Sneak peek of new hex adjacency graph for Indar and a bit more!

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Higby, Mar 13, 2013.

  1. Being@RT

    Supply lines/limitations of some kind would be good for the game, imo. But they're not without problems either, unfortunately. I can already see elitist groups telling randoms to get lost because they're a waste of nanites.

    I'd still want something that added this sort of depth to the game, drawbacks or not.
    • Up x 1
  2. Noxx(ia)

    This should help players, most importantly new players, find fights and help give the game a better battle flow. I hope, and by saying, "I hope", I should assume that even post launch of this change it'll be re-evaluated for the purposes of balance.I think this is a small step in the right direction, and maybe SOE has plans to expand from this generate "reasons" to play, which I feel like is a more important, but significantly harder to solve problem than this. I imagine it consumes more resources, and yes I know they are probably different resources.. This will simply help the meatgrinder move more logically helping prevent the inevitable ghost capping that occurs. I do however wish there were more than 2 connections to some of theBiolabs, Tech Plants, and Amp Stations and see some potential flaws, but I know Higby said it was a rough draft :)
  3. queue

    If you think zergs on rails is going to fix all of this, you are crazy. First of all, there are a LOT better and easier solutions to prevent ghost capping. First is eliminate it, but that breaks the sandbox. The second, is make the zergs split up an defend all of those bases on the front line. If you have 50 tanks at Indar Excavation and you let someone ghostcap CoraMed Labs, well that is your fault and not a fault of the game.

    If you base cap XP on activity, difficulty, and battle time, being in a zerg will no longer be beneficial. You will only send as many troops as you think you need (via scouting by reaver/flash radar, inf wraith) and sending reinforcements when necessary.

    This will create an evenly and appropriately distributed battle and troop line across the map making for great battles anywhere and everywhere from 5 on 5 to 200 vs 200.

    I like the current system because the battles get bigger the closer you push the enemy to their warpgate. When the territory is evenly split 3 ways, you have smaller squads covering more territories. Those squads merge as they get closer to the warpgate resulting in the largest battle at the warpgate. A kind of Boss battle. Unfortunately, the race to have the most members in an outfit has caused some organization issues that is preventing good coordination. I was just hoping the leader would have figured it out before SOE had to force game changes on us because of it.

    Oh well.
    • Up x 2
  4. Gavyne

    My feeling is that you should stop tweaking the system, what you have works fine for what they're for. I personally don't see how the new hex system will improve the game that much. I'm willing to try it before making judgments on it sure, but I think you could be spending your time on more important things that actually would improve the game itself. My suggestions are..

    Get Hossin out, implement continent locks, add daily tasks, and voila, people will no longer get bored fighting over Indar 24/7 or doing the same 'ol same 'ol every day. Then work towards a longer goal, setup faction specific facilities. In DAOC they had relics as the final RvR raid, in GW2 they had special keeps that are harder to attack with power that enemies can steal, in BF3/BF:BC2 they had a last stand on Rush maps where it's usually very hard for attackers to break through.

    Right now there is none of the above, nothing that makes you feel accomplished after fighting over something. There is no final battle, no finale, no royal rumble. It's a circle dance. There's not even maps/continents/bases that belong to your faction. We are all just fighting over neutral bases and continents for apparently no good reason. I mean DAOC/GW2 had it done right, they had faction specific maps & fortresses, so whenever enemies step foot into your backyard, you took offense to that and you go out in full force to defend YOUR stuff.

    I think this game can use some faction specific facilities, those are tagged yours, with faction specific looks to them. This way people of specific faction would know what to fight for, and a clear line is drawn between what belongs to you, and what belongs to your enemies. This makes taking something more worthwhile. In GW2's system, they had 3 server specific maps, then 1 neutral "battleground" for all 3 factions to fight over constantly. I know for a fact that whenever other servers come stomping in your home map, you want to get there and defend your things.

    This game can use a final battle, like faction specific base where you can hold the last battle before someone locks a continent. It would be epic, and it should be hard. But if attackers are able to overcome you in this heavily defended base, they deserve to get awarded, they deserve to get the continent locked in their name.

    I understand you're trying to create a mini meta game out of improving the hexes. But you can keep tweaking and tweaking, we're still going to be fighting over the same things, the same issues we see today will still be there, and people will still get bored fighting over Indar since you're only doing this for Indar at the moment heh.
    • Up x 1
  5. silentwisher

    I want this so bad. I have been waiting for something like this sense launch.
  6. thefinn

    Holy ****!!!! Now all I have to do is finally convince them to add back in the inventory instead of classes and we'll be done with the "I ******* told you so" posts.
  7. NovaAustralis

    This.... might... just... work...
    • Up x 1
  8. f0d


    this is how it should have been done from the start - what we have now is a complete mess but this new system looks awesome
  9. Chug

    I was Kryokill, and I approved of this post.
  10. netsky4life

    OMG they gonne ruin the whole tactical aspect off the game, i can bet all the zergy cod players like to have more stalemates, but is this how the game should be played? i thought it was a tactical fps mmo... this is gonne destroy a whole bunch off outfits...
  11. Herrick

    What pains me is this stuff has to be added months after release when most people have already quit.

    All you had to do was refine the formula SoE, not reinvent the wheel. We shouldn't have even gotten to this situation in the first place.

    I mean honestly what do you think people would want?

    An update to a much-beloved product with proven mechanics that hasn't been replicated since and attempt to reach a wider audience.


    Planetside mod for Battlefield 3, now with MICROPAYMENTS
  12. PimpToad

    Old PS1 player, beta player, PS2 installed since Day 1 but never played due to sheer disgust at the direction the game took, and lo and behold one of the most requested features that NEEDED to be implemented is finally in the game? It took SOE several months of digging their heels in and sticking their heads in the sand before finally implementing a lattice system? You guys were so enamored with your hex system to the point of refusing to see reason, but I suppose there's a limit to stubbornness yeah?

    I think I can finally convince myself and some of my buddies to attempt playing PS2 with this singular change. Granted I haven't followed much PS2 news at all over the months (coming across this change was dumb luck), but hopefully the prior changes brought PS2 somewhat closer to the gameplay of PS1.
  13. Doublefrost

    Only constructive feedback I can think of on this... You should include some means to bypass the system entirely and attack without direct links. A slow and painful process that would be difficult for the attackers, leaving them vulnerable to response teams. PlanetSide 1 style NTU systems would certainly be one approach. Or, even just an inability to destroy spawn points and 10 or 20 times longer capture. Something, so that there's at least an option to bypass a meatgrinder after a battle stagnates into endless long range tank spamming to farm anyone foolish enough to be infantry.

    I would also suggest a variable connection count, depending on the location of the facilities. Low connection number strongpoints at borders, then opens up with greater connectivity once a faction breaches further in. It would put a little more strategic emphasis on containment and give a successful offensive a little more momentum by spreading the defenders thin.

    I rather like the current hex approach, not a fan of lettuce. Then again, it's currently set to a half-way lettuce anyway. So, I don't see this as a big change to anything other than the map display and a little continent layout adjustment.
    • Up x 4
  14. Robert Patrician

    Question: Won't limiting the number of attack and fallback points simply encourage gargantuan zerg swarms to stomp through an area? Won't this severely magnify population advantage?
    • Up x 3
  15. queue

    Yes, but that is what it seems most people want. This system will create more large battles simply due to less paths to take but once a zerg loses to another zerg, they will simply choose another lane. With the exception of a a few bases, most bases offer little to no defensive advantage and in many cases, the layout works to the advantage of the attacking force.

    I hope I am wrong, but I think this whole map change won't do much for the game. I think all of the other smaller changes such as continent locks, low pop continent bonuses, defensive bonuses, etc will do much more and would have fixed the hex system too.

    If I were in charge, I would keep the hex system but I would change the influence values and not base it off the number of shared border segments but on difficulty of getting there. For instance, Spec Ops to Arroyo Torre is pretty easy but the opposite is not true. Some hex borders are virtually impassible and should offer very little to no influence. This would form "lanes" but would also allow for sandboxing (tm). If you feel it is worth a small group to take over a small base with little influence to ensure no one scoots behind and back caps, you should be able to do that.
  16. EventideOne

    Alright. I guess I'd be up for it. Pretty much won't be getting any certs because of these "large facility battles" you want that are going to be the bane of my existence until I either start playing more gigs or do things I'm not proud of to get enough money to buy a decent barebones kit.
  17. ScrapyardBob

    One of the things that needs to be addressed is the current capture points.

    -- Large facilities with a single 6/6 capture point are boring. --

    In general, by the time you beat down the defenders enough to get 6/6 on the single capture point, the fight is mostly done and you're just waiting around for 2-3 minutes while the timer ticks down. In contrast, a place like Quartz Ridge, where the capture points are spread out and it's possible for both sides to control 1 or more, the facility see-saws back and forth for a few minutes (or longer).

    Changes which would help would be:

    - Bases have differing number of capture points and point totals. Small facilities might have as few as 2-points, large facilities might have totals as high as 20 points.

    - You need to have at least 30% of the point total in order to move the bar at all. So if it's a 6-pt base (a single 6/6 or a pair of 3/3 or a trio of 2/2), then you need to have at least 2 people on the points. Large facilities should have a minimum of 15 points (requiring the attackers to bring at least 5 people).

    - If there's not enough people on the points, it should gradually revert to the owner's control. If the facility is cut-off from the warp-gate, it should gradually go neutral (or fall to whichever team has most influence on it).

    Let's consider a location like Dahaka Amp station, which currently only has a single 6/6 point. A good revamp for this would be to place points at:
    - 3/3 somewhere in the north courtyard (inside the large building west of spawn)
    - 4/4 in the SW corner of the courtyard (inside the large building)
    - 3/3 in the SE corner of the courtyard (inside a building)
    - 6/6 in the current location

    Total for Dahaka is thus 16 points, and you need to bring at least 5 people to capture it. Attackers would need to hold at least two of the outer points, or the inner point in order to move the bar.

    For tech plants, there should be a total of (5) capture points. One up on the area with the AA/AV turrets (2/2). One on the level below the flight deck (4/4). Two out in the surrounding buildings (both 3/3). And the existing 6/6 point. For a total of 18 points (requiring a 6-person team to capture the facility).
  18. Robert Patrician

    Well, here's my issue.
    What I desire in a battle is somewhere that I can make a difference. These huge stalemate battles will just turn it into Battlefield 3.
    • Up x 2
  19. NC_agent00kevin

    I made this thread because I do not think this game will be fun if this system is implemented as shown - or even anything close to whats shown. I'll most likely be taking my wallet elsewhere if it turns out like I see it; but I will give it a chance first.

    Overall, I think this game is taking the wrong path of catering to whiners who refuse to adapt and expect everything to be adapted for them. For instance, this whole problem exists because of people who dont want to join an organized outfit and actually use strategy - they simply want everyone to be put on rails and driven right to them. There are indeed a few other causes, such as capture mechanics and poor map design, but the main factor is casual players who cant be bothered to join an outfit and use a little strategy.

    I proposed something that should reasonably satisfy both srs bsns players as well as pubbies who just want to get certs. It guides the flow of battle without putting players in narrow paths and nearly eliminates unused, empty territory.
  20. Maidere

    Allready happening, but it will help to have more zerg vs zerg fights instead of just merry-go-round zerg ghostcapping.
    • Up x 1