Reread my previous post. I'll paraphrase and expand it though: The notion of strategic importance does not and can not exist under the lattice system. By design, all links are of the same value as they are just one step in the ladder. You may unlock a non linear bonus/reward per step, but it does not give any strategical value to any position. Under the current implementation of the hex system, there are slight variations of value per territory. These variation depend on a few factors: - Territory bonus: For instance ,Eisa tech plant has more value than a middle of the map territory like Commander's rest. - Buffer potential: Territories around eisa tech plant are less valuable than eisa, but more valuable than "regular" territory as capturing all mean a permanent safety of the tech plant. - Connection potential: Frostfall overlook is a dangerous territory to lose. It connects two facilities and at the same time opens side routes.(grey heron) - Roadblock potential: Splitpeak pass is a great roadblock. it is connected by 2+ territory on each side, but reduce them to a one territory wide chokepoint. - Context dependant: cutting off isn't all that important, but just enough to make a rando mterritory take more value when it is the last link to warpgate of a push. - Defensibility: The ascent, raven landing, scarred messa skydock and even the crown are important territories to keep/obtain before a warpgate push due to how much they can withstand alone. They are also great position to spread out. - Influence: (before they removed it) some territory serve to soften up another target and make it an easier cap. I am the first to say that these aren't enough factors, but nothings prevents new factors to be added to the system. It isn't limited by design, contrary to the lattice. The strategy layer in the game is already way too thin. That is the problem. You don't solve a problem in a system by removing it. The system should be expanded rather than limited. The devs could even create a new and better system if they weren't satisfied with the strategical depth potential of the hex system. The devs are wasting their time on a PR move with the lattice.
All those bases can be bypassed. None of them have any value, except maybe as a last ditch stand to hold a continental cap. But even then it seems odd to me that an entire empire can camp out on say Scared Mesa and block another faction from taking the bonus. The hex system totally negates terrain. For example lepardwood nursery is linked to scarred mesa. That's a link that ignores 2 bases an air tower, a massive bridge, an ocean, impassable cliffs and maybe 1.5km of roads. To cap that territory, Instead of having to amass a force, form a plan, execute it and defeat the enemy in several battles, all you have to do is crash land in an ESF and have your squad hit squad deploy. Being able to ignore terrain altogether is one reason why the hex system is less complex.
It's exactly because they can be bypassed that they have varying degrees of value. As I said, if a territory cannot be bypassed, it has no element of choice, hence, no value to determine. We're in a future combined arm context. Terrain's impact should be represented trough influence but can never be an absolute barrier. The connection you mentioned is perfectly logical when we have galaxy drop ships. However it should be a low influence (like 1-5%) The ability to chose between easy caps and risky caps is what adds depth to the game. Inherently, the hex system without influence is stupid. I'll try to go much simpler: I don't like the current hex system. It is incomplete at best and should be finished. The lattice system is plain bad, I'd rather have an incomplete system in the form of what we had. What I'm advocating in my posts is to go further than both those systems and get one that really adds depth to the game. The devs are at best wasting their time, at worst ruining their game for the long term.
I disagree, the fact they can be bypassed is the problem. This could be fixed in other ways maybe, but I mainly care about the result: devs must bring back order in the battle flow. As it is today the hex map is like having a huge 8x8 plain field with no obstacles in between: people can attack everywhere at any time and move from point to point regardless rules of military warfare a logistics. Not saying PS2 should be 100% realistic, but today armies behave like a mindless swarm of locusts moving from base to base without any logic. Even big bases gates make no sense. Take Hvar: today we defended the east gate for almost 1 hour against a massive Vanu zerg. They attempted many times to take down the door generator, lower the shield and pass, but they didn't make it. In the end we were forced to retreat anyway because they bypassed the gate with sunderers, liberators, magriders, harassers and whatever. They didn't need to apply an amazing strategy: they just drove around our point and moved to the base. We spent 60 minutes to play a heroic resistance for nothing because that stupid hex map completely nullified all our efforts. Some in TS were asking what the hell is the purpose of a defensive structure that can be bypassed that easily. The answer is: no purpose, it's just crap. We need bottlenecks in the battleflow to encourage epic fights. As someone else said, defending on the hex map is like pretending to stop water with a strainer. It's impossible, and that's just frustrating: there's no defense today, just counter-zerging. It's every day the same old story, and personally I realized after 1 week of beta something was wrong with that map. I'm not saying the lattice is perfect, it would still require some tweaks. I think with the new map tweeted by Higby and new capture rules we should test in these days devs are still closer to a very good result.
You delayed the Vanu (who have the nearby warpgate and way easier logistics at this point) at Hvar for 60 minutes and you consider it "for nothing"?!? For the record, what would happen with the current test server lattice is that the Vanu could just ignore you and drive right past you. Hvar East is on the lane Hvar-Allatum; attacking from the south, you don't need to take it for either, nor does it stop attacks further north. Is this really so much better?
The problem is we were hundreds of coordinated players and we didn't wont to delay them: we wanted to stop them, push them back a see them crying while they were crushing against our defensing wall. This is the biggest fault of the hex map: you can delay your enemy, but you can't prevent people from passing. I think lattice is better than hex map because in order to attack the base from another direction, attackers will have to own another lane, which does not just require to drive 2 minutes and hack 1 single base in adjacent territories: taking a lane and opening a new front towards a target requires a much bigger effort than it does today. If they are pushed back by defenders because they cannot pass the gate, trying from another direction will not be something they can do quickly. This is where the lattice imho make a difference: in bottlenecks bypassing will still be possible but it will require huge efforts, there's no step back and attack the surrounding territory, people will have to fight very hard to pass, in bottlenecks attackers will have to struggle to pass because if they will give up will have to change approach completely: failure will really be a problem, and defending would really mean something.
Then your strategy was lacking. You don't stop whoever owns the south-west warpgate at Hvar, because it's effectively on the side lines and not very defensible, you do it along the Quartz Ridge - West Highlands - Allatum line. The lattice won't change it; people will just bypass you via Allatum instead of Sandstone Gulch -> Quartz Ridge (as stupid and unnecessary this link is even in the hex system) or NS Secure Data -> West Highlands. Don't blame your own failure to properly identify and hold a defensible line on the geography. And finally, the game is not about stopping the enemy. In the end, people have to log off for the night. You can only ever delay them.
Nope: the structure was VERY defensible, in fact they didn't manage to pass. The problem it's not worth to be defended, as attackers will pass anyway. What's the meaning of having tons of gates likes that, with walls, towers, turrets, gate generators to overcharge, vehicles bays and so on, if these places cannot help to form a defensive line? The hex map punishes players who focus on one big battle, and it rewards those who keep redeploying all the time. I've never love this.
The last one's true: The hex map punishes players who'd like a WW1 "eastern front" style static fight and rewards those who think on their feet and remain mobile and ready to exploit every single error the enemy is making to its fullest.
Find their sunderers, kill them. Disperse your troops. If you have a strong defensive position then you don't need to match the enemy 1:1. If it takes them 2 attackers to deal with 1 defender then you have 1 extra guy who is free to go resecure the bases they're trying to use to go around. All you have to do is drive over there, blow up their sunderer, re-take the point, and start pushing back. You can't just sit in a castle and expect your enemy, who is infinite and has infinite logistics, to give up and go home. You have to actively push them out and back. If you can't do that you will lose. There is no static defense in this game. The Blitzkrieg was the death of static defense. Ever since then if you hold still you lose. You need to move to counter. If you're standing still you're done. You've lost. You only defend to break the enemy's initiative so you can start pushing again. What do you expect to do once you're "Done" defending? Do you think the Vanu players are just going to give up, log out, and say "Hey, good job, you win!" No matter what system is in place eventually they'll always go around you, they'll always push you back, and your "Heroic Defense" is never going to be worth anything. It's a damned videogame. You're defending Hvar Tech Plant, not Stalingrad. There is no "Win" condition here. You play for the immediate satisfaction of the game or you're always going to be disapointed by the lack of "Progress". What happened at HVAR? You were outmaneuvered, badly. Your "Attackers" pinned you down and outmaneuvered you faster than you could react to counter their moves. You were slow, and static, and you lost.
Agreed one can't pretend to stay inside the castle for years waiting for the enemy to give up. But this doesn't justify how easy is to bypass enemy territories. This is even more evident in big bases: they are surrounded by satellite small bases that do not provide any support in defending the main structure becaused attackers can just avoid them.
I'm sorry but I agree with the others. They are as easy to defend as they are to attack, you either need to use scouts or to check the map yourself. Some factions/outfits/platoons manage to not be bypassed, why couldn't you? You lost trough no fault of the system. You should see it as an opportunity for growth rather than a flaw.
Then why not hold an actual line of multiple territories instead of holding only one? The hex system doesn't have that many cappable territories, especially near chokepoints like Quartz Ridge.
Looks like this feedback goes mostly ignored for now. I do like the fact that we'll get the lattice only on indar for now, testing in a live situation will be much more conclusive and will probably convince more people of the flaws of this system. But the devs keep on working on the system on esamir rather than waiting for the full Indar results.Kind of a waste of their time and resources.
True. Anyway, I poted a more complete form of what I would consider an adequate alternative to both systems. If you guys here could give your feedback there, that'd be cool. Let's make it something noticeable and desirable by both "factions".
Ignoring what feedback? All i see is the same old tired arguments. Yes the hex system rewarded strategic play more than the lattice ever will but that is the fundamental problem of the hex system. Good strategy denies good conflict because let's face it, if a fight is even it means your strategy sucks. Planetside has always been about long-*** segies and massive engagements. Yes there is gonna be a lot of meat grinding and some back and forth stalemates (preferably) but that just makes the gain or loss of a base or stretch of territory all the more profound. It's just not satisfying to win or defend a base that changes hands more often than Palermo. Sure in order to support this, your strategic options are gonna suck but screw it, thats not planetside. Tactical combat on a massive scale is what I signed up for. So stop advocating for a strategy game where it doesn't belong. Even if it was great, the end product is going to suffer because it's conflicting with the other game called Planetside.
I respect your honesty. It's refreshing to see someone supporting the lattice aware of the exact consequences of the lattice, or not twisting the truth around it. The fact that you still embrace it puzzles me though as a deep strategical game would only improve the tactical level. And this means not implementing the lattice and evolving the hex system to have some more interesting features For one, it would slow down the rhythm at which territory changes hands as people would have the tools to create and maintain front lines. Secondly it would give reasons to fight over territory, creating fight trough free will/incentives rather than limitations. Thirdly, territory having intrinsic value, being the result of personal choices in addition to being fought over adds to the profound victories you are looking for And finally, you need lows to make the highs all that noticeable. Even the best routine gets old fast. Variety in the fights rather than permanent meat grinders would contribute to a healthier tactical game. If I understood correctly, you want fun, interesting and meaningful fights. So essentially, you will probably pay the price of the lattice more than I will. Except that the devs sold this game as a "strategy game in fps form". When I first heard the devs say that was the time I started paying attention to PS2. And it was repeated several times since in FNOs and other video material. PS1 may have done tactical play well but why can't we get a game that does good also on a strategical level?
The point is you see this strategical level in the hex map, while many others see only a huge mess. Personally after having played PS2, PS1 for years and then here on Test Server, I believe devs are on the right path. Anything they will implement will be better than the hex map. I don't know how it is on you server, but on Miller it's every day very evident: the hex map does not work. It nullifes every kind of strategy, it mortifies every attempt to defend territories. This is a first step: introduction of Hossin and hopefully Searhus, continent lock and new resources system will bring PS2 the right strategical approach this game needs. We had fun so far, but strategy on the hex map just does not exist.
