[Guide] Why Nay-Sayers to the Prototype Hex System are Wrong

Or what the Sumerians would call a Nyuakdlshasodhth.

Let me put it like this: Me and my real-live buddies used to be able to form a relatively large squad and we enjoyed the game for what it was. But it got harder and harder to find a meaningful fight for us, that is anything between driving from one empty base to the next and getting steamrolled by platoons or the zerg. Most of them got bored by now. I can occasionally convince one of them to play for a bit. I also used to play a lot with the guys from SOHO/FBBQ. Had a lot of fun with them, but I'm see them playing less and less often, let alone as organized as they used to be back in December.
From my point of view, this game IS dying.

Glad to see this post as I hadn't seen this, having essentially written off PS2 these past few months despite having sunk triple digit funds into it. This news has restored my attention towards PS2 and your arguments coincide with what I would have figured their intent to be, given that image. What could the nay sayers possibly be saying to argue against this in favor of the hex mess we have now?

Hopefully this is in the road map so I can go +1 something.

Maybe if players and outfit members had simple tools such as being able to display their movements to their allies on the map instead of that vague 'attack/defend' thing, if squad leaders could give individual units a waypoint in addition to a squad or platoon waypoint and these individual units could clear that waypoint as they reached and completed their objective, if we could see allied strength along with enemy strength, if capture XP was either gotten rid of, given globally or given on some different merit so zerging isn't the most efficient way to farm XP in large numbers, if players could be given indications on the top of their UI on which bases have begun being capped by the enemy or their allies instead of telling players what's been captured or lost (and therefore nothing for them to do there enemy or ally), if players used orders more often instead of as a recruitment banner or to say useless things like, 'go 2 da crown', if we had a visual indication of enemies and allies on the map independent of the enemy and ally presence metric showing say, T-shaped blocks for both enemy and allies on front lines that increase and decrease in size based on enemy or ally numbers, if we didn't have to rely on mother****ing region chat in order to relay orders to squaddies and solos without /yell 'ing our intentions to the enemy around us and had a real faction channel, if outfits weren't so completely bereft of tools to organize themselves with still 4 months after 'release', (I could go on but this is too long a run-on already) then we could use the current hex system and make players know they're needed instead of being forced to zerg around.

But since we don't, and there don't seem to be any plans for it on the roadmap, I suppose they might as well make up for all these choices and the lack of communication allowed between players by making a lattice system.

There's no reason really to try to butter it up though. Just say, "All we want are big battles where we force players to fight one another," and stop trying to dress it up as if it makes strategy more meaningful or the game less streamlined. Planetside 2 promised big battles on an epic scale or some such, so it makes sense for them to turn to this to give players what it says on the tin. It really is a shame that they have to turn to this instead of fixing the myriad problems that result in players being largely unable to communicate with one another, but I suppose it's their game and they can do whatever they want with it. Oh well.

Edit: Fixed inability to count.

A stray thought;
Platoon leaders with X members can draw on the map.

Functionality;
Opt-in required. (checkbox)
Right-clicking over a "doodle" allows you to hide it. (essentially mute for drawings)
Private doodle channels available. (/drawjoin {name} <password>)

Advantages;
1. "status updates" unnecessary, keeps information flow down.
2. Easy to monitor.
3. Easy to update.

Disadvantages;
1. Phallic dissemination.

Last thoughts;
The disadvantage is essentially nullified if it's added purely as a "join channel"-feature.

What the ****? Say that out loud so you appreciate how stupid that sounds.

This is a FPS, if you don't want to shoot at people get the out of the genre.

I never understood the "lattice promotes funneling and noob zerging" argument. The lattice from PS1 promoted strategy. If you had three options, then you had to be creative about how to use those three options. Tactics and strategies then became about the actual battle itself, not the "route." Sure, using strategy to decide which links to exploit and which direction to approach from was part of it, but the deeper part of the overall tactical flow came down to what one side could do to outwit the other in the actual battle - which is how it should be.

In WWII, the ****'s were able to have several predictions as to where the allies would assault from. The two main options were from an amphibious assault on Normandy or from the south - Italy. This allowed strategies to be developed (for both sides) to try and both fool the opposing side and prepare for imminent assault.

You;'re absolutely right. Throw in some practical explanation for the lattice (energy, resources, anyone?) And we're golden.

Let me quote Sun Tzu to make the point clearer:

For to win one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the acme of skill. To subdue the enemy without fighting is the acme of skill.

PlanetSide (either 1 or 2) is not, and never was, simply yet another FPS.

The main options were actually:

* Normandy (Operation Neptune), which is what happened
* Pas de Calais, which is what the Germans were led to believe (Operation Fortitude South)
* Southern (Vichy) France, violating its then-still-existant neutrality.
* Norway (Operation Fortitude North), again a deception
* Balkans

+1 if your mind kept insisting on reading it as "Acne"

the main problem with the hex system is that small groups can take territory way too easily. Small groups should be able to have meaningful impact on the battle, not the war. Right now you can paratroop behind enemy lines to capture a territory and open up their whole back front for capture. It shifts the battle too far, too fast with little effort that large outfits can abuse (just like the drop pod system, but that's another issue).

It's great you want to run smaller operations and work behind enemy lines, but it shouldn't yield great territorial gains like it does now. It should provide either a second front towards the main goal (a large base) or gives your team a flanking position to push through the enemy front line, allowing your zerg to march forward.

This is where a meta-game can form. With limited number of bases, where to defend and attack becomes more obvious. There are still multiple paths to get somewhere. Others will be more direct, while others offer a longer, but probably less defended road. Progress is also more easily readable. You can see how long it is going to take an enemy to reach a base and react accordingly.

Consider the scenario in the OP's picture. The TR are in their warpgate and are trying to push to Tawrich. The most direct route is through Copper Ravine and Arroyo Torre and where most of the fighting is. However, you can also try to make connections by going North and through The Stronghold, or South through Spec-Ops Training Camp. Spec-Ops is likely not as heavily guarded, as it's out of the way. Smaller groups can easily go and take it and Red Ridge to gain access to Tawrich's SE satellite. You have now make the defense at Copper Ravine useless.

Even with Spec-Ops defended, it is a second path leading to Tawrich. Either one's success is a success overall for your faction. Smaller groups can still make precision strikes to take a base effectively over its uncoordinated defenders. More linearity is not going to make you obsolete. It will make you contribute less overall, but you currently have too much influence as it is.

No, at it's core, it really is an FPS. If you're not here to shoot people, why the hell should you have any right to influence the gameplay for those that ARE here to shoot (lots of) people?

This game is here for the zerg gameplay no other FPS can provide. People intentionally avoiding most if not all forms of fighting are precisely the demographic this game isn't meant to cater to, despite however many wads of cash they may have forked over. SOE can't create a territorial landgrab game that works for both parties: one will have to be the deciding factor in when territories change hands for the battles to have any real meaning, and the conquering of land a sense of worth.

You aren't capable of anticipating =/= nobody is capable of anticipating.

10 minutes, you say? That's way too long to 'sit around waiting for the enemy to show up'. People will get bored, people will go find certs to farm elsewhere.

Zergs will be zergy, no matter what system you put them in.

I'm not sure what this whole 'set up a defense' think you guys keep spouting over and over even means, anyways. There are no fortifications to build, trenches to dig, pill boxes to set up, etc.

It takes all of 30-45 seconds to travel between bases, I'm not sure how you expect to have 10 minutes warning. If the game is supposedly so stacked against defense, then why is kicking an enemy force out of a base they have flipped but not captured such an insurmountable chore?

Sounds like you try to kick them out and just get your ***** handed to you. Toughen up, smarten up and play better rather than demanding SOE coddle and protect you from better players.

Again, there is nothing to BUILD! If you lose a base and can't rub two brain cells together to figure their next target, then get some eyes on the target to watch where they move.

Being able to draw is a pretty common, but still neat idea. Alien swarm had this - mostly used to draw penisi at the end of the map, but sometimes used for strategy.

I know my squad/platoon leaders would use it well. Form a line here. Group here. Follow this route to get behind them. Enemy here. Sunderer around here.

You can't capture territory that doesn't have influence/adjacency, so no you can't drop 'behind' enemy lines, you can drop on an undefended point on the border. Huge difference.

So the territory on the border that you failed to defend is 'too far, too fast' and by 'little effort' you mean 'requiring more coordination than a mindless zerg is willing to deal with.'

If a large outfit makes a coordinated hit on half a dozen unguarded border zones at the same time, that's brilliant and should result in a powerful shift in the flow of battle.

That's exactly why we do it and what it accomplishes in many cases.

It's like you literally didn't read any of my posts and are just vomiting talking points.

Why should things be more obvious, so the ones with the attention span of a gnat can feel better about themselves?

This change has nothing to do with 'meta game' stop dropping buzz words you apparently don't even know the meaning of.

You're describing strategic moves available in the new proposed system as if they are refreshing and new.

They aren't. They are already possibilities, you're ignoring the ones that are getting removed.

Small groups don't have 'too much' influence, they have as much influence as those who can't be bothered to respond to them (because they're too busy farming certs) will allow.

Because I can. Because I have a working brain. Because the "metagame" goals allow for many avenues to achieve them which enriches the gameplay.

A lot of my kills are from my AP and AT mines for a reason.

I'll remember that I'm apparently 'supposed to be' shooting people next time I rez someone, repair something, hack something, etc, etc.

This is the epitome of the "HULK SMASH' mentality I've alluded to on a few previous occasions.

The territory game works for both parties right now, the problem is one of those two groups just can't stand it.

These are the kind of people who are not only unhappy when they don't get their way, but get upset that someone else also got theirs and won't be satisfied unless it is taken away from them.

It's like Tommy gets a present on Christmas morning and rather than being happy that both he and his brother Timmy both got presents, he insists Timmy have his present taken away before he stops screaming.

I question how functional that working brain is, considering you can't seem to find or suggest anything that supports your play style with a lattice system in place. Capping empty hexes around an enemy zerg is something children come up with when they're told territory control is the win trigger. The current hex system isn't very complicated nor does it support strategic play that matters. If there is no conflict to come of an action, it's a worthless mechanic to the game. If you don't stick around to stop the guys that are countering your flanking cap, all you're doing is wasting people's time. THAT is a concept that needs to be removed from game.

Proper small squad/spec-ops play FORCES small squads to stick with what they're doing and making them easy to locate, allowing counter-strike teams to find and engage these people (engaging = fighting = fun) without essentially blindly throwing darts at a map as to where they are or where they're going.

If you are not playing for the fighting, you're playing the wrong genre of game and are the LAST type of person SOE should and would ever develop the game for. This lattice system caters to the right crowd. There's a small squad crowd that needs some mechanics for their enjoyment, but those mechanics would and should be set up to encourage fighting while having an immediate effect on the front line without making the efforts of the frontline seem pointless. Taking undefended hexes makes fighting tooth and nail over a single hex seem pointless, thus why people felt the territorial landgrab meta game felt pointless. The current system has to go. Get over it.

What we can't stand is that when we respond, it's usually an empty facility with no one making an attempt to hold it. Once we recap and leave (because it's boring to sit around and wait for someone that may never show up) it turns right back again. It's annoying. It's not fun. It has too great an impact on the zerg. One person should not be able to influence the entire front line without actively participating in said front line. That's just abusing a broken mechanic, which is why SOE is prototyping a new system that will put more control into the frontline's successes, and much less towards lone wolf cloakers just capping $#!% without even so much as having to fire their weapon.

Read the posts I did in this thread. I'm not the one capping empty hexes. I'm the one standing guard in those "empty" hexes and preventing others from capping them.

I'm, most of the time, the defender. I'm the guy who makes sure our enemies get no easy chance to flank us in the part of the front I'm guarding - and if they try, they won't do so unopposed nor undetected. I'm the guy ghost cappers hate.

If you think I'm one of those guys who caps empty bases for no good reason, you're talking to the wrong guy.

Slavishly repeating the 'you just want to capture empty hexes' argument as a way to malign the other side doesn't add anything to the conversation. Also, you should read the thread again, dozens upon dozens of people are decrying that they can't figure out what the next enemy move is and it's apparently too complicated for them to figure out.

You want the next enemy move to be 'easy' to predict...suggesting you find the current system too complicated.

You have all the tools you need to figure out where the enemy is going next. Your not using those tools doesn't make the current system bad and changing the map won't fix the problem.

This is basically the 'my subjective preferences are objectively superior' argument.