May - Indar Battle Flow Improvements

Discussion in 'Archived Features' started by JGood, Mar 19, 2013.

  1. JGood Developer

    The flow of combat in the current hex system can be tough to understand and predict, and can give the sense of chaos as opposed to appropriate tactical choices as forces move from one target to the next. We'd like to attempt a different approach that we think will improve the flow of battle significantly.
    • Give advancing forces clearer, logical, more focused choices for their next targets, allowing defenders to better predict attacks and protect their territory
    • Major facility satellites would become small outposts, acting as gateways to the facility and the other satellites
      • For instance, if you own The Crown, Zurvan Pump Station must be captured before you can attack Zurvan, Zurvan Network Complex, or Zurvan Storage Yard
    • Influence is no longer calculated into capture time, allowing for a standard capture time for each of the three base sizes
    To help everyone envision the overall direction, here's what the concept in its very early stages looks like:
    [IMG]

    This is now on our Public Test server, so please take a look and let us know what you think.
    • Up x 667


  2. To anyone who is actually arguing against this: DID YOU PLAY PS1? NO? THEN SHUT UP. Stop trying to get the single most important change this game needs axed because you invented reasons why it will be bad without ever having seen it.
    • Up x 95
  3. [IMG]
    • Up x 33
  4. Yes!
    • Up x 16
  5. [IMG]
    • Up x 38
  6. The only negative thing I can say about this is that you guys should have started work on implementing it months ago.
    • Up x 40
  7. The only negative thing I can say about this is how I will have to watch the forums flow with ignorant tears until April or May.
    • Up x 19
  8. People have been begging for the lattice instead of the pointless hex system since the very beginning of beta.

    Except they're MMO developers, who are bound by law to never ever admit they screwed up.

    You'll also notice they're going out of their way to never use the word Lattice. Sony is in maximum face-saving mode on this one
    "No no it's not that we're finally giving up on our terrible hex system and putting in the system everyone wanted from the start. This is our 'Hex Adjacency System(TM)'! it's new and unique and totally because we want to, you should be thanking us!"
    • Up x 24
  9. [IMG]

    And as soon as possible!
    • Up x 27
  10. I want this, seriously. But what is about the Crown? Will the zergs not be stuck there? The Crown is an invincible super fortress.
    • Up x 7
  11. THIS ISN'T PS1. We don't have PS1 defendable bases, we don't have PS1 mechanics, we don't have PS1 base benefits. The only defense we had against numbers was mobility, and this plan neutralizes even that.

    Without a way to get away from overwhelming zerg, smaller outfits will just quit. Then it'll be zerg against zerg, but the zerg with the fewest numbers will lose, and have nothing to do but get farmed (because, again, bases are not defensible). Congratulations. The biggest zerg just won PS2 forever, or until they log off and another zerg takes its place. Taking turns around the map will be replaced by taking turns in time; NC zergs in the afternoon, VS zergs at night, etc. Time to find another game.
    • Up x 36
  12. By the way, the current deploy screen is already a symptom of what we're seeing here, and it doesn't look good. This promotes "battle flow" by encouraging players to spawn in the face of an oncoming zerg, usually the one that just ran them over. The options on the deploy menu are non-options. If you spawn into the middle of a camped anything and you're really good or devious, you might die heroically. Otherwise, you'll just die. Instant Action has the same problem.

    Basically, if you do what the game's encouraging you to do, you're an imbecile, and the devs are using you as cannon fodder to provide "content" (e.g. someone to shoot at) for the bigger outfits.
    • Up x 21
  13. This needs to be in ASAP.. well as soon as you get it working that is. Seems like it would drastically help the flow of battles.
    • Up x 9
  14. Until I see it on the test server, I neither support nor oppose this.
    • Up x 15
  15. Except that this isn't PS1. The only things this game has in common with that one are a bunch of names.
    • Up x 35
  16. Is the test server open to the public? If not is there anyone on Youtube that posts videos on it? I'd like to see how well this works before I pass judgement.
    • Up x 6
  17. I don't see how this system could bring any good change.

    The problem isn't that people can't tell where zergs are or where they're headed, it's that nobody wants to stand in front of them and get curb stomped. This needs to be fixed by incentivizing defense, giving defenders a tangible advantage, and improving the defensibility of bases. With this new system, zergs would be encountering only empty bases until they get bored and disperse, and all the territory they attacked is quickly taken back by another zerg. This isn't PS1, bases are much easier to attack now and trying to corral players into defending them will not solve this.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I have yet to see a DEFINITIVE REASON the influence and hex system is so bad. People claim all these varous problems are caused by it, but they never say why, or the reasons they do give are vapid at best. It does not make attacking or defending too unpredictable, because anyone with half a brain can look at the roads and terrain layout and clearly see where enemy forces are likely to go. It does not make attacking too random, as you can clearly see the amount of infulence you have in that territory and the number of friendlies on points. Standardizing capture times is just silly and pointless. When you're capping a base and suddenly it takes longer because a nearby territory was captured, that is not "random", that is the enemy team RESPONDING STRATEGICALLY to your attack. They are slowing you down and buying their team time to react. Yes, bases have many adjacent territories you can attack, but because of the influence system only one or two actually make SENSE to attack. Influence is not random, nor complex.

    How exaclty is turning the maps into huge corridor fights going to encourage strategic play? This new system would make outflanking and surrounding bases much more difficult, almost invalidating small outfits and squads and condemming them to the large outfit meat grinders. Small territores used to have actualy strategic purpose. Capturing them would give you an advantage in capturing the larger bases near them in the form of influence. If the defenders are still holding one of the capture points in a base, influence can determine wether they are holding or slowly losing control. This is important, this has meaning, and it adds a strategic element to base captures. Without this, why bother defending those outlying territories in the first place? Forces would only concentrate in the big facilites. If the outside territories only serve as hallways to the big bases, why bother defending them?

    There are a few good things I've heard with this new system, like how surrounded or besieged territories would no longer allow adjacent territories to be captured. I just think we're going to far with this new territory system, but I'm not opposed to new ideas. What if territores were weighted with the amount of influence they gave? We need to sit down and really think of creative solutions before we just jump backward to an old system that has the potential to be worse than the one we have now.
    • Up x 40
  18. Second most important update on the schedule (after the loadout screen revamp)
    • Up x 4
  19. I also don't see this is a priority, and mostly seems pushed by Planetside 1 fans.

    Look, I admit there are problems with game flow, but IMO, they seem more related to population imbalances. The fact that factions are underpopulated and overpopulated, the fact that at times people get zerged 3-1. Factions crowding on one continent while neglecting others, leading to unbalanced game play. That is the biggest problem with the game flow IMO.

    This...I really don't see the point. I don't like the idea of funneling people into battles, and quite frankly, I can see many battles becoming pointless, repetitive meat grinders. Under the new system, it appears to me the map almost arbitrarily dictates to people where they can and cannot attack, and this leads to higher levels of predictability and eventually, staleness. I mean, I can see how in some areas such a system can be helpful, ie, the canyons of Indar, Amerish with it's tough terrain and winding roads, but honestly, for the most part, I see this as limiting the strategic potential of the game. As people mentioned above, this would kill the idea of flanking. I don't know. Maybe I need to see it in action, but as it is I have way too many concerns about its impact on game flow to really support this. On paper it seems to dumb the game play down by limiting strategic potential and encouraging grindfests, in my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong, I'll need to see how it works in the test server, but off hand, I can't say I'm for this.

    I do, however, would not be opposed to such a system overlaying the current one. I would love to see a "roadmap" view of the current map. As it is, the map can be difficult to read, hard to see how roads connect the territories together, and it can be hard to get where you want to go in some areas (once again, Amerish and the canyons of Indar) unless you're very familiar with the territory and know exactly where you're going. I could see that style of hexes help people navigate the map more efficiently...as it is, it can be too easy to make a wrong turn and end up making a 5-10 minute detour as a result (especially a problem on Amerish....one wrong turn can take you a good mile out of the way).

    In short, I don't like the idea in terms of changing the game flow as it is (although my mind can be changed if I see it working well on the test server), but I do think that an optional aesthetic change to the map via a new filter could make navigation much easier.
    • Up x 24
  20. I would like to see a GPS like system that shows routes for platoon/squad/personal waypoints if you are in a ground vehicle. That would make navigation much easier especially when wanting to attack something on top of a cliff where there is only one road and you don't know where it is (Red Ridge com. from the big base nearby.) especially if it tried to direct you through friendly territory instead of having detours through enemy bases. would be nice but is unimportant
    • Up x 8

Share This Page