability and what not although I think it would still retain some major downfalls.
• Another system I liked and most hardcore PS2 players are familiar with is the "Neutral Hex" system. This would create walls of neutral, unconquerable hexes to funnel the combat in particular areas. One thing I would add to that is to use the smaller hexes that are used in the BL test (and if it wasn't already suggested make the walls change up every few hrs or so to keep it fresh). The other thing that sounds great is that SOE would have full freedom to add as few or many neutral hexes as necessary and the dead spaces can be any shape/size to accomplish the needed direction in battle flow, This could even be combat driven so that it would actively react to current situations.

Personally I am in the camp of taking game play mechanics (mostly in regards to meta game/depth) from PS1 and integrating them into PS2 with new twists, ideas and implementations to fit this game better (using hybrid mechanics, not just porting them over in many cases). So I propose another system that may perhaps work better, not saying it will for sure, just something else to consider and possibly test.

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

PS1 style Hex/lattice overlapping hybrid system.
This would consist of:

1. A more refined/tweaked version of the previous hex/influence mechanic (territory influence not point influence).
2. Strait forward lattice link capture mechanic between main facilities.
3. (Possible) Sub-links between main facilities/satellites and large outposts, small outposts would still be purely influence based.

The hex/influence system works pretty much the same way as it did previously (need for territory adjacency to cap enemy bases, more connected territory = faster cap times. Like I stated above having people stand on point for quicker caps not really necessary and boring). The lattice system links each warpgate to one facility (Amp stations, Tech plants, Biolabs). All the facilities are linked to 2-4 other facilities across the continent and not necessarily ones next to them either (much the same fashion that PS1 did). If you have one of these facilities than you can capture any of the others that are connected regardless of territory influence from the hexes. Capturing a facility would require that you have at least one of the satellite bases around it to gain ticks for capture (defending would not require this). If you do manage to cap a facility that is completely surrounded in enemy territory, resources and base benefits would be routed through the lattice link at a reduced amount so long as it is still networked to your warpgate. If the lattice network is severed from your warpgate you no longer gain the resources/benefits from the facilities (you still get them from outposts though) until a link is reestablished. Adding better benefits and resource gains for them would also emphasis their importance. If the lattice network is cut off maybe all connected facilities slowly start to go neutral as well? Friendly territory that runs through the lines could also add bonus XP when a linked facility is finally captured making capturing outposts between the facilities a bit more worth while instead of just going strait for the facility and capping it out from under enemy noses.

This allows for your faction to gain footholds in enemy territory or vice versa and also keeps the defined front lines intact and useful. This would lead battles between the facilities (more or less along the lattice lines) and not each individual base and would provide more predictability (what facility is the enemy/are we going to hit, fight toward) but still retain a bit of unpredictability as well (how exactly are we/they going to hit it and from where), this adds depth to the capture meta game and battle fronts as a whole.
Keeping the hex system insures that this game keeps that open world feel without feeling constrained and linear (combat wise) and this insures that most of the land space on each continent is still utilized for the most part. To keep things interesting the lattice patterns can be changed every major game update or when there is a warpgate rotation without taking as much consideration to roads and natural paths/obstacles between bases and there is total freedom to what bases are linked (compared to the BLs). Other capture mechanics and resource gain mechanics could also tie into this to tweak it and or make it a more viable solution.
Sub-links: If the battle flow needs some more direction than you could also create links between the facilities and large outposts (leave the small outposts out of it). This would be more restricting but not as much as the current battle lane system is.

On top of curving the battle flow the new map interface currently adds value now because everyone can see how much of an enemy/friendly presence there is at any given location and how long you have 'till it caps leading to better choices of where reinforcements are in order or what's free to attack. The one thing I like about the BL however is that most roads/paths to the next point are clearly marked and this system just does not have that. To counter this a Google maps style GPS feature could be added to the map...
-------------------------
Strengths of this overlapping system:

• Leads the battles between facilities not individual bases (unless sub-links are added)
• Still has that open world feel (while looking at the map) and not a confined linear feel and does not force you to fight mostly where the zergs lie.
• Keeps the deeper tactical choices of where you want to attack/defend to gain territory and adds to the meta game by adding more major choices for attack/defense while still being somewhat leading
• A bit more predictable as to how the battles are going to travel (more or less along the lattice lines)
• Keeps the clear "Front lines"
• Still caters to zergs as much as the game does now but does not kill small squads/outfits in the process
• Keeps most of the continent utilized in battles (more or less)
• Easy to change things up and keep it fresh and (I would assume) is easier to implement/test and would not require changes to the map to make it work better...

Weaknesses of this system:

• Enemy/friendly movements are not as predictable as with the battle lanes or neutral hex
• Less leading of combat compared to the other systems (not really a bad thing though unless tighter flow is definitely needed)
• Roads/paths between bases are still not definitively marked. Could be countered with a GPS feature in the map/mini map
• May be some others that I have not thought of or forgot about...

-------------------------
Note to SOE: I would suggest that you test out the neutral hex and lattice overlay along with the battle lanes on the PTS at the same time (each continent gets a different system) so that we the players can test out and compare them and see what we actually like and works best. Who knows maybe the solution is something entirely different but I would at least like to try some different options first befor pushing this out to live... This system will change how the entire game will feel and be played and the wrong implementation of such a system could mark the end of the distinguished PS2 careers of an entire army...

So if you actually read this post I would like to hear your thoughts on any of these 3 potential battle flow systems. What I may have missed, things that would make any of them better. Please keep it constructive and informed...

Theres no denying the current battle lane system feels slightly too restricting; hex lattice to battle lane has been one extreme of chaos to the other (I think Higby's original sneak preview a month or so ago actually had more lane options very close to Alarox's idea so I'm not sure without them directly commenting on "the why" it wasn't used straight off) - might have mentioned it before but I'm sure it was said there were no plans to release any battleflow prior to Hossin/Continent locks hence why we're at the testing stage - as yes it needs edits in it's current incarnation. Part of the chaos is likely caused by the amount of hexes and bases on Indar specifically but this is by and by as the neutral hex system indirectly cancels out some of the clutter without actually removing them from the map.

Saw the Neutral hex system video awhile back and on paper looks the good middle ground to getting the right number of connections in the right places; however dynamic neutral hexes I can see being a proper pain in the **** as they would foremost probably have the affect the alert system currently has "cap the continent before the timer ticks over" and secondly if you've been fighting for a long time on either the defense or attack and your hard fought hex flips to neutral you're going to be a bit pissed off. Just 2 initial thoughts there.
Rather than it flipping on a timer hour to hour lets think longer term with continent locks in place: where the neutrals rotate between say 3 presets on a faction continent lock; then when the faction that's been ejected from the continent starts pushing back through linked warp gates and the continent is re-contested although owning all active hexes the neutrals have rotated.

Would I prefer it? Well only a testing can answer that 64 million dollar question: end of the day I only promote a system that makes sense and promotes good balance - currently both options on the table are poles apart and need bringing together. Ultimately battle lane is up for change and hopefully all for the better.

OK so I would like to sum up the basics of how it all works quick and add a picture of what I am talking about.

1. The lattice system flows between the facilities and works pretty much exactly like it did in PS1.
2. Unlike PS1 however this game will still have its current hex/influence system.
3. Small and large outposts are essentially equivalent to the towers of old (PS1) but much more usefull.
4. Useful incentives and game play mechanics make capping outposts on the way to a facility more rewarding.
5. Combined together you get a system that leads combat between the facilities but still allows you total freedom of where and how you have combat.

The lattice pattern is just a representation of how this would look and not actually one that I am proposing...

Something else I forgot to mention is the fact that this type of hex/lattice hybrid system will add more value to the capture/tactical metagame without radically changing how the game plays or feels.

You know, I just noticed something that makes the hexlattice system different from the lattice of PS1. Notice how you (and the old PS) have lines that overlap, sending influence off to the side rather than just up or down. By using lines (colored), it allows for more freedom of connection for the devs. This could possibly alleviate some of the concerns people have with the linearity of the current hexlattice system.

I doubt they will ever abandon hex, but hey its just a little side note.

Exactly.

I hope that they don't ever get rid of the hex system but they need a lattice overlay to work with each other as separate entities rather than combining them into a single mechanic...

So the purpose of this is to 'guide' the main fights down paths? you can hack a facility but if you dont own hexes near it it will take ages to capture?

Is this not more connected than it is on live now, just capping a linked facility is doable but hard?

I'm not sure I fully understand the last part.

Yes the purpose here is to 'guide' but not force the main fights. The main thing here is that the combat is lead between the main facilities and not each individual base/outpost without having restrictions on what outpost you have to cap to get there. Yes capping facilities without influence would be harder, they would have to be to gain a foothold in enemy territory, but it would only take maybe an extra min or two to do so (10 min maximum but maybe less). It keeps the freedom we have now but there is relative direction in the fights, combined with some other cool mechanics will lead to a fun and more deep game (on the territory capping front) without being intrusive to the game experience as a whole.

Sorry i meant bases are linked as they are now but with a new set of links involved. Seems a sound idea though! Personally though I'm afraid im bias towards timered bases and links between them, links less than that on live at least. I could be proved horribly wrong though and the things may not be as good as i suspect in the future, just cos this game is laid out differently to PS.