My worry about the lane system from what we know is, is there still ANY statigic depth to it? Will things like this still be possible? http://cloud-2.steampowered.com/ugc/578980607073528887/CDA71FA84D910568366460E3EC66D27BEB06B90F/ I know that at the time being a cutoff move as such is rather irrelvant because vehicle/infantry/air points hold no value, but if we had true value and metagame to how this game worked, would this not be the kind of manouvers that would make heros? My point is, the tactical statigy would still be there, but the large scale stratigic level would fall away and be replaced with "fight down this halway of bases till you win continent". I feel a compromise is needed.
somthing should be set up to damper excessive camping and zerging in certain hexs. something that rewards the faction for capturing x amout of reigons every x minutes. something like xp or MBT points the worst part of the game is when a continet is full and multiple platoons are at amp station ect., and the areas around it have enemies detected or noactivity. then everyone complaines about bugs because thier are 750 people in tanks planes and ground. this is just what i feel.
I dont think forcing players through a very limited number of set paths is going to be a good thing. The whole problem exists because of ghost capping. Get rid of the ability for one guy to fly an ESF around capping half the continent alone without even being present in the base and you solve the problem. I for one enjoy playing support roles to the Mighty Zerg in capping surrounding bases, and even more so smaller squad vs squad battles as its really the only time I get acceptable game performance. If all I can find are massive zergy battles, I wont continue to play. As it stands, all i can do is go Engie and drive an ammo or repair sundy around while dropping ammo packs and repairing things on foot. (in huge battles that is) I dont enjoy playing a competetive FPS game at 20 frames. Its just not fun.
There is no strategy in PS2 right now. None. At all. The lattice system allows for more strategy than the current hex system. However the lattice system isn't some magical device that fixes all problems. To get the full effect you need the full feature. The lattice is merely a cog in the wheel that is the metagame. It is one crucial part, yes, but it is still just one part. To get the full effect we'd need things like NTU to allow for ghost capping behind enemy lines, as was the case in PS1. We'd need automated turrets and proper Combat Engineers to help guard bases. We'd need, really, just more features from PS1 than just the lattice. However, on it's own, the lattice still provides more strategical options than the hex system. So it's still better in every way. Even without the other features that create the metagame.
The thing about ghost capping is, it can be fixed SUPER easily and they HAD a fix for it in beta.(I did not play in beta but I once read a patch note of it, that was the patch that introduced Amerish) What they said was: All capture points will flip back to neutral unless someone is standing at it. This was taken out because it made capping kinda frustrading/tedius as you always had to have someone standing at the point but I am confident it was done to stop ghos capping as we have it now.(they removed it again do to complaint) I have no problem with backcapping(capping without opposition but staying at the base as you cap) as that is FULLY a defenders fault and unwillingless to respond to an attack. I invest my time into stoping/counter backcapping. But (only since merger) real ghost capping is the act of flying into the base, flipping the cap, and leaving again the moment the point is flipped. This done on mass can cause a defender overload where the defender wont be able to react everywhere at the same time and at some point wont know what is a real attack and what is a ghost cap.(It is essiantly the gaming version of "crying wofl" at every base at once). We need a fix for that, but the lane fighting (unless implemented really smartly) is way overboard and really just giving in to the people who are very "Grass is always greener on the other side" type of thinking, not weighting the faults of both systems.
I'll reverse that question and ask you to tell me what strategy there is with the curren hex system. If you refuse to answer until I do, I'll direct you to one of the other hex threads in which I've already explained, at length, the benefits of the lattice system. However I have yet to see the benefits of the hex system beyond this illusion that more choices = more strategy.
An 'area of influence' would work - similar to capping the point itself but larger, possibly covering the entire base. That way someone would have to be somewhere in the base, but not right on the point and not hiding in a tree at the edge of the territory on top of a mountain while cloaked. I also think it should fully revert to whoever owned it if the attacker disappears. Not just flip neutral - because it still removes the territory from the owner's control for little effort like that. It should be a relatively simple fix and pretty much eliminate the need for such a drastic change in using the Lattice System.
That doesn't answer his question. You're trying to avoid answering him, which doesn't help the credibility of your original post. I'm not saying you're wrong, nor am I saying you're right. I'm saying you should answer his question or don't even bother responding to him at all.
I have already answered his question a dozen times over, I don't feel like re-typing it needlessly. The answer he seeks is already outt here in the other threads, he needs only read them. However the answer I seek has yet to be stated, in those threads or this one or any one.
I'll take that. I believe the Hex system holds stratigic value do to the fact that it forces people to calculate a larger number of factors into their actions. The hex system (this is a debate of concept, the current state of game is irrelevant) allows for the players to try manuvers much like have been done in real wars of the past. If in our example it was a 1 faction against 1 faction war and both had half of the map(which is the most common matchup from what I saw in videos of PS1, but for this case just easier to explain) Both sides would have a wide array of options and stratigies avaialbe, if the conectivity of territory was vital. You could try to bring together most of your force at one point of the front line, leaving small squads behind on the defence/wherever the enemy is focusing, and try to smash through his front line by capturing a few provinces with increased speed(not possible with lattice). This achieved by having your main large force go for the main provinces needed while having smaller forces capture the outlying smaller provinces to give an infulence boost and speed up the push. If you suceed at capturing a number of provinces as such you could then drawn an "encirclment" on your enemy, cutting off territory and making it more or less 'captured" as it no longer holds any benifits. You could while doing this also build a "defence of depth" system, if you figure out where the big enemy push is you could leaved behind a weaker but still viable force to slow down the enemies push till your own cuttoff move has suceeded.(at which point your enemy has the STRATIGIC call of remobelizing all his forces to break the encirclment or try to encricle you by cutting you off. Encirclment moves are always doublebladded do to their nature) The statigic depth we are trying to build is much like real war, you conqure territories to force the enemy into the position you want them to be, normally one from which he gains less resources/support then you do and as such wearing him down. In the game this can currently not be done efficently because besides your own life(which is infinite) you do not really require any resources. In real wars the worth of the territories conqured is often irrelevant(unless of political or national value) because it wont be usable to produce anything(the workers wont work, the factories will be destroyed), instead the value lies and capturing supply depos and disrupting your enemies supply lanes/deployment passes. Here I will call back to my initial post, where I posted a picture of having cut off a giant VS army,(80% of the cont pop). In that case it was ofcourse useless becuase I got rolfstompedafterwards, but if the odds had been more akin to VS being 50% and TR 30% and I had TR leadership support we could have held those two vital provinces (or tried to) for a while, keeping the VS off balance and time for the NC to reorganize. Now if resources had real impact and ALL provinces not conected to the warpgate lost infulence(or all players in cut off regions were on a "supply depo" system and at some point would run out of ammo) then such manuvers would hold real stratigic depth. My concern is that the "lane" system will only reward the side with more players in each lane, rather then the person who uses his players the most efficently. I am not saying the current system is perfect, but I am calling for a compromise because I can full well see what SOE's original intent was. I am not great at explaining this concept but I begg that if anyone here ever played Heart of Iron (any of them, or games akin to it they can understand what concept I am refering to. But to add to what would make the hex system more stratigic. 1. You may not deploy/redeploy to any areas which have been "cut off" they are considered "powerd down" in the sense of spawning.(Maybe some leeway, maybe respawn at the base you died, and sunderrers as offensive capablity is disregarded) 2. This idea is a build/steal from another person, who wanted all bases not conected to (AMP?) a specific type of large base/or warpgate to slowly lose infulence. I like this idea and thi would efficently make(whatever the base type was) work as a supply depod. 3.Bases can not be "ghost" capped, the point will flip back to the owner if the base considers "no enemies present". 4. Any player can redeploy to every base that is being captured(of their own faction) as long as it isnt being counterdicted by some other rule(aka SCU being destroyed). 5. Redeployment to own territories should be instant.(Again, I am heping you fight backcapping) 6.If a faction is being cuttoff/the last province holding together a chain of provices being capped this will be announced extra(not sure bout this, but seems like people are too oblivious to figure it out, just look at my picture.) I hope this at least gets some supportive thinking running, I honestly feel people are jumping the gun.
And this is why you dont do informative or indepth posts, much better to just ***** bout some random thing.
The problem with the hex system is that it's an illusion, it's all an illusion. The wide variety of choices fools us into thinking we have a choice at all, or that we can be strategic. Having a lot of options doesn't allow for strategies. Extremes are always bad, always. Too few options is equally as bad as too many. With the current system you have too many options. If we look at real life, this isn't true. In real life you can form strategies based off important targets. For example Town A is a central hub linking City A and City B, thus taking it cuts off the supply lines and starves off the front line troops. You know this, the enemy knows it, so you can build strategies around that. Such things do not exist with the hex system. We have 9 places to attack and none of them are any more or less valuable than any other. This makes it IMPOSSIBLE to predict where the enemy will attack. Strategy relies on using intelligence and formulating plans based off what your enemy is likely to do. You simply can not do that with the hex system because the enemy has no reason to go for one hex over the other, they are all equal value when it comes to capturing. A lattice system is the best because it's not extreme. You still have 3 or so choices of where you want to attack, instead of 9. It's not so few that you are walking down a corridor, but it's not so many that it becomes impossible to predict where the enemy will go. You can look at a lattice and go "ok this base links here, here, and here and the enemy needs the base behind it, so they will likely attack here". This simply is not possible with the current hex system. You end up with players just spreading out into small squads, hitting every single hex. There's no strategy, just zerglings. In an ideal world we'd have squads standing on defense on all frontline hexes. We'd have players following orders and going where they are told. We'd have an organized front. But you can not design a system around an ideal world, but the real world. And realistically, you need a much more structured system to guide players otherwise it becomes anarchy and all we get is chaos, which is what the current hex system suffers from. If you compare JUST the systems, and no external features, the lattice system is still more strategic. The hex system offers so many options that it is literally impossible to predict where the enemy will go. You may as well flip a coin because that's all you're doing, you aren't predicting, you're guessing. Players can go to any hex connected to the one they're in, you have absolutely no way of narrowing that down. With a lattice system you have options, you can be strategic. You can predict, not guess, where the enemy will go. You can fortify locations knowing the enemy will likely make a push. You can attack locations knowing the enemy is moving somewhere else. You can cut off supply lines far easier, with organized player, than you can in a hex system. Just the systems themselves, the hex system is simply TOO open. Anarchy is equally as bad as oppression. The hex system is an extreme. Extremes are bad. The lattice system funnels players, it guides them, but it doesn't force them. It's the perfect moderation. If we add in external features, yeah, sure, both systems could work. But a lattice requires far fewer external features to work ideally. Truthfully, the only external feature the lattice system needs is NTU so that you can take bases behind enemy lines. But for the hex system you have to add in a dozen other features to ensure it works properly. The more that is required to make something work, the worse the base foundation is. I'll end with repeating myself. The hex system rules with illusions. It tricks players into thinking it's more strategic because it gives them a lot of options. But strategy inherently requires a finite amount of choices. Be it real life war or games like Chess, strategy relies on being able to predict your opponents next move by looking at all the pieces on the board. When you are no longer able to make predictions, strategy is no longer possible. And that's where the hex system is currently at. It's so open that you are unable to predict your opponents next move, that makes it impossible to formulate strategies.
I feel it is unfair to say the hex system only allows illusions and you can never tell where the enemy will attack, do to how troops have to move(unless they leave behind all their vehicles, which atm is a bit too simple as resources are aboundened) they realy most of the time (on a single line) only 2, at most 3 provinces which the can attack. Often (At least on Amerish) roads funnel them toward one of them. And for stratigies such as cutting your enemy off, it is blatently obvious where the last 3 or so provinces will be, it isnt like it is up to question who owns what province and which one is required for a disconect. And I stated myself tha I ask for a compromise, I am of the mindset too that all extreems are bad(not just here, but a general life mindset), but the lattice system is more or less an extreem already,the idea of "oh but you got 3 hallways you can fight down" seems rather pointless unless the implementation serves to make it not so, atm it really just means "you got 3 tug off wars going on". I wish i knew who posted it but someone some weeks ago posted a topic idea of having some naturally independent provinces which would hold the same position mountain ranges or big rivers do today, make some places untackable from some direction and help build up a defensive line. That is a compromise I would accept.
I am bumping this because someone will cry once latice is in and it wont work magic, and then i cant link them toward this and laugh.
@Colt556 well said... Not to rehash history, but PS1 had similar issues in the beginning as well and then once the lattice system was introduced gameplay greatly improved, so we do have some experience with this sort of system. Another thing you need to consider is that many claim it is too difficult to defend, the lattice system is actually a benefit to the defenders, especially if they are outnumbered. If you are in a situation where a larger force can move in 9 different directions, it makes it very difficult to predict the route they will take, this in effect will spread out the defenders even more trying to fall back to defend nine locations rather then 3. On a side note, I am a little hesitant to completely support this new lattice system for a few reasons. In PS1 we had a resupply mechanic, which would force the defenders to attempt to break out of a siege or else their base would go neutral, I feel a similar system is necessary or else the attackers may decide to circumvent a heavily defended base, such as a bio-lab. The hex lane (lattice system) still seems to allow an attacker to relatively circumvent heavily defended main bases and as such render this change nominal at best. I have brought this up on may posts about this topic, but I feel a hybrid of the hex and lattice system is necessary. I would use a lattice system to directly connect all of the main bases and outposts, which would not allow further progression along the lattice until they are captured and I would use the hex system for all of the surrounding territory and outposts. And to solve the problem of a defender having the ability to indefinitely defend a base, ie. BIO-Lab. I would introduce siege breaking mechanic, that would work as follows; If the attackers, are able to gain control of all of the hex's surrounding a base and cut off the defenders from adjacency, then the base would enter into a 15 minute count down, that would require the defenders to regain adjacency or else the base will go neutral and the spawns and shields will go down...
