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

Look to the future. Once you have a structured battlefield with clear routes of progress, then you can start building up all the secondary objectives around it. And they'll actually be meaningful, because without coordinated outfits pushing those secondary objectives the 2 warring zergs might be stalemated at a base for hours. Right now it doesn't matter if you're a zerg, a coordinated outfit or one guy ghost capping bases, your impact on the battlefield is practically the same. Hexes are flipping constantly, territory gains are undone in minutes, nothing means a damn thing.

Giving the map more structure is only the first step to fixing the metagame, but it has to be done to make all this cool strategic stuff actually mean something.

You sir, can have my re-quote and my like.

I just had an idea.

Instead of micro hexes, how about macro hexes. Group together 1 tower base with 2 small bases in to 1 larger hex where all 3 must be fully capped to take over control of the hex. This would cause large groups to split up a bit but remain close for reinforcements and would still allow for strategic backcapping without affecting the map too quickly. It would also require some sort of defensive stance in that zone while all 3 bases are capped. I believe it would also keep the defenders in the area longer rather than bailing to find a winnable battle. It would be nice to have a region/zone voice chat so squad/platoon leaders could organize in that area.

Large groups can still roll, small groups still play a part, and ghost/back capping is less effective.

Well you could implement this idea pretty much straight-away by making the satellites around major facilities having to be capped before anything inside the facility will cap.
E.g: Attackers must capture all 3 satellites surrounding Hvar Tech Plant before the 6/6 Capture point inside the main building will be able to be captured.
The system is already there in-game ready to go, it would just require some minor re-programming to execute it.

Just to say, wow, great work, these changes totally make a new map. Especially I think on the crossroads/crown thing, it's been a shock for me seeing the two not connected. And seeing the map configuration, I think it's logic, it may even increase the Crossroads watchtowers strategic importance. Just astonishing, a game like that makes me whish I were a billionaire just to spend my whole fortune in that. Keep on the good work, guys, right now you're just gonna make my girlfriend leave me, and turn me into a bank robber, for you! Don't let me down now!

After looking at the map, I can see a few glaring issues with the design as shown (which hopefully has been updated, but why haven't we seen it?):

- The set of buildings to the SE of NS Refinery and NE of Howling Pass Checkpoint should be turned into a facility with connections to both. This would give a second connection to Howling Pass rather then forcing everything through Abandoned NS Offices.

- Crimson Bluff / NS Material Storage are only a few hundred meters apart and are naturally connected by a road.

- Rust Mesa Lookout should connect to The Old Stockpile.

- Valley Storage Yard should connect to The Old Stockpile, as they are linked by a direct road.

- Regent Rock Garrison and XenoTech Labs should connect.

- Quartz Ridge to West Highlands Checkpoint not being connected feels a bit forced.

- NS Salvage Yard to the north of the northern warp gate is not shown on the new map. Is this location finally being retired (good thing) along with ARC Bioengineering?

- Alakai Shipping should probably still connect to Benson Construction.

Other thoughts on the Indar Map:

- There should be a vehicle tunnel (slightly curved, with a few side alcoves) between the Stronghold and Arroyo Torre Station.

- There should be some sort of road leading south out of Regent Rock Garrison, passing under the double bridge to the SE and connecting into the SW corner of Tawrich Tech Plant.

- A capture point should be added in the middle of the double-bridge between Regent Rock Garrison and Scarred Mesa Skydock.

- Expand the playable area around Archaeological DIg Site, NS Salvage Yard, ARC Bioengineering, Nanite Pump Station, Camp Waterson, Nanite Overflow Depot.

Thank you.... Thank you so much....

Exactly. Having the zergs erase progress at different ends of the continent is something organized outfits can do little about. However, if the zergs were instead clashing at different choke-points around the continent, balancing their respective, overwhelming forces, suddenly you have a situation where organized groups can have a significant impact on the outcomes of the battles.

That said, the way this game is structured means that numbers will still out-weigh the power of tactics. It's all about which side has the most man-power to hold the most control points. And I think PS2 could do with a bit more complexity to facilitate tactics, and allow for brains to to be a more deciding factor.

I made a short video about this, and how I think SOE could create a layer ontop of the micro-hex system that would essentially allow for a "parallel" battle to exist alongside the zerg; one fought by organized groups and outfits, using slightly more complex game-mechanics to steer the course of the battle. (It's in my signature if you're interested). And it could even create a platform for more familiar game-modes to exist, such as CTF and Escort.

I love this game. That said
I HATE THIS!
You built a massive ground breaking open world and then are going to add mechanics to make it play like interconnected two way maps! Really?

I do not understand why it is considered a improvement to limit what we can do in these amazing continents. I have had great battles between every practically every base on Indar. The list of three benefits all sound like huge detriments to the game play.
The strategy and tactics make this game fascinating to me. I lead my outfits platoons usually and highly enjoy the variety of terrain we fight on and the flanking or unexpected maneuvers. As the small faction on our server playing against a I rely on rapidly changing strategies to stay relevant. EXAMPLE. We move past the NC biolab ambush and cut into their territory to draw them out of our tech plant.
I play this game for the complexity not the simplicity. Simply put these lanes will limit the battle areas, cause extreme repetition, limit creativity and I'm pretty sure new customers will still be confused because the game still will be very complicated.

All that said it looks like there is a lot of praise for this idea here, why? I really want to know.

I predict that the new lattice-system will improve the game a lot, BUT there could be a small problem to it: The maps in PS2 are much smaller than the maps in PS1. There may not be enough area to fight for with that many people on each map.

Hopefully the new continents will be much bigger, so we can space out the action a bit.

combine this with extra continents and continent locking and what do you have?
A meta-game!

Soooooooo....

Test Server?

Lol, no. Same game, everyone is just forced to get a little closer.

The main problem that I have with this approach is contained in ::-

Eh? This is, absolutely dumbing down the game and it is disturbing that the developers are responding in this manner. I presume they are reacting to a load of lone players (i.e. who are not playing properly in squads and platoons and outfits) wanting pitched battles at all times laid on for them.

If i want to know where the enemy are going (or coming from) , if I/m playing infantry i request one of our air support to go and find out and report back. I can also look in the map and try to work out where the enemy is going. Then with this intelligence we either move out or call in an air-strike on the advancing forces.

Perhaps improve the intelligence gathering into the map but creating arbitrary chain links between facilities over a "free-roam" landscape to make battles predictable - that's a poor solution. That's just saying that as long as you learn that A follows B you don't have to think?

Now, if you want to create non-arbitrary funnels, add some strategic weighting to targets such as :-

• resource benefits
• spawning specific materiel - tanks, planes (already have these but perhaps they need refinement) , even MAXes, or perhaps rocket launchers - dunno but some kit advantage to a given facility being captured
• territorial advantages - height, cover - the odd base that is pretty much a gateway to another in a canyon.

But what this proposal is one step away from is a big button saying "Next fight".

If you don't have air support when you are fighting in your platoons, you need a bigger outfit. If you don't like finding a safe spot to open the map - then hard luck - war is hell soldier.

But, frankly if you don't like having to work with other playes - stop, PS2 is not for you, that is the essence of the game.

One thing that does need to be improved though, is the defensibility of bases. For example the Phalanx turrets are configured wrongly.

A phalanx turret (say AV) is mounted on a base. The base can therefore be expected to do the heavy lifting for the turret (supplying cooling, large calibre shells and power to move a heavily armoured turret about).

It should therefore be able to outmatch a heavy battle tank or a light aircraft neither of which have those advantages. Currently it cannot. Currently it will hit cool down before it can destroy a single tank or aircraft. This is not correct. It should take more effort from attackers to destroy defenders (basic warfare doctrine and, well common sense!)

If the turrets on the basis were improved, it would be worth trying to defend. At the moment it really does take a large concentrated effort to mount a base defence and, ultimately its for honour mostly as there is no XP in it (other than kills and repairs).

So, improving the base defensibility and a reason for doing so (strategic weighting of the bases and XP for defending bases) would probably be more of an improvement than modifying the hexes into a funnel.


As for the metagame - that's a bigger issue than fiddling around with the fights on a single continent. The meta game needs to be the answer to the following questions:-

1. What is the point of taking this base? How does it help taking the continent?
2. What is the direct point to taking this continent?
3. What is the impact on the overall war of controlling one of the continents

I don't see "Taking base A allows you to take base B" as being a satisfactory answer to question 1.

If you are in a member of an outfit, there should be nothing to fear from this system. The paths are there for solo players and zergs. Outfits, being the PS2 equivalent of special forces, are supposed to use tactics and strategy. If you are rolling with the zerg, then your outfit is doing something wrong. The new hex adjacency system will simply be easier for solo players to play a role in the game, giving them better choices and simplifying the map for them. Do not claim that solo players are not "playing correctly" because they are the front-line soldiers, not special forces. They compose the zerg and move in a general advance, while smaller but better organized outfits strike from unexpected directions. What would Planetside 2 be without zergs?

Interesting. Looking forward to see what this change brings.

People who criticize this change seem to think that every player in this game acts as rationally and are as organized as a decent outfit. They're not. They act rationally, but they have nowhere near the same scope as an outfit does. Therefore they act seemingly on impulse, and are driven towards areas where they think there's XP and fun to be had. The micro-hexes will create predictability for the player whose scope is not as broad as the outfit's, and who picked up this game to take part in a never-ending battle of tug-of-war.

This change is not going to change the game at all dimensions, but it will keep the battles more intense. And I think will serve a good foundation for additional mechanics to be added further down the road; mechanics designed to expand the tactical horizon for outfits. (Shameless advertising: I've made a video about some possible mechanics)

The bottom line is: The current hex system is good in theory, but since not everyone is part of an outfit, the fighting is too dispersed and holds little meaning.

I am waiting quite impatiently for this to go "live".

We don't even have this on on a Public Test server yet never mind as part of a game update. No word on any possible ETA other then it was supposed to have already happened.

Heck it should of happened in the initial design phase of the game.

The hEx system is not bad, its how they did it that is bad. Each hex should of been an actual hex, with a static amount of connections. Not this hodge podge of different hex shapes littered all over the map with different numbers of connections to the nearby one's.

I really feel a disconnect of this being Planetside sometimes.

Its like people who never were a part of the Planetside community and really loved the game had anything to do with major decisions until after the fact.

Now we are stuck waiting for "fixes" to broken design idea's in order for us to get the enjoyment out of the game that we should of had on release.

Bring back EVERYTHING from Planetside 1 (except BFR's). Problem solved. Thank me later.

Oh and redesign base's, like yesterday. Not this half ***** band aid fixing you have been trying. Nuke them from orbit and start over.

Your statement seems pretty much right on, and it will make ALL battles more intense, until the beaten side is forced to be destroyed over and over, then log off. I think this change serves to dumb the game down to the lowest denominator of tactics in hopes that the zergs who spill all over the map will have less impact. It will do that effectively but at the cost of eliminating all high level strategy. Furthermore Zergs outfits who just move point to point will have a huge buff because there is only one place for us to go if we fallback. The strategy of conquer and divide will no loner apply.

On my server TR especially and VS somewhat are extremely outnumbered by the NC. When we get pushed back really far and cannot escape our warpgate my many TR just log off. Some of my friends have quit over this and it will get worse.

If I had a huge 200-400 person outfit that basically just moved waypoints to lead, I would be really frustrated about how after I crush the enemy they don't always go to the place I put my gold marker next to be crushed again. They become annoying and refuse to be farmed by going other places and attack from the sides or bypass me altogether. Since no one in my Zergfit really listens when I ask a squad to handle something I would be really mad.

Thanks for your response, I will watch your video now, I am eager to see how my Strategic Operations & Tactics Outfit [SOTO] can remain relevant after the pending
STRATEGY APOCALYPSE