How a lattice fosters very large battles (or, why the hex system fails its function)

[p0intman]

So firstly, you will all probably wonder what the fuck my qualifications are for stating such a thing. Those of you that need them, wouldn't understand them anyway. Those of you who know me, don't need them. Short version is that I was/am a rather prominent tactical leader in Planetside 1 for the NC on Emerald and then Gemini. If you doubt that I know my shit, read on.

This is a map of Amerish. (right click > open image in new tab if you want the bigger picture)

http://i49.tinypic.com/fvxve1.jpg

The original Amerish, not the one in this bastardization called Planetside 2. It is divided into two portions: North and South. North began immediately north of the northern edge of Verica's Sphere of influence, with the south consisting of everything south of Verica. Defending this continent was quite a lot easier, if you had a responsive fighting force and both opposing empires bearing down on you from the north. It is, for all intents and purposes, the worst possible nightmare for a large zerg with little or no overall coordination behind them.

The only way to really take it reliably from the north was to use immediate and overwhelming force to steamroll any opposition before it could be mounted, usually to the tune of 3:1 or better odds. Failing to do so usually resulted in defenders holing up in Mekela, Cetan and Ikanam for long periods of time in order to stall and farm you.

Usually, a typical defense consisted of the Vanu taking Tumas, Qumu, Sungrey and Onatha, with the Terrans having Azeban and Xelas. This usually permitted the NC to keep everything south of Verica, and to farm both empires until they left or got tired after coming to the realization they were not going to take the continent.

This is not a bad thing, mind you, it is one of the many ways something was created that many people who are attracted to the idea and premise of planetside liked: Big Battles with hundreds of people on each side, being waged for days at a time. You could actually say that the lattice did more for Planetside than the Hex system ever will, because it allowed for a tactical level of gameplay that forced you to think about what continents to hit, why to hit them, how dedicated you wanted to be in taking them and for better options in trying to do so. In fact, the lattice also allowed for smaller outfits to take out more tactically precise targets by virtue of their accomplishments having weight on the overall battlefield. The classic gen hold being such an example by which a small 10 person squad could wreck the night of a 30 person strong platoon.

However, it has been proven that the Hex system does no such thing, it works contrary to the goal of fostering large scale battles that it was designed to create. It is also not impossible to correct this mistake, it is simply that there are people who outright do not want to, either because they are stubborn or that they have no desire to learn from past design.

[RykerStruvian]

I think another issue is the proximity of the bases in Planetside 2. In PS1, a lot of bases were seperated by large swaths of land, in PS2 bases seem to be shoulder-to-shoulder. I think the hex system could work if emphasis was placed on the larger bases so that the smaller bases would act merely as outposts, of sorts.

For instance, smaller bases could be the way they are now, but bases could be turned in to hack and hold type of scenarios. It wouldn't solve the problem 100%, but it would push the gameplay towards that direction a little bit which is better than nothing.

[p0intman]

I think another issue is the proximity of the bases in Planetside 2. In PS1, a lot of bases were seperated by large swaths of land, in PS2 bases seem to be shoulder-to-shoulder. I think the hex system could work if emphasis was placed on the larger bases so that the smaller bases would act merely as outposts, of sorts.

For instance, smaller bases could be the way they are now, but bases could be turned in to hack and hold type of scenarios. It wouldn't solve the problem 100%, but it would push the gameplay towards that direction a little bit which is better than nothing.
like... this?
(picture created by orange soda)
http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/indarlatticereimagined1.jpg

[SturmovikDrakon]

like... this?

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/indarlatticereimagined1.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/ayg4e.jpg

[Figment]

Note that this is the situation post-Capitols.

Personally I hated the Capitols because as you can see in P0intman's link, the capitol forces circular play through the east and leaves next to no opportunities in the west. Cetan-> Qumu (LLU) would happen very occasionally. Verica would hardly ever be fought from or two due to the Capitol Force Dome. Furthermore, they removed the fun module raids (the one good thing to come out of Core Combat, next to the Router).

http://i211.photobucket.com/albums/bb180/HanSime/Planetside%20Lattices/Amerish_RegMap.jpg

This was a lattice remake by me (wasn't happy with it yet, but meh) to show how a dffferent lattice would create battles in completely different areas and creates by-pass routes for outfits (generally too far for zergs who always use the nearest base principle). Hence you'd pitch small groups vs small groups over long distance targets and typically larger groups would face off with larger groups.

[Crator]

Don't forget about the cave links that dynamically changed on a timer. Which allowed better flexibility when attacking a continent. Also, this map was an empire's home continent. And those were more in favor of the home empire due to the relation it had to the home empire's sanctuary warpgate.

[p0intman]

Don't forget about the cave links that dynamically changed on a timer. Which allowed better flexibility when attacking a continent. Also, this map was an empire's home continent. And those were more in favor of the home empire due to the relation it had to the home empire's sanctuary warpgate.

Should I re-write it from the perspective of say... Cyssorside?

Also, again thanks to orange soda. The devs did infact put in a lattice, they just overdid it:

http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/bare-bones-hex-system-ps2-beta.jpg

Note the complete lack of logic to it and its layout.

[GuyShep]

For one thing, I'm rather glad you aren't worried about posting your qualifications. Right's right, no matter whose mouth it came from.

Overall, what I found in Planetside 1, was that whenever an enemy faction was in a continent, you'd easily know where they would go. Without even looking at the lattice lines, someone playing for a couple of months wouldn't need to look at the map to plot out a good estimation on the enemy's modus operandi. This ability to accurately predict enemy attacks were what made Planetside 1's base defenses a formidable obstacle.

On the Hex system and the above paragraph, I think it could perform similarly to the Lattice system, but with significant changes to the continent, namely layout. Indar, Esamir, and Amerish as they are are large, whole squares, where every bit of land inside is part of a hex. Amerish in your post is a mostly single, solid shape, but not without its lakes and noncapturable territory between SOIs, and is not a complete square shape.

In other words, even if SOE were to replace the hex system with the Lattice system, it would be a marginal improvement at best if you don't alter the continent's geography, facility/outpost/tower placement, and amount of places to capture.

If SOE were to make something other than big solid squares with capturable hexes spammed like mad on them, or continents that resemble actual continents with rivers, mountains, valleys, lakes, etc., while increasing hex size and reducing the amount of capturable territories(so as to not make battles whack-a-zerg), you'd have a half-decent, working Hex system.

As I see it, the hex system is just the lattice system, with the problems of reinventing the wheel included. That, and SOE put in too many outposts to capture.

[Soothsayer]

I would wonder if there would be value in adding conditions to the type of lattice link based on the size of the adjacent outpost/tower/facility.

This would factor into the influence system as it stands now. The more links, the faster you can cap. Or smaller links don't give adjacency, but will contribute to cap speed once there is a lattice link to connect.

Basically, a link doesn't always have to be a link when you're looking at small versus larger facilities.

[Figment]

One of the things regarding the influence system is the annoying randomness of the timer. The timer keeps changing, goes back and forth and aaaargh! MAKE UP YOUR MIND SO I CAN PLAN AROUND IT! x_X


Malorn and I have been musing on an alternative use of the influence system and reintroducing hack and hold. What if the influence system only determines the timer at the exact moment the timer is started?

You get a fixed timer. A fixed race against the clock. Resec teams get their jobs back. More territory around it sets a shorter clock, but if say the full clock for a big base is 15 minutes, then 100% influence provides a 10-12 minute clock. It would get gradually faster if you have more influence, but defenders (resec teams) would still have the advantage.

For smaller bases, we could be looking at timers of 5-10 minutes and for the smallest you could have insta-flip (post hack, obviously) to 3-5 minutes.



Of course, for this to work, you will have to force people to come through you. Not just ignore your base and cap the stuff around first, but also to come through your base defenses and being able to setup a perimeter around the CC.

Hence it would require well-defendable bases and an at least somewhat restricted lattice so you know where to defend and are able to do so without being bypassed continuously.


Smaller outposts that turn quickly could then be considered staging grounds akin to PS1 towers, rather than be part of the lattice.

[Rolfski]

One of the things regarding the influence system is the annoying randomness of the timer. The timer keeps changing, goes back and forth and aaaargh! MAKE UP YOUR MIND SO I CAN PLAN AROUND IT! x_X

I'm not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing. tbh. Unpredictability has its virtues.

[Figment]

I'm not convinced this is necessarily a bad thing. tbh. Unpredictability has its virtues.

Sometimes I wonder if you're convinced anything in PS2 has problems! :p


Seriously though, unpredictability when created by a player: fine.

When created by the game: not fine.

[Ghoest9]

A lattice is inherently no more conducive to good game play than a block system is.

You can make a horrible lattice or a horrible block system. Or you could make good functioning version of either.

[Badjuju]

A lattice is inherently no more conducive to good game play than a block system is.

You can make a horrible lattice or a horrible block system. Or you could make good functioning version of either.

The difference is a lattice system gives direction. With the block system you can assault anywhere, this is why we see the swirly of different fronts around the map instead of primary forces hitting each other. You are forced to confront and overcome your enemy instead of pushing up the sides of the map until you hit their warp gate.

The current system is leading to very boring game play, especially as pops keep dropping. I was on Mattherson today with almost 40% vs and 40% tr, however they were not fighting each other at all. VS pushed North up the west side of Indar and the TR pushed south down the east. I had the choice of joining the front and seeing no action, or pushing into the enemy and getting lib spammed to death. I tried hitting the enemy.. after 5 random deaths to libs I logged off.

I agree with Pointman that a lattice system will help prevent this silly swirly sea saw tug of war crap.

[Badjuju]

It may also be nice to have less outposts. People rarely defend them and it would be nice to have more emphasis on major bases.

[Fear The Amish]

Personally i prefer Hex over lattice for a few reasons...

1.) Hex system gives an actually Tactical use of terrain and defenses. What this means is if there is a huge enemy zerg and i am undermanned i can use the hex system to cause it to divide by capping around it and baiting it into a place were i can fight its smaller pieces easier.

2.) Underpopulated factions have an advantage with hex because it gives them multiple choices besides ram head against 3 heavily defended points. they can instead go around those points forcing the enemy to follow them.

3.) it allows unorthodox strategies like fast capping to warpgate a stronger enemy faction. or defensive holdouts in places like biolabs to prevent a cont cap.

4.) it allows a realistic version of ANT runs in the future using encirclement as a way to do it instead of an arbitrary unit being dropped off.

Basically over all a lattice system is just a lazy way to setup battle flow instead of using terrain and defensive structures. Also Hex is much preferable because it allows for more flexibility in continental strategy.

[SGTalon]

I am with you Amish. But i think that the Hex system is just a lattice with more links.

I was around when they implemented the Lattice in PS1. It really made a difference in forcing battle to happen. Before it, big fights were hard to find. But even with the lattice the towers outside of the ones at bases were usually ignored.

The problem with a Lattice System like PS1 is we are talking about 10x the number of people in a map. I usually avoid the giant base fights when they are just a stagnant zergfest. I like to be on the move and doing something important. Leave the less tactical people to fight those fights.

The new hex system just spreads out the fight a little is all. IF your server population is playing smart though, it is not hard to find a big fight if you want one.

If you want to see it just come to Waterson. We always have nice big fights going down... with no lattice!

Hey Amish congrats on the SC win over on Facebook!

[Figment]

But hex is still a lattice. :/ I think the problem is people associate ps1 lattice and a lattice for PS2 aa having the same amount of links... It wouldn't. There would be more. When people talk about a ps1 lattice they talk about routing. Not any specific number of routes, just to indicate the natural routes and give them tactical meaning so people can't always ignore you.

Options is good, always ignoring is not.


You know, some people complained they couldn't find a fight in ps1. All these options is just making it harder, despite there being so many more people and the cont being the same size as a ps1 cont. Using terrain optimally is great. But you have to steer the path of the river along an artificial, natural feeling route.

[hashish]

I liked the complex nature of planetside 1, unfortunately planetside 2 feels very watered down and more simple :/

[Fear The Amish]

I am with you Amish. But i think that the Hex system is just a lattice with more links.

I was around when they implemented the Lattice in PS1. It really made a difference in forcing battle to happen. Before it, big fights were hard to find. But even with the lattice the towers outside of the ones at bases were usually ignored.

The problem with a Lattice System like PS1 is we are talking about 10x the number of people in a map. I usually avoid the giant base fights when they are just a stagnant zergfest. I like to be on the move and doing something important. Leave the less tactical people to fight those fights.

The new hex system just spreads out the fight a little is all. IF your server population is playing smart though, it is not hard to find a big fight if you want one.

If you want to see it just come to Waterson. We always have nice big fights going down... with no lattice!

Hey Amish congrats on the SC win over on Facebook!

Hell yeah we got some big fights!... and TY for the heads up on the SC didn't know till you just told me =)

[Hamma]

Great thread - good discussion thus far.

[Saintlycow]

like... this?
(picture created by orange soda)
http://www.ps2.riptidegaming.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/indarlatticereimagined1.jpg

How about towers and facilities are connected by Latice, and do not contibute to the cap speed (influence)

Smaller bases still use the hex system of adjacency.

[Sunrock]

The hex system is what we have, lets not throw the prostitute out with the bath water. There likely is a fix here to foster large battles that we do not see because A) We are not game designers B) We are not game designers C) We are not fucking game designers.

I agree that hex system in itself might not be the problem. But even if we are not game designers many of us here have allot more played hours then most devs have. So if we don't have the experience to design game we have the experience to play them.

The other day I went through the closet where I have stored all my games. And I counted over 250 PC games I have bought during the last 20 years. Now that does not include games I have on steam or origin.... Not to mention "pirate" games. Say I spent in average 100 hours per game. That is allot of gaming just on the PC. Now I also have a quite large collection of console games that goes all the way back to Nintendo 8-bits, super, Playstation 1 all the way up to Wii, 360 and PS3. Witch add my gaming experience to allot sens I got my first Atari 520 back in 1985.

Sorry for the side track of the topic but just because you don't know how to write game code does not mean you don't understand what works and not in a game.

[PoisonTaco]

I think the problem is population distribution via the three continents. When we get continent locks there is going to always be one or two front lines for each faction. While a lattice system might work for the current set up as it is, I don't think it would work well for PS2 in the long run.

Right now faction populations are split amongst 3 continents. Once we have 1 warpgate per faction (or a sanctuary) with other warpgates acting as links, I can see each faction having a presence on two continents at a given time. If they really get beaten, they'd get pushed back to one.

I also think once continent locks are in we'll start to see continents turn into large fights between two factions rather than three. However I do not think the lattice system will be a good idea once Hossin, Seaharus and Osshur are in the game.

[Archonzero]

I enjoy the hex system, though I agree there needs to be more incentive to building multiple larger fights, instead of a wave of bodies rolling from one point to the next.

A properly thought out Lattice system can help with this incentive.

1. Link Large + Major facilities into a connection web to unlock progression of Faction control for "special" features (ie ES fighters, ES MBTs, health regen, shield regen, shield boosts, health boosts..etc.)
alternatively, make Major facilities only attackable once you control enough lattice links (example, there are 4 large facilities tied to a Major Base, the attackers need to hold 2 or more to open up an attack channel to the Base. Reasoning.. those larger facilities could provide a sort of protective net over the ownership of the Major base itself, weakening the faction hold if 50% or more friendly lattice link)


2. Keep the hex system for sorting/maintain logistic resource supply lines.

- Resource hexes are zones held by small and mid sized outposts. They should have multiple capture points (2 for small, 3-4 for mid sized) to prevent easy ghost caps. Yet few enough to make them strategically and tactically viable targets for small groups/outfits to tackle.
-Increase the resource potential for each of these territories
-remove resources from Large/Major bases

[Ghost Runner]

I support the Hex system this is I what I believe it needs to work...

I feel what planetside 2 needs at the moment is logistics or a reason for the bases!! there are no real reasons as it is. Currently is like almost every other FPS pick your gear and jump in.... while that is fun it doesn't seem to be what I saw when I looked at planet side from the outside..

What I saw was supply lines facility's that let your empire build tanks and other bases that let you get advanced add-on's for that tank like AP turrets or IR smoke or even rocket pods for the ESFs can even go as far as whether or not your empire can put scopes or addons on there infantry weapons depending on what bases you hold....

Also ammo should be one of the resources, hold certain bases your empire gets like a 10% bonus to ammo capacity. Bases that allow your faction to produce special ammos.Heat seeking rockets and the like.

Air bases should be in the game as well and really important to hold so that your empire can have aircraft.

The warp gate should be the only base that has all the terminals, and whats available at them terminals is based on what bases your empire holds on that continent.

Just what I think would help.

[capiqu]

What about a dual Lattice/Hex system with 5 bases each (Bio, Tech, Amp, Interlink, Dropship) on each empires sphere of influence. 15 main bases connected via a lattice system. Each base cap with 15 minute Toh.
The main bases will be the centers and the hexes around it will give those bases resources. If the base has under its influence 3 hexes that give mechanized resources, then the enemy can cap those 3 hexes to deplete the bases ability to spawn armor.
The outpost can be captured via the hex system by 3 ways, adjacency to base, adjacency to hex or by back hacking. Capturing hexes adjacent to bases or friendly hexes with perhaps 8-10 minute Toh. Capturing hexes not adjacent to friendly hexes by back hacking with 5 minute Toh.
In preparation for the attack of a base your empire can move in around the base by hex adjacency or by back hacking. Like this the outpost can act like Planetside 1 towers.
Not sure if I'm explaining it right/

[Chewy]

I think the problem is population distribution via the three continents. When we get continent locks there is going to always be one or two front lines for each faction. While a lattice system might work for the current set up as it is, I don't think it would work well for PS2 in the long run.

Right now faction populations are split amongst 3 continents. Once we have 1 warpgate per faction (or a sanctuary) with other warpgates acting as links, I can see each faction having a presence on two continents at a given time. If they really get beaten, they'd get pushed back to one.

I also think once continent locks are in we'll start to see continents turn into large fights between two factions rather than three. However I do not think the lattice system will be a good idea once Hossin, Seaharus and Osshur are in the game.

Lattice in my opinion has to wait for more conts. For as long as there are 3 conts for people to go, factions will go to where there is an easy fight.
3 factions + 3 conts = 3 one sided fights

If there are 4 conts then a lattice can be great to controlling the zerg. As each faction can have a "home" and the 3 fight over the 4th for a 2nd WG on the other 3 conts or some perk that will make them a huge target. So each faction can choose to pester another faction and deny their main res flow or go for the 4th cont for the perk.

Though I don't know how a lock would work on conts without a lot of them. It can be done with just 4, just don't ask for many detail from me. Maybe have a special base (power station?) (non-home/main WGs) next to a WG that open up another cont and the owner gets control of that WG and the WG on the cont it's tied to. But leave home WGs un-capable and WGs them selves as is now, no way to enter and a kill zone/pain field if not owned.

Example- (long winded, sorry. I get more talkative the later it gets and can be bullshit at times)
Cont TR has WGs 1,2,3,4 (1 TR home WG)
Cont NC has WGs A,B,C,D (A NC home WG)
Cont VS has WGs 7,8,9,0 (7 VS home WG)
Cont ?? has WGs X,Y,Z

WGs linked like so
2-B
3-8
C-9
4-X
D-Y
0-Z


So say the TR wanted to lock their home cont. They would have to hold WGs 2, 3, and 4. Doing so opens them a path to the VS and NC home conts and the 4th cont. But if say NC take WG B on their home cont they open a path to the TR home cont by way of WG 2 and that locks both WGs (and their power statons) for for the next hour, but, it takes at least half an hour for the WGs to relink/hack/transfer ownership. So if NC takes WG Bs power station, they would have to now hold off the TR for 30 minutes minimum. Give the power station 3 cap points that take a full minute to fip and need 6+ men each for full effect (up to a max of 1 hour if no one is manning the cap points). This gives the TR time to counter attack the station in case of a ghost cap and also gives NC time to regroup in the next cont and kick the TR out of that conts WGs station.

Another example is if the NC are able to take and hold WG 3, it opens the VSs WG 8 and a chance to come at the VS from 2 sides without having to hold the contested the 4th cont. Up to being able to have 3 WGs on an enemy home cont if teams are REALLY stacked.


But without a 4th cont (and a 4th WG one each home cont (make one the crown just for shits and giggles)) this is all useless. Seems like it might work to me. But I don't call myself an idiot without reasons.

edited for more ideas and to fix my piss poor spelling/grammar

[Archonzero]

The only true way that a cont locking system will work.. Sanctuary base that cannot be attacked. Would be the primary log in point/Staging area/link to continents.

When a continent gets locked, that faction cannot go to that continent through a warpgate system. Requires locked out faction to deploy to a locked continent with a dropship system, squad/platoon beacons, or.. or... if they seamlessly link the continents you could fly a galaxy there.

[Mox]

Hex or lattice is noz really important. Important is how many caputre points are available at the same time. The current hex system offers too many of such possible capture points. Thats why we are fighting in hexes with no or few enemies 90% of the time.

I prefer a lattice system but it would be also possible to stick with a reduced hex system.

[MuNrOe]

I saw something today that may explain why we dont see the lattice and the maps are spread out like they are.

The game can not handle the entire empire in one spot fighting against another empire in one spot fighting back.

It was on the last hex on amerish and every single NC player on the server had flown there for the final cap and I mean every single person. This was on the connery server. As more and more people arrived they game seemed to stutter and also freeze up and this was experienced by everyone in the area.

As people began to crash into each other because the air was filled with sooo many aircraft all in stutter mode the stutter seemed to lessen. Untill there were about half the aircraft in the area did the game flow back to normal.

Now this is just a theory but it may be highly possible that making fights flow into the lattice and creating a massive empire fight on one point might actually make the game freeze up and hence we have the Hex system to prevent this from happening.

In conclusion http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/xk1kwfK848Y/mqdefault.jpg Too many dicks on the dance floor causes the game to crash hence no lattice system.

[Figment]

The more things the game needs to keep track of and rendered (projectiles, units and all their different hitboxes, directional vectors, etc), the bigger the strain. Especially if the people in the area also have limited hardware (I'd imagine the server would be less of an issue).

PS1 regularly had the same issues when there were many BFRs: the extra animations, hitboxes and whatever strained everyone's performance.

It is why we have no scavenging, nor holstered weapons on our back.

[Dodgy Commando]

Do ghost caps in PS2 offer the same XP as capping any other base with a fight?

I believe the Hex system offers more options, making it less directing than PS1 Lattice. But if people are taking the easier option rather than fighting, surely incentivising the latter option over the former might lead to more fighting without deeply modifying the Hex system.

Lattice gave direction, but you did eventually get the hang of things and enemy mouvement could become very predictable. Now that isn't to say direction is bad, as it meant you were guaranteed a fight. However Hex does offer more flexibility, it just seems to me people aren't exploiting its potential.

Just an idea from someone who has yet to follow a zerg through undefended bases in PS2. I certainly don't have any big credentiels (although I did play PS1 quite a bit).

[psijaka]

I think that we need a reality check here; SoE are hardly likely to do away with the Hex system in favour of the Lattice at this stage in the game's life cycle.

And I don't see the issue of being Hex or lattice, more of terrain design. It should be easy to channel players into a big fight using inaccessible features such as cliffs or lakes.

[Wahooo]

Do ghost caps in PS2 offer the same XP as capping any other base with a fight?

Yes they do, and it was brought up as the major point that needed fixing in the suggestion thread about dynamic XP.

Dynamic XP on players was a minor point to the suggestion about a needed fix.


SOE of course has listened... taken it into consideration and is fixing the MINOR problem and has left the major one alone.

Hard to believe we are still cynical about the game being fixed... or ever really ready for release.

[Figment]

Lattice gave direction, but you did eventually get the hang of things and enemy mouvement could become very predictable. Now that isn't to say direction is bad, as it meant you were guaranteed a fight. However Hex does offer more flexibility, it just seems to me people aren't exploiting its potential.

Actually people exploit the unpredictability potential of the flexibility too much to avoid fighting, that's our main reason to have it restricted.

[Dodgy Commando]

Actually people exploit the unpredictability potential of the flexibility too much to avoid fighting, that's our main reason to have it restricted.

Agreed, hence my suggestion to incentivise fighting at enemy held facilities over empty facilities. That way you can exploit the flexibility but for a good reason, not easy XP.

[Baneblade]

Don't forget that the lattice also stopped many fights from ever happening. Certain continents would be 100% empty for weeks and months at a time.

EDIT: A lot of vets will say that was the continents themselves, but that is not the case. More often than not, if you couldn't get Tech immediately, they simply would not go. That is why Cyssor was the favorite meat grinder.

[Figment]

Don't forget that the lattice also stopped many fights from ever happening. Certain continents would be 100% empty for weeks and months at a time.

EDIT: A lot of vets will say that was the continents themselves, but that is not the case. More often than not, if you couldn't get Tech immediately, they simply would not go. That is why Cyssor was the favorite meat grinder.

CR5s would vote for Interlinks, Tech and DSC entry points to a continent, AMPs and Bio Labs were less favourable due to their disconnected Gen/CC (had to pass outdoors and would thus be cut off more easily).


Considering every single base has that currently... >__>

[Qwan]

I have to agree with the author of this thread, I love the lattice system, but this is not what the developers wanted for PS2, they felt that the lattice system bottle necked the battles and made them stagnant. I remember reading about how by using the Hex system they would keep battles moving to the next base, and with the Hex system the zerg would have to resecure bases hehind them or to the side that are being hacked hence thinning out the zerg. They felt that for all the terratory in the game, it just wasnt being used because of the lattice or link system. So they introduced the Hex, with the Hex system if a fight felt stagnent then people can just campture the smaller points around the bases and this would in fact keep the battle moving and spreading the front line thin giving it a wider front and not to mention keep it moving. The object of Hex system was to spread the fight over all of the map. Not to stop the fight because of a well dug in force at a base, stopping the wheels of progrees.

I personnally feel that the Hex system has failed. First and formost the object of a player logging into the game is to find a fight, with the lattice system you knew were to find a fight, because you could figure out were the enemy was headed next and you could use the drop terminal to get to it. With the Hex system battle fronts are so spread thin, you can use the deploy button and pray there some action when you hit the ground.

Without a continental lock taking a continent is pointless, with the hex system defending would take a large amount of courdination and alot of resources. With the Lattice there were maybe two points that needed to be defended to keep the enemy off of your locked continent.

I think they should go back to this system but then this is the thought of most PS1 vets. But the designers are using the Hex to ensure that fights dont get stagnant, and that fights are spread all over the map, and this makes sence its just that no body but them wants this, even some of our CoD buddys and BF3 buddy's dont like the hex system. In most BF and CoD games there used to the alley way fights, and to go from that to "Welcome to this massively expansive map, good luck finding a fight" is turning off alot of our new players, but to remidy that I send most new guys to the CROWN :eek:, its kind of motivates them and reminds them of a team deathmatch game.

So over all i think that the lattice system works very well, I think the Hex system takes away from really good fights, and spread battles to thin, not to metion take away from player accomplishment.

[ShadetheDruid]

I'd go with making bases defensable and give even the smallest outposts decent reasons to be defended (useful bonuses, perks, tie them into logistics, or whatever), reduce (or even almost eliminate) the XP for capping an undefended base, and I think the hex map would work fine.

Ghostcapping empty bases would then be a tactic rather than easy XP - and if the smaller outposts were more important, it would be a tactic the owner couldn't just ignore. Someone could start ghostcapping a base and instantly create a decent small skirmish as the owner comes to defend it because it's actually important.

I'd much rather have less predictable fights and smaller skirmishes than predictable (and giant) fights all the time. Variety is good.

[SGTalon]

Actually people exploit the unpredictability potential of the flexibility too much to avoid fighting, that's our main reason to have it restricted.

Some people just don't have a good enough computer to play PS2 in big battles. Some people don't like or can't handle the chaos that happens in the epic base battles.

The fact that all the outposts offer real benefits to your faction if you take and hold them means that there are battles to suit everyone. If they became restricted just for the sake of forcing large battles i think we would find a lot of people turned off.

Personally i think it is very important to be able to skip over the big base battles. just last night VS was kicking our butt on Amerish we kept getting pushed back almost all the way to our WG. So i took my squad around the outside and started fast capping hexes to push their lines back. The main TR Zerg always moved in to the main bases and at one point we had 3 main base battles going on and it forced the VS to thin out their fight at the big bases to start recapping the outposts. I think we pushed them back 3 or 4 times even with a lower population.

If the Hex system were not in place, there would have been no way for us to push out past the first base because the enemy would have concentrated there and stopped us cold.

So, honestly, i think the Hex system HELPS to keep people fighting.

[Figment]

SGTalon, if you restrict the lattice just a bit more than it is now, you still can fight at small fights.


Don't presume it'll be like PS1 with just one or two viable paths. I get very tired when people make those doomscenarios because they can't perceive an intermediate state with more guidance and yet plenty of options. :/ There are simply so many outposts that you can't zerg them all at the same time. That's mathematically impossible.

[p0intman]

Fuck it, if we're going down the maths route...

Lets say that for each hex, there are as many ways of taking it as there are hexes, in terms of combinations. somebody on the ps2 forums said indar has 72 hexes (i havent counted, but for the sake of my sanity, thats how it is for this argument). that means there are, at minimum, 5,184 different ways of taking the continent of indar.

am i the only person that sees the problem with that?

To put that in perspective, there are more ways to take the continent than people that can fit onto it at one time.

[SGTalon]

I have to agree with the author of this thread, I love the lattice system, but this is not what the developers wanted for PS2, they felt that the lattice system bottle necked the battles and made them stagnant. I remember reading about how by using the Hex system they would keep battles moving to the next base, and with the Hex system the zerg would have to resecure bases hehind them or to the side that are being hacked hence thinning out the zerg. They felt that for all the terratory in the game, it just wasnt being used because of the lattice or link system. So they introduced the Hex, with the Hex system if a fight felt stagnent then people can just campture the smaller points around the bases and this would in fact keep the battle moving and spreading the front line thin giving it a wider front and not to mention keep it moving. The object of Hex system was to spread the fight over all of the map. Not to stop the fight because of a well dug in force at a base, stopping the wheels of progrees.

I personnally feel that the Hex system has failed. First and formost the object of a player logging into the game is to find a fight, with the lattice system you knew were to find a fight, because you could figure out were the enemy was headed next and you could use the drop terminal to get to it. With the Hex system battle fronts are so spread thin, you can use the deploy button and pray there some action when you hit the ground.

Without a continental lock taking a continent is pointless, with the hex system defending would take a large amount of courdination and alot of resources. With the Lattice there were maybe two points that needed to be defended to keep the enemy off of your locked continent.

I think they should go back to this system but then this is the thought of most PS1 vets. But the designers are using the Hex to ensure that fights dont get stagnant, and that fights are spread all over the map, and this makes sence its just that no body but them wants this, even some of our CoD buddys and BF3 buddy's dont like the hex system. In most BF and CoD games there used to the alley way fights, and to go from that to "Welcome to this massively expansive map, good luck finding a fight" is turning off alot of our new players, but to remidy that I send most new guys to the CROWN :eek:, its kind of motivates them and reminds them of a team deathmatch game.

So over all i think that the lattice system works very well, I think the Hex system takes away from really good fights, and spread battles to thin, not to metion take away from player accomplishment.

You seem conflicted in what you are saying here Qwan but you bring up some good points.

The reason for the Hex system. I recall hearing that one of the biggest things they wanted was people fighting over every inch of the continent. PS1 too much of it never saw a player. Towers near Warpgates were ignored 95% of the time. Towers between bases or off the main paths were completely ignored. And this created the stagnant Interfarms and battles that never seemed to go anywhere.

Continent locks i think are a terrible idea. Basically you are just forcing people to quit playing. If you can't get out of your Warpgate/Sanctuary area why play? I hated it in PS1. I had way too many nights where i log in and my gaming night was shot because we either got pushed back into the Sanc or we were already there. The first thing that happens is people just start logging off. Once that happens the chances of a successful push out of the sanc is nearly impossible. So you have the losing faction stick around for an hour or 2 trying to push out but it takes a lot less people to hold them in so they winning faction has nothing to do and get bored so they start logging out.

The whole point of the game is to have thousands of people FIGHTING. Not logging off in the hundreds because they can't find a fight at all since they are locked into their sanctuary.

Personally i think the Hex system solves a lot of the things that I DIDN'T like about PS1.

[p0intman]

The whole point of the game is to have thousands of people FIGHTING. Not logging off in the hundreds because they can't find a fight at all since they are locked into their sanctuary.

Personally i think the Hex system solves a lot of the things that I DIDN'T like about PS1.

if you couldnt find a fight in ps1, you simply weren't looking or were actively ignoring command, because i can tell you for fucking sure, thats what CR5s primarily did: told people where the fight was.

edit: just incase people didn't see my ninja post on the previous page:

Fuck it, if we're going down the maths route...

Lets say that for each hex, there are as many ways of taking it as there are hexes, in terms of combinations. somebody on the ps2 forums said indar has 72 hexes (i havent counted, but for the sake of my sanity, thats how it is for this argument). that means there are, at minimum, 5,184 different ways of taking the continent of indar.

am i the only person that sees the problem with that?

To put that in perspective, there are more ways to take the continent than people that can fit onto it at one time.

lets say you force a lattice and make it so that there are only 1/5th as many ways to take the cont. thats STILL close to a thousand different combinations.

[psijaka]

I particularly like the complex hex system on Indar, gives lots of options for creative strategic play. I love it when I see that an opportunistic squad has outflanked a zerg and sliced through behind enemy lines to cut them off from their warpgate.

And in my experience, Indar is the most popular continent, and, judging by these recent posts on the NC Woodman thread, this is not restricted to Ceres. I suspect that the more complex hex system is a factor.

Woodman NC hold their own, though there is very little fighting outside of Indar for anyone (occasional zergs for continent bonus).

and as Rolfski said - Indar is the main continent to fight on, even though there is some fights going on at Esamir or Amerish - it's nothing compared to Indar.

I prefer to play on Indar rather than beautiful Amerish largely because of the additional Hex complexity giving me more options. I can choose whether to get into a major battle or whether to go for some lower key action at a smaller outpost; whatever takes my fancy. Amerish and Esamir just seem like dumbed down versions to me.

[Baneblade]

Any kind of lattice would need to ignore outposts. Or have outposts on an independent lattice with a few cross connections at certain points.

[SGTalon]

if you couldnt find a fight in ps1, you simply weren't looking or were actively ignoring command, because i can tell you for fucking sure, thats what CR5s primarily did: told people where the fight was.

All the CR5's logged off. I remember many nights sitting in sanc with my outfit waiting for ANYTHING to happen. Grabbing vehicles and trying to push out, not getting anywhere and people just quit.

It was very frustrating to have planned to play Planetside for the whole night and after spending an hour or 2 getting nothing but killed a bunch of times without taking a single tower.

I have many great memories of PS1 but i also remember many times being frustrated and disappointed because of things like that.

Just because you can toss a math problem at how many ways to take a continent doesn't translate. Lets talk Indar.

Out of the TR WG there are 4 ways to go, that is it. If you get stopped at Indar Waste, you are not going West. And that is a very small base a single platoon can easily hold off pretty much any ground attack there.

Going East you have ... i forget the name but the one outpost and Waterson. It doesn't take a lot to keep us pushed back.

Going North, you only have the Pit area.

Once you hit the Cliffs you have to take Quartz Ridge or the big base on the other side. And you have to take the Crown TI-Alloys area. It totally focuses the fight into 3 or 4 areas. If you don't hold Quartz Ridge, you open the enemy up to push deep into your territory. IF you don't hold Crimson Bluff and that Larger base on the cliff you get pushed in over there. If you don't have a battle going at the Crown/Ti Alloys, you lose the whole middle.

I don't see how you think it it impossible. The fights always center around certain areas.

Waterson used to be a lot of nothing going on, people fighting stupid and just following the Zerg, but since the holidays, things have gotten a lot better. Everyone is fighting a lot smarter, and there are ALWAYS tons of awesome battles going on. Since Christmas weekend, i have not had a single complaint about the fight we have been having.

It is awesome.

I wonder how many people are struggling with the game simply because of low population. When there is no fight, you rack your brain thinking about what is causing it and come up with tons of things that seem wrong. But when you are getting awesome, epic battles every night and having fun all the time, those issues fade into the background and are not such a big deal.

Luckily, that is not the issue on Waterson. Very happy i made the right choice on November 20th!

[Figment]

Well if you look at Indar, look at the south east, the south edge of the map to be precise.

Is there a reason why there is a link in the territory below there, in the valley, with the one above? Is it like you can directly fight from there? Not really. The outposts on top of the ridge have a very linear path and you could make a bypass route out of it with no links below till the very warpgate. That way, holding one of these stops the bypass attempt, but doesn't cause backstabbing in all the canyons.

Bassically, you create the possibility for bypassing and plugging at the same time, simply by separating hex links. At the same time, you can use these for influencing the battle below and allows you to protect a range of outposts, create influence and hex routes by holding this group of territories on either end. Effectively, these are taken in this order anyway. It would only officialise it and give direction to the fight, which can then be reflected in base design and orientation.

[Figment]

Oh and talon, when we were almost sanclocked, we would go and drain Nexus, Wakea, Ngaru, Oro, Zotz (yes. Zotz), Igaluk, Chuku or some other base with hard enemy logistics and if it didn't attract our empire, it would attract the third empire and we would actively try to spark fights between them.

Hapi (solsar was tr homecont at the time) was actually the most awesome zero base evasion ever. All of NC harted in on us and we quickly ran the LLUs from Mont and Bastet, took Sobek and Amun and the TR left Hossin en mass, allowing the vs to dominate it, the TR almost got zeroed themselves in the process. In other words, when without links, create some.

We hardly ever got zerobased as NC on Werner, only once while I was on and I cracked that in the exact same way. The NTU system is something we miss in PS2.

[Synnoc]

To your original point, I want to disagree with you just a tiny bit. The lattice handled the "macro" portion of creating big battles, but the "micro" reason was that the bases themselves were highly defensible. As a thought experiment, pretend every base on Amerish was a bio lab. How big would the battles be then? What percentage of the bases would be taken with a gen drop in the first ten minutes of battle?

[psijaka]

Well if you look at Indar, look at the south east, the south edge of the map to be precise.

Is there a reason why there is a link in the territory below there, in the valley, with the one above? Is it like you can directly fight from there? Not really. The outposts on top of the ridge have a very linear path and you could make a bypass route out of it with no links below till the very warpgate. That way, holding one of these stops the bypass attempt, but doesn't cause backstabbing in all the canyons.

Bassically, you create the possibility for bypassing and plugging at the same time, simply by separating hex links. At the same time, you can use these for influencing the battle below and allows you to protect a range of outposts, create influence and hex routes by holding this group of territories on either end. Effectively, these are taken in this order anyway. It would only officialise it and give direction to the fight, which can then be reflected in base design and orientation.

Interesting example; an area I know well. And I see your point that there is not really much of a way that those holding the ridge can directly influance the battle for the tech plant below, yet they exert influence through the Hex system (there is one road down to the canyon, though).

However, I'm not convinced that breaking the hex link would make much of a difference in practice, and certainly wouldn't have much of an influence on the size of the battles going on at the Tech Plant (usually the VS attack comes from the NW through Broken Arch). Or the order in which the minor bases on the ridge were taken; it's pretty linear.

[Figment]

It usualy is linear, but at times areas behind you get taken a you progress further, making your defense pointless and hopeless. Worse, you feel powerless to intervene.

[Thunderhawk]

My fear with Hexes is that its all well and dandy being able to outflank a zerg and hack behind them, but to the Strategists and the planners its a right pain in the ass to have a battle plan to move a front line forward only to retreat then move forward again then retreat....

It makes commanding a continent push a pain and no fun at all and removes the feeling of "progress".

Whats the point when you will lose the base you just moved out of within 15 minutes?

[psijaka]

It usualy is linear, but at times areas behind you get taken a you progress further, making your defense pointless and hopeless. Worse, you feel powerless to intervene.

I'm fine with that; it's a risk you take if you overextend your supply lines (think Stalingrad). If I get cut off like this, then I generally redeploy.

Unless it is the Crown, of course; in which case I will fight on and slaughter as many attackers as I can before we are overrun :D

[Kerrec]

I never played PS1. I look at all these Lattice vs. Hex threads/arguments and I get the impression the PS1 vets are just waxing nostalgic. Reading the OP's post, he seems to want a lattice system to force large confrontations. Predictability of where your enemy is going, so you can counter.

But I say Bollocks to that. In 70+ hours of gameplay, ALL I SEE are 3 factions zerging their own individual continents. Some servers may be different, but for the most part I'd say those are rare. So let me ask you, how difficult is it to predict where your enemy is going to be if they have 80+% of the population on a continent? If outfits and people were actually looking for big fights, ALL THEY HAVE TO DO is take their big zerg onto a continent with another faction's big zerg and voila! But it doesn't happen. Predictability and big fights is not what people ACTUALLY want (speaking of the general population, and not every single individual).

If you take human nature into consideration, there IS a lattice system. If a large zerg pushes out from its WG, it will always head towards big XP rewards. Just look for the nearest 1000XP capture point base, and that will be their direction. They will slow down along the way at smaller reward outposts if it is in the general direction. The higher the XP reward, the more population will be there. The less reward, fewer people will go. So you can expect "smaller" sized encounters at small bases because it only gives 250XP (unless it's on the way, then expect the full brunt). So there's your "human nature" lattice.

As people have said many times, right now this game is basically an MMO (grinding ranks. To what end? What's the reward of higher ranks?) and a Team Deathmatch shooter. There's NO value whatsoever to bases other than the XP you get for capturing it. If you change THIS, you will engage human nature and you'll get your predictable large battles.

I'm not here to push SOE to implement MY system. Just to implement A system. But this is what I would do:

1) WG (or Sanctuaries once more continents are added) can produce unlimited FREE units, with one caveat: Those units are stock, un-upgraded. You can pull as many as your personal timer allows.
2) Large bases allow you to spawn upgraded equipment: BioLabs spawn upgraded infantry. Tech Labs spawn upgraded ground vehicles. Amp stations spawn upgraded air vehicles. Each large base can only produce so many of a particular vehicle per X seconds. That way if a faction wants to produce more of those vehicles, they need to capture more of those bases. Make the vehicle queues visible before you get in one for a particular vehicle so the player will know before hand if it will be faster to go to another base to get one.
3) Make it possible to bring vehicles thru a warpgate. That way they can bring upgraded vehicles thru if they're willing to invest the time sink to travel (trying to solve the problem of factions focusing on one continent and leaving the other two to other factions).

This doesn't solve the problem of 3 separate faction zergs on 3 separate continents, but it DOES give a REASON and incentive to defend a base. The PS2 population are not going to want to play with stock assets when they've spent tons of Certs to upgrade already. They will want to defend the bases they feel are important to their playstyle. And enemies will want to get that specific base to deny you your upgrades.

The point is, give bases a REAL value, and it will be blatantly obvious where the ultimate goal of a large push will be, once that large push starts. It's a lattice system based on value, instead of train tracks.

[Rahabib]

they already said, lattice will never happen. Best you can hope for is to to work with the hex system to do something similar (bump (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=873182#post873182))

[Figment]

You mean as in hold all the bases within the hex group before the territory switches ownership or something?

[psijaka]

they already said, lattice will never happen. -snip-

^ this

People are living in a world of fantasy if they think that SoE are going to scrap the hex system and reinstate the old Lattice system.

[Rahabib]

Back to the OP, how about multi-lattices? Group up hexes into lattice states, and the state needs to be conquered by following the lattice. This could help force big battles, instead of the current pussification that we are witnessing.
yep. (http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?p=873182#post873182)

[RykerStruvian]

Grouping hexes could work in my opinion. To be honest, grouping the hexes would make sense rather than having a bunch of independent hexes all over the place. It would be similar to PS1 in the sense that... instead of having open spaces of terrain, the terrain would also have random facilities. This would be better rather than just having bland, open terrain imo.

Would the surrounding hexes contain spawn points or no though? This might make it a lot more difficult (for attackers) if they allowed people to spawn there unless perhaps you would have to be in that particular hex in order to be given the option? Or force people to only be able to spawn at towers/bases like PS1?

[Kerrec]

You miss the OP's point because you dont know dick about lattice. The point of lattice was to FORCE a big fight. So opposing zergs would have to clash.

Oh please... The lattice is not any more complex than a system of bus routes, a train or subway map or at the very most, a hub and spoke system used by airlines. I can read and understand those just fine.

Interpreting how an enemy will USE the lattice, based on what is more beneficial as a resource, may require a mastermind in tactics.

However, THE point I was making, is there is NO benefit to taking any particular point in a lattice. It's all a fixed quantity of XP to be farmed in any order you wish. So what really needs to happen is to give those points in your lattice a reason to be defended.

Which leads to the obvious realization that if a base/point has a REASON to be defended, then you don't need a lattice in the first place to force a big fight. It will just happen, because there's a REASON for it to happen.

The lattice system your proposing is forcing a REASON for a big fight by telling everyone, "These are your only options." That is not good game design.

[p0intman]

SOE is trying to bury this, i suspect ive hit a nerve. moved it from the ps2 discussion forums to the off topic ghetto on the ps2 forums. ive notified radarx of this redundant thread (intentionally) for this reason.

NICE JOB PROVING HOW STUBBORN YOU ARE THOUGH!

[RykerStruvian]

Ask RadarX why he moved it. Or did he post a reason?

[p0intman]

Ask RadarX why he moved it. Or did he post a reason?

sent him a PM, no reason was given. Though I suspect I can pinpoint out who did it, and I don't think it was him.

[RykerStruvian]

There must be a reason though. There is no point moving something on their forum if they felt something wasn't right...I mean, the information is still there, the posts are still there, and we still have this thread here. They can't exactly cover it up, whatever it is.

[SGTalon]

They would not remove a topic like this unless there was something wrong with it. There are hundreds of threads that are a lot less constructive than this one.

I have had a few threads removed, typically it is because of the direction the thread was heading - like it changed into a bunch of threatening name calling, or it had something offensive in it along the way.

[Archonzero]

I read your snip Pointman.. an well played indeed, the math if correctly calculated is a higher number than you can fit players to a continent.

A lattice system works, only if it's done to tier progression to a "final" objective push. An only as long as there are more than one or two paths. If you link the lattice network (or hex system) to incorporate a tiered approach to a Major Base (ie tech, amp, bio) you can achieve a small metagame semblance of "win" condition. If you require a faction to secure the larger outposts, or a series of outpost types to unlock a Major base for capture potential.. then you also give the rival faction targets to counter attack/defend.

The zerg is less likely to defend those previous territories as they've moved on to the bigger target. This gives smaller groups/outfits a purpose in securing/defending/skirmishing along those lines if presented with attacking groups attempting to strip the linked hexes to save the major base from an assault.

Make the small/mid sized outposts the resource hexes, keep the PS2 flip xp system for these hexes an rely on adjacency for capture mechanic.


Remove the resources from the large/major bases and switch the xp system to something more similar to the PS1 SOI xp system. Larger/longer the battle.. the bigger the defense/attack reward.


Making a simple system looks nice on paper. It makes the design elements simple, a simple game simply put, does not retain intelligent players for long periods of time unless you can offer dynamic systems of approach. Both on a strategic/tactical level as well in character progression design.

The current CoD/BF3 playstyle works great for short 30-60min conquest games that have clear win/lose conditions then a map change to a different game/mapstyle.

Case in point I could play PS1 for 3+hours a day due to the variety of approaches to the needs for victory conditions for a continental assault. I could only play CS (an CS:S, and I played that game competitively for a couple years) for an hour maybe 2, before I grew bored of pew pew plant/defuse win/lose. The same goes for BF2, BF2142, BF3, clear victory conditions.. wackamole conquest capture progression, limited character build/progression an rinse repeat formula became stagnant for interest.

[Wahooo]

progression objective

These two words are really all the meta game/base design arguments fall into.

This is what we want, and sadly SOE doesn't seem to understand either of these words.

[Lonehunter]

HUGE FAN of the lattice idea, I love the original m0ck up ("m o c k" was censored lol) you made. The second one is too cluttered, if every base connects to every close base it's really just has the same effects as hexes

[Figment]

Kerrec, there is nothing you can make each base have its own tactical value with if you have 50 bases per continent. At some point they become redundant. Problem is there are more places attacked than players to defend.

The most annoying thing in terms of base attacks in ps1 was ghosthacks, constantly having to respond to non-attacks of single players. That was just a waste of time for the defender as there was often no fight (players sometimes just placed a hack or five and would leave each) and you would be chasing that player across all your links. In PS2 we have over 12 links per continent. Imagine when we have 15 continents in a year or two.

We won't have that many players to secure all our links, so it will be chasing ghosts everywhere all the fricking time!

That is going to frustrate and bore players and you will make them completely apathic to the conquest meta-game if chasing ghosts and never fighting is all there is to do. It will feel like a job obligation. Trust me on this, because it already did in ps1. Too many links is simply an incredibly dumb thing to do. It may seem tactical to you now, but you simply will burn out from it really quick. Much quicker than you would in ps1.


You already see it happening now: players feel it is entirely pointless because they can't be everywhere at once.

[p0intman]

Kerrec, there is nothing you can make each base have its own tactical value with if you have 50 bases per continent. At some point they become redundant. Problem is there are more places attacked than players to defend.

The most annoying thing in terms of base attacks in ps1 was ghosthacks, constantly having to respond to non-attacks of single players. That was just a waste of time for the defender as there was often no fight (players sometimes just placed a hack or five and would leave each) and you would be chasing that player across all your links. In PS2 we have over 12 links per continent. Imagine when we have 15 continents in a year or two.

We won't have that many players to secure all our links, so it will be chasing ghosts everywhere all the fricking time!

That is going to frustrate and bore players and you will make them completely apathic to the conquest meta-game if chasing ghosts and never fighting is all there is to do. It will feel like a job obligation. Trust me on this, because it already did in ps1. Too many links is simply an incredibly dumb thing to do. It may seem tactical to you now, but you simply will burn out from it really quick. Much quicker than you would in ps1.


You already see it happening now: players feel it is entirely pointless because they can't be everywhere at once.

This. what the fuck is the point to doing anything but being a huge dick by being a mild annoyance behind the lines when you take one base and are immediately backhacked 5 mins after you leave the control point of the previous base? why should i even give two shits about ANY of the conquest metagame when there isn't jack shit to fight over and i know ill lose it 5 mins later no matter what? advancing doesn't matter, at all, because it isn't an effective deterrant for the opposing faction unless im in a HUGE FUCKING ZERG?

I want to see Smed or Higby's logic behind this. I really do. Something other than 'we feel the lattice boxes us in too much, deal with it!' would be MUCH FUCKING APPRECIATED.

[Archonzero]

Oh please... The lattice is not any more complex than a system of bus routes, a train or subway map or at the very most, a hub and spoke system used by airlines. I can read and understand those just fine.

Interpreting how an enemy will USE the lattice, based on what is more beneficial as a resource, may require a mastermind in tactics.

However, THE point I was making, is there is NO benefit to taking any particular point in a lattice. It's all a fixed quantity of XP to be farmed in any order you wish. So what really needs to happen is to give those points in your lattice a reason to be defended.

Which leads to the obvious realization that if a base/point has a REASON to be defended, then you don't need a lattice in the first place to force a big fight. It will just happen, because there's a REASON for it to happen.

The lattice system your proposing is forcing a REASON for a big fight by telling everyone, "These are your only options." That is not good game design.

What it makes is good game design for the controlling faction, it safeguards your ground from flip flop capture mechanics by allowing you to buffer your hard earned conquered territory with clear lines of attack/defense. If every base is a "castle" and the way to safeguard your castle is to fortify the position with "towers" large outposts being the linked assets to a major base gives you a tiered strategic level to maintaining control over your territories gained.

That isn't to say it's the ONLY option of attack. If they decided to add in a supply/power generated system (say for example NTU silo's) to facilities. You can BYPASS the forward towers, drain a castles power supply an switch it to neutral, for a behind the lines capture. Makes for a great KING of the HILL battle as the neutralizing force attempts to maintain the hold. Allied forces can maintain aerial sorties to help reinforce, supply or support the operation by harassing enemy opposition.

Other clear ideas to change/add to promote incentive to directions of attack/defense could be things like...

2 bases on each continent that factions could spawn liberators from...

only 3 base/outposts that would allow players to spawn ESFs from (Scarred Messa, Vanu Archives for ex.)

if ground vehicles (other than ATVs) were only spawnable from large/major facilities an Warpgates

if the amount of available resources per map were cut in half, tied to hex adjacency to Warpgate for a logistical faction supply system, only available at small+mid sized outposts, were a FINITE resource that when depleted, would respawn at a new unused random hex.

[Kerrec]

Kerrec, there is nothing you can make each base have its own tactical value with if you have 50 bases per continent. At some point they become redundant. Problem is there are more places attacked than players to defend.

The most annoying thing in terms of base attacks in ps1 was ghosthacks, constantly having to respond to non-attacks of single players. That was just a waste of time for the defender as there was often no fight (players sometimes just placed a hack or five and would leave each) and you would be chasing that player across all your links. In PS2 we have over 12 links per continent. Imagine when we have 15 continents in a year or two.

We won't have that many players to secure all our links, so it will be chasing ghosts everywhere all the fricking time!

That is going to frustrate and bore players and you will make them completely apathic to the conquest meta-game if chasing ghosts and never fighting is all there is to do. It will feel like a job obligation. Trust me on this, because it already did in ps1. Too many links is simply an incredibly dumb thing to do. It may seem tactical to you now, but you simply will burn out from it really quick. Much quicker than you would in ps1.


You already see it happening now: players feel it is entirely pointless because they can't be everywhere at once.

What? Do you even play the game as it is now? What you just wrote is a bunch of fiction. Why do I say that?

Because, when I first started playing, I thought to myself... "Gee, I'm just going to fly around to some little base behind enemy lines and ghost cap all the little easy bases. Hopefully the rest of the team will then follow my example and cut off the WG! I'm brilliant!". To which I proceeded to try and do so. Guess what. You can't backcap an enemy base when you have ZERO influence. ALL you can do is stuff like destroying generators and SCU's. Good forward thinking if it's part of a plan, or just lame XP farming otherwise.

With the influence system, those dozens of links you cry about is actually maybe half a dozen. If you want to capture bases, you HAVE TO DO IT where you have influence. So your claim above is completely invalid.

I can't believe back-capping bases is what you worry about when IT'S NOT POSSIBLE right now!

[p0intman]

What? Do you even play the game as it is now? What you just wrote is a bunch of fiction. Why do I say that?

Because, when I first started playing, I thought to myself... "Gee, I'm just going to fly around to some little base behind enemy lines and ghost cap all the little easy bases. Hopefully the rest of the team will then follow my example and cut off the WG! I'm brilliant!". To which I proceeded to try and do so. Guess what. You can't backcap an enemy base when you have ZERO influence. ALL you can do is stuff like destroying generators and SCU's. Good forward thinking if it's part of a plan, or just lame XP farming otherwise.

With the influence system, those dozens of links you cry about is actually maybe half a dozen. If you want to capture bases, you HAVE TO DO IT where you have influence. So your claim above is completely invalid.

I can't believe back-capping bases is what you worry about when IT'S NOT POSSIBLE right now!
You have literally not a single fucking clue as to what you're talking about.

Faction a captures base x

faction b captures base y (next to base x)

faction a moves onto base z

faction b moves in behind faction a to capture base x while faction a is at base z

faction a just had their cap back-hacked by faction b because faction b was probably a single fucking ghost hacker who ran around on an atv. faction a now needs to come back and re-capture base x because of a single fucking idiot. faction a's 30 guys just had a half hour wasted with no reward and a boring capture.

until you can solve that problem scenario, do not talk to me about how hexes are better, because you make yourself look like a retard zergling from bf3.

[Kerrec]

You have literally not a single fucking clue as to what you're talking about.

Faction a captures base x

faction b captures base y (next to base x)

faction a moves onto base z

faction b moves in behind faction a to capture base x while faction a is at base z

faction a just had their cap back-hacked by faction b because faction b was probably a single fucking ghost hacker who ran around on an atv. faction a now needs to come back and re-capture base x because of a single fucking idiot. faction a's 30 guys just had a half hour wasted with no reward and a boring capture.

until you can solve that problem scenario, do not talk to me about how hexes are better, because you make yourself look like a retard zergling from bf3.

You're making up scenarios based on your extensive PS1 and limited PS2 experience. I am just NOT seeing what you're crying about, because I only have PS2 experience.

The one main thing wrong in your scenario above, is WHY DID YOU NOT SECURE YOUR FLANK before pushing deeper into enemy territory? So while you are capturing base X, you notice base Y is being capped by enemies. Once you've finished capping base X, you make the brilliant (/sarcasm) tactical decision to push deeper into enemy territory instead of securing base Y? The hex system is all about establishing a FRONT LINE, from which you can make tactical decisions about where the fight is going to be and needs to go. In your fictional scenario, you completely ignore this because you play the game as if it has the lattice system you so desperately want recreated already. Well NO WONDER you're getting back capped! POOR TACTICS. If you couldn't sacrifice 1 or 2 guys out of your 30 man force to go scout basy Y to see if it's a lone wolf or an organized force, that is NOT THE FAULT OF THE HEX SYSTEM. That is a TACTICAL FAILURE on your part.

But let me add insult to injury... Say you start capping base Z, and some lone wolf caps base X on you, cutting you off. IF you have already started capping a base, you will continue to be able to do so. It will slow the capture down further BUT your 30 man force will still be able to complete it as long as you don't lose control of the point.

So your 30 man force will be able to keep that capture point secured vs. the 1 solo lone wolf, thereby flipping base Z. Now you have just established INFLUENCE that will allow you to move towards any adjacent hex, in any direction you choose. So you can keep moving further into enemy territory, completely ignoring your flanks, or you can go back and re-cap base X. If you bother with a bit of tactics, you can scout base X and send an appropriate response, if your scouts can't flip it on their own.

Sounds to me like you're making up a problem so you can bitch about it in ForumSide...

Edit: And if you're going to be an arsehole and call me out on games I've played, then make a bit of an effort and call me out on ALL of them. You can start when I was 5 years old, and my family got a Commodore 64. Be warned though, that 30+ years of game naming is going to make a post at least as long as this one.

[RykerStruvian]

I think a major downside the current system which does not necessarily pertain to what system it happens to be is the fact that there isn't enough information to go by in regards to tactical movements on a large scale. For instance, all we can verify are:

a. arbitrary size of a fighting force
This is gained by mousing over one particular area at a time or switching map modes to view enemy presence via colors (deep red, yellow, etc).

b. the presence of an enemy
Currently, this only tells us if there are troops or not in a particular area, which is really only verified through mousing over a particular territory

c. Status of a base's ownership
This only tells us upon mousing over if territory is being gained or loss in any particular empire's favor. But outside of this information it doesn't say anything.

What COULD help us communicate better to respond tactically:

a. Global population by most populated continent
This would tell us where our Empire's forces are most concentrated across three continents. Currently, the only options tell us 1) Population for one planet 2) Total Empire population in comparison to other populations across the server 3) Territorial control

b. Concentration of friendly units on the continent
There is currently no system in place which tells us where our forces are concentrated the most on a planet. Because of this, it is more or less a hit or miss on where our zerg is located. This hurts tactical squads in the sense that we have to rely on mostly guess work if we do not wish to play with the zerg. This also hurts tactical squads because if they do wish to assist the zerg, we may or may not know where it is.

I think we should try to focus more so on these very basic issues before larger issues get tackled. Mainly because something as basic as data via the ingame map is so critical to decision making, it only makes sense that it should be very flexible and informative. And only after this is addressed could an accurate argument on which lattice system works (PS1 or PS2s) can be made because then we can ensure the issue is not something else but truly the gameplay mechanics in that regard.

[p0intman]

You're making up scenarios based on your extensive PS1 and limited PS2 experience. I am just NOT seeing what you're crying about, because I only have PS2 experience.



See, its a problem, because in PS1, one guy couldn't feasibly hold up a platoon because bases were primary spawn points and randoms trying to be heroes by dropping on them and putting a hack on were usually delt with swiftly by those spawning there anyway.

In other words, telling me I should always have scouts out at the nearest 2-4 hexes making sure there aren't any randoms coming our way is a hilarious waste of time for those doing it. If you honestly think one dude on an atv should be able to hamstring a platoon worth of people and force us to chase someone around... well, you're just absurd.

Edit: Basically, I shouldn't need to waste the time of my platoon because one or two assholes on atvs want to avoid a fight and basically annoy us by waiting and back-capping after we've left.

[Kerrec]

See, its a problem, because in PS1, one guy couldn't feasibly hold up a platoon because bases were primary spawn points and randoms trying to be heroes by dropping on them and putting a hack on were usually delt with swiftly by those spawning there anyway.

In other words, telling me I should always have scouts out at the nearest 2-4 hexes making sure there aren't any randoms coming our way is a hilarious waste of time for those doing it. If you honestly think one dude on an atv should be able to hamstring a platoon worth of people and force us to chase someone around... well, you're just absurd.

I'm not saying that at all. You can SEE on your map when a hex is being contested (it flashes). Mouse over it, it'll even tell you if there are just enemies, a squad, a platoon or several platoons in the area. If the hex is not being contested, there's no need to scout it.

One guy isn't going to stop you with the hex system. You're over dramatizing simply to create a problem that isn't really there. If your "30 guys" can continue to capture hexes, you can move in any direction you want, even if cut off from your warpgate. So keep taking territory and let some random from your faction sneak up and lone wolf cap the hex that has you cut off.

And just to be clear, I am not advocating being able to flip bases solo. At least not without a LONG ARSE wait. That is a different topic.

This thread is about Lattice vs. Hex in order to FORCE people to fight in lattice induced chokepoints. And I don't agree with that.

[p0intman]

And just to be clear, I am not advocating being able to flip bases solo. At least not without a LONG ARSE wait. That is a different topic.

This thread is about Lattice vs. Hex in order to FORCE people to fight in lattice induced chokepoints. And I don't agree with that.
playing an fps game in order to not fight and be rewarded for it is what you want then? Unless other incentives are forced to force people to seek fights out with similarly sized forces, i assure you, people will continue to not fight if its remotely rewarding to backhack.

[Figment]

Kerrec, ask people from Werner who they would want as leader of the empire: me, or you.



I can guarantee they will call you the biggest noob ever and wouldn't ever follow you.

[Kerrec]

playing an fps game in order to not fight and be rewarded for it is what you want then? Unless other incentives are forced to force people to seek fights out with similarly sized forces, i assure you, people will continue to not fight if its remotely rewarding to backhack.

I am not advocating avoiding fights. I am agreeing with you that backhacking shouldn't be worth anything with respect to XP/Cert farming. However, it should still have some strategic value. Yet once again I will say that having it be doable by one person is NOT what I'm advocating.

There are countless threads in these forums for people in small outfits wanting to have focused objectives that fit their manpower capabilities, not just following zergs. You advocate the exact oposite. FORCE everyone to fight in limited areas, which creates zergs.

It's not even that I don't want a lattice system. It's just that the way I see it, people don't bother getting into big fights because there's nothing to fight over. Bases have no value. I say, design some game mechanics value into bases, and people will fight for them. No lattice needed. Big bases with big value will always generate big fights. Smaller bases, with smaller value, will generate smaller fights. Then people have the choice on where to go based on their playstyle, their hardware capabilities, their overall equipment, etc...

Figment:

I don't presume to speak for other people, so I won't say what other server populations would think about you versus someone they already know. But if speaking for the other people on your server makes you feel like a big shot, then who am I to stop you.

So fling your insults, if it makes you feel better. Keep in mind, I'm a 30+ year old adult, not a teenager desperate to be in the popular crowd. So don't expect me to just slink away because you started thumping your chest.

[p0intman]

However, it should still have some strategic value. Yet once again I will say that having it be doable by one person is NOT what I'm advocating.

You should have to put in more effort and forethought than hopping on an atv and finding the nearest hex to you. This was possible in PS1, provided you were able to fully drain a base of its NTU, hack it, defend it while its being captured for 15 minutes, and refill the ntu before the hack completes. The draining part was doable by one or two very capable people, the defending and refilling not so much - that took a team to do most of the time.

it should take a similar level of forethought, planning and capability in PS2, and you shouldn't be able to backhack like that on a hex that has just been recently captured, because its cheap and dumb. You really shouldn't be able to even pull that off on a continent with an active fight on it without being really fucking good and stealthy about it. Defenders should be able to detect and prevent it if they're paying even an iota of attention.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Kerrec, ask people from Werner who they would want as leader of the empire: enrico, or enrico.


I pick enrico.

[Eliphas]

[QUOTE=Kerrec;876459] It's just that the way I see it, people don't bother getting into big fights because there's nothing to fight over. Bases have no value. I say, design some game mechanics value into bases, and people will fight for them. No lattice needed. Big bases with big value will always generate big fights. Smaller bases, with smaller value, will generate smaller fights. Then people have the choice on where to go based on their playstyle, their hardware capabilities, their overall equipment, etc...

That pretty much sums it up for me. The why attack a base is what needs to be addressed.

[Baneblade]

How about as a compromise idea: Adjacent hexes are as is. But if you go after a hex that isn't adjacent, you have to have a deployed AMS Sunderer within 50 m of one of the control points to unlock it for capture. And you will need to max the capture slots to overcome the defensive influence.

So you need a squad, a large ungainly ground vehicle parked in a predictable location, and a plan.

So you can still back'hack', just not whimsically.

[Figment]

Enrico is purple Bobby. :)

And a good Squadleader organizer at that. But speaking of NC.

@kerrec: I'm not pretending to speak for them, I know their stance. I've had their confidence for eight years, even if I didn't know them, they accepted my defensive and offensive suggestions because I know wtf I'm doing, i can read battles, I lead by example and usualy ensure a win or a very close fight if we did happen to fail an offensive.


And unlike you, I realise that if I can move in six directions and only four are covered, that you the will always leave one direction open behind you. And considering there is no guarantee that three of those four turn in five minutes, a side that is covered now will be open in a few minutes. Meanwhile, I know we don't have enough people on the entire empire to cover more than half, especially if you hold more than 40-60% of the terrain on a continent: you can't keep your enemy in front of you, you can't maintain a frontline an with many more continents and more dispersion, that effect will be much stronger, because all links will be linked and count as a total number of links, together.

You ignore that links to your empire's bases on another continent also count as optional attack routes. Why the fuck do you think empires start concentration on one continent at a time? Because they don't have enough people to coordinate and win all continents at once!

But hey, that is thinking ahead. Try it some time. But please, continue with your arrogant attitude that an extremely new player like you who isn't able to see the bigger picture is insulten by being called a noob. You are. Accept there are simply people with more experience.


Or as Kup said in TransFormers the original movie:

"Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it."


I'm not insulting you by saying you are too new, you are. You just have too big an ego to want to realise you might be.

[p0intman]

i just ate two dozen blackberries, because they are awesome.

on topic though:

I'm honestly bracing for the atrocity of a metagame they're thinking of, if they follow the line of thinking that this hex system has displayed.

And, Kerrec, Figment might seem insulting, but to be completely honest, you really do seem like you're missing the larger picture. I think that frankly, you should open your mind to the idea that there are logical reasons behind the complaints that people have with the hex system, and that solving them requires a bit of breaking what currently exists, and putting in some chokepoints in some places, even if they're spread out.

There are a couple of links in my OP that explain the actual problems we're stabbing at, and why it doesn't work. If you need a link right now, though and don't want to re-read my OP:
ps2.riptidegaming.com

If you want to actually understand the problem, and actually do something other than piss people off, a lack of knowledge is nothing that can't be overcome.

[Figment]

Quite so.




You can give me 500 reasons to defend each base, but all it does is create incentives to attack them if you can't preemptively defend them, even worse if you can't actively defend them (at all).

Both are needed to bring a campaign to an end because both are a form of consolidating terrain you have conquered. Preemptively defending a terrain is done by blocking access to it by surrouding territory buffers and either those need their own buffers or active defense.

Reasons to hold a territory are great, but do not mean people will (be able to) defend it if they simply can't. At most it will increase the frequency of attack attempts.


In fact, there are a few more psychological reasons important to passive defense: fear of being farmed: taking on a likely stronghold, forces people to think about moving around it (see what happened to the Maginot Line in WWII.

There was no defense possible if you can just go around your current defensive positions. You completely negate that the defender who is attacked by a force ignoring the main positions is always going to have to act in a reactionary manner. The bigger the amount of troops you need to move, the less flexible such actions become. Initial defensive force are therefore always very small.

Attacking otoh can be done with both small and large numbers at the same time. The less chokepoints there are, the easier it is to bypass defenders. That means that you can gain a higher momentum as attacker when you have a large number of options.

For instance, as you attack five targets with 5 troops each and initial defenders bring 7, the defenders can only react to one. The shorter such attacks take to win, the larger the domino effect. Say defenders secure three (other numbers), two have fallen and two new territories are under attack, yet those three resecured territories continue to get attacked. So, five territories are still under attack, three are in a state of active defense, two more are ghosts. Attackers won't need to win fights to gain territory, they can actually lose more fights or draw more fights than they win to gain territory. If then these attackers start splitting up further because they are bored without a fight, the defenders just see a chain reaction occur:

Despite their best efforts, they still lose.

Now you can say "you should have more troops". Sure, but since you are reacting, you can't, logistics will kill you. The larger forces won't arrive till a lot later because they are busy with their own fights are spread attacking or steamrolling themselves or on another continent.

At this point, defenders will start saying screw that.

If you then make those bases mean something too, then defense becomes even more hopeless, because you get cut off from benefits your attackers gain. Now, defenders might lose by having less numbers in a direct fight as well, but then defense in one territory has influence on the defensiveness in an adjecent territory the attacker can't reach yet: you stall them. Stalling will result in the defensive forces getting the chance to build up troops and organise response teams for multiple territories beyond the capacity of the initial group. The empire, as a whole, would have lost maybe some, but not virtually all their territory to fights, let alone to ghosts.



You blame the players, but forget to account for them being only human.

The default 3-6-option lattice system with its overabundance of options stimulates offense always, defense nowhere. A good lattice balances both by providing sufficient options for alternate routes, but enough restrictions to allow defenders to plug each individual route with a minimum of resources.

[Kerrec]

Look, there IS alot wrong with the game, as far as the larger picture goes. Yes, there's no point defending an undefensable base. I am not arguing with anyone in regards to those issues. Bases are not designed to be defended, and that's borked. But what's the point of defending bases even if they are defensible? How do you fix that? By forcing everyone to fight at certain bases? Yes, it's stupid that 1 person can retake a base, and I agree with you that no one wants to sit at a base and watch it just in case some lone wolf tries. You can keep lecturing me about stuff I already agree with, yet it doesn't change anything I've said.

Figment: You mention WW2 battles and say there's no point in pushing a front line if you can just go around a defender. I'm sorry, I really don't mean to be insulting, but I guarantee no general in his right mind would push past a big fighting force just because he could "go around". By doing so, you've just volunteered to be defending on 2 fronts AND you've exposed your supply line.

I look at PS2 and I see a foundation. Right now it's only a big scale team deathmatch, but it hints at being more. I see potential of what could be. The two of you look at PS2 and see PS1 screwed up. And all you want is PS1all over again. You don't want to adapt, you want everything to conform to you. You can argue all night and day about the lattice system, but you've already lost the war.

Figment, I'm sure your server respects you. I would have no idea either way, so why would I bother to argue the point? I just find it funny that you attempt to justify your point of view by asking me to hop onto your server and ask your server population to ditch you for me, a complete stranger. Here's an analogy to help you see it from another point of view:

We'll settle this with a coin toss. You flip, I call.
Heads I win, Tails you lose.
Now don't mope, just move along.

See how stupid that looks?

[Wahooo]

I look at PS2 and I see a foundation. Right now it's only a big scale team deathmatch, but it hints at being more. I see potential of what could be. The two of you look at PS2 and see PS1 screwed up. And all you want is PS1all over again. You don't want to adapt, you want everything to conform to you. You can argue all night and day about the lattice system, but you've already lost the war.


No. Pointed this out to many people who don't understand the arguments coming from PS1 players.

Back when PS2 was first announced. That is the ONLY people that really knew it was coming were PS1 players, there were countless threads popping up about DON"T do THIS and DON"T do THAT and "What PS1 did wrong". PS1 vets don't simply want a remake. That said there things that we are constantly confused as to why they didn't carry over, BECAUSE they worked.

Look when designing a game you have to look at the games in that genre to see where they went right and where they went wrong right? They looked at the more modern shooters COD/BF series for input on the gun play and combined arms. But when it comes to the massive battles on a persistent world there is one source and that is PS1. PS1 lattice system was not always there, it was an IMPROVEMENT added to the game, an honest to god improvement.

There are many ways it could be added. The exact way it would be implemented i'm sure could be another huge discussion, but you sticking to your guns poo pooing the idea simply because you don't understand the benefit and continuing page after page proving over and over you don't understand the benefit of the lattice doesn't really help this discussion.

[Climhazzard]

The current system is leading to very boring game play, especially as pops keep dropping. I was on Mattherson today with almost 40% vs and 40% tr, however they were not fighting each other at all. VS pushed North up the west side of Indar and the TR pushed south down the east. I had the choice of joining the front and seeing no action, or pushing into the enemy and getting lib spammed to death. I tried hitting the enemy.. after 5 random deaths to libs I logged off.

I agree with Pointman that a lattice system will help prevent this silly swirly sea saw tug of war crap.

How would a lattice system prevent this scenario? VS would still push north along the west side of the lattice. TR would still push south along the east side of the lattice.

The problem here isn't lattice vs. hex.

You miss the OP's point because you dont know dick about lattice. The point of lattice was to FORCE a big fight. So opposing zergs would have to clash.

The lattice doesn't solve the scenario described. A lattice will not force a VS zerg on Indar to clash with a TR zerg on Esamir or an NC zerg on Amerish. That would require some mechanic separate from hex/lattice.

Lets say that for each hex, there are as many ways of taking it as there are hexes, in terms of combinations. somebody on the ps2 forums said indar has 72 hexes (i havent counted, but for the sake of my sanity, thats how it is for this argument). that means there are, at minimum, 5,184 different ways of taking the continent of indar.

am i the only person that sees the problem with that?

To put that in perspective, there are more ways to take the continent than people that can fit onto it at one time.

So what? I don't see the point of that comparison. At any given location or point in time there are far fewer paths for an attacking force to take.

Faction a captures base x

faction b captures base y (next to base x)

faction a moves onto base z

faction b moves in behind faction a to capture base x while faction a is at base z

For all your experience I'm disappointed that you would need to conjure up such a contrived scenario. Besides, what you describe can happen on a lattice system, too. Faction A pushes along a lattice while Faction B follows in their wake.

faction a just had their cap back-hacked by faction b because faction b was probably a single fucking ghost hacker who ran around on an atv. faction a now needs to come back and re-capture base x because of a single fucking idiot. faction a's 30 guys just had a half hour wasted with no reward and a boring capture.

So you just send one or two people in to re-secure. If it turns out an entire squad is doing the backhacking, your one or two people can report that fact and you can respond appropriately.

You should have to put in more effort and forethought than hopping on an atv and finding the nearest hex to you. This was possible in PS1, provided you were able to fully drain a base of its NTU, hack it, defend it while its being captured for 15 minutes, and refill the ntu before the hack completes. The draining part was doable by one or two very capable people, the defending and refilling not so much - that took a team to do most of the time.

And yet I recall it being done by very few people for the same reason you complain about below: nobody was paying attention or nobody gave a damn.

Defenders should be able to detect and prevent it if they're paying even an iota of attention.

But... they can. Your grievance appears to be less that "it's possible" and far more that "nobody pays attention or gives a damn". Rather than inform your faction about an in-progress backhack or encourage them to be on the lookout for such a thing, you simply want to prevent the other factions from being able to do it without some serious force. And if people are paying attention it already is impossible for them to pull it off without some serious force.

This would be easily solved by requiring at least one person on the capture point for it to progress.

[Figment]

Actually Kerrec, you would cut off the reinforcementlines, encircle and capture entire armies...

Ever hear of Stalingrad, Dunquerque, Arden offensive, could even name ample ancient campaigns.

But more importantly, we do it daily in ps and ps2.

[p0intman]

So firstly, you will all probably wonder what the fuck my qualifications are for stating such a thing. Those of you that need them, wouldn't understand them anyway. Those of you who know me, don't need them. Short version is that I was/am a rather prominent tactical leader in Planetside 1 for the NC on Emerald and then Gemini. If you doubt that I know my shit, read on.

This is a map of Amerish. (right click > open image in new tab if you want the bigger picture)

http://i49.tinypic.com/fvxve1.jpg

The original Amerish, not the one in this bastardization called Planetside 2. It is divided into two portions: North and South. North began immediately north of the northern edge of Verica's Sphere of influence, with the south consisting of everything south of Verica. Defending this continent was quite a lot easier, if you had a responsive fighting force and both opposing empires bearing down on you from the north. It is, for all intents and purposes, the worst possible nightmare for a large zerg with little or no overall coordination behind them.

The only way to really take it reliably from the north was to use immediate and overwhelming force to steamroll any opposition before it could be mounted, usually to the tune of 3:1 or better odds. Failing to do so usually resulted in defenders holing up in Mekela, Cetan and Ikanam for long periods of time in order to stall and farm you.

Usually, a typical defense consisted of the Vanu taking Tumas, Qumu, Sungrey and Onatha, with the Terrans having Azeban and Xelas. This usually permitted the NC to keep everything south of Verica, and to farm both empires until they left or got tired after coming to the realization they were not going to take the continent.

This is not a bad thing, mind you, it is one of the many ways something was created that many people who are attracted to the idea and premise of planetside liked: Big Battles with hundreds of people on each side, being waged for days at a time. You could actually say that the lattice did more for Planetside than the Hex system ever will, because it allowed for a tactical level of gameplay that forced you to think about what continents to hit, why to hit them, how dedicated you wanted to be in taking them and for better options in trying to do so. In fact, the lattice also allowed for smaller outfits to take out more tactically precise targets by virtue of their accomplishments having weight on the overall battlefield. The classic gen hold being such an example by which a small 10 person squad could wreck the night of a 30 person strong platoon.

However, it has been proven that the Hex system does no such thing, it works contrary to the goal of fostering large scale battles that it was designed to create. It is also not impossible to correct this mistake, it is simply that there are people who outright do not want to, either because they are stubborn or that they have no desire to learn from past design.

once again relevant.

[Chewy]

Now only if SOE would get away from squares.

[Phantomdestiny]

Now only if SOE would get away from squares.

just wait until they get water in . my bets go to hossin

[Chewy]

just wait until they get water in . my bets go to hossin

If this is to go by
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=54863

Then SOe may be making Hossin a shield instead of a square. Or maybe a Autobot that had a bad punch to the face.

[capiqu]

Oh man the lattice system and global play on 10+ continents should free up developers from making all conts square. At least i hope it will. Make searhurs the bad ass of all conts. something like 15X8 with many bays, inlets and islands.

[Lonehunter]

So firstly, you will all probably wonder what the fuck my qualifications are for stating such a thing. Those of you that need them, wouldn't understand them anyway. Those of you who know me, don't need them. Short version is that I was/am a rather prominent tactical leader in Planetside 1 for the NC on Emerald and then Gemini. If you doubt that I know my shit, read on.

I just gotta say. As someone who's worked with customer relations, front line customer service, and PR for almost a decade now, that's not a good way to get people to read the rest of your post. If they do, it's unlikely they do so with a positive opinion lol

On the subject though I know what you're saying, and agree. But you say it in a way I doubt any non PS1 player will easily understand. I do also think we need more continents that aren't some version of a circle. If every continent has all 3 empires evenly spaced from the center they need some new concepts. I'd love to see a cont with empire warp gates that change based on continent capture. Like if your empire locks the cont you switch to the warpgate that is least defendable, like a warpgate in the center of a long cont like old Amerish

[Ait'al]

The problem with your lattice desire is if forces everyone into one battle at a time. It also creates endless reasons for people to become dissatisfied with the game and in the end those big battles diffuse become smaller and the game vanishes with your large battles. Forcing people to play like that is not a workable solution and is a death sentence for the game.

[p0intman]

The problem with your lattice desire is if forces everyone into one battle at a time. It also creates endless reasons for people to become dissatisfied with the game and in the end those big battles diffuse become smaller and the game vanishes with your large battles. Forcing people to play like that is not a workable solution and is a death sentence for the game.

Because ghost capping is awesome. Am I doing it right?

[AThreatToYou]

Someone brought up a good point: Making smaller but more continent or island-shaped instead of GIANT FUCKING SQUARES would probably do the game a whole lot of good if we could get 2 continents rolling in the time it takes to make 1 (even if the conts are 1/3rd the size). At this point if Hossin is a square or atleast vaguely square, I'd vote to cut in half and name the other one Extinction (Hossin was small to begin with).

[or just, you know, put a giant impassable chasm right down Hossin and make a gigantic bridge across it...
HELLO BRIDGE FIGHT!]

The problem with your lattice desire is if forces everyone into one battle at a time. It also creates endless reasons for people to become dissatisfied with the game and in the end those big battles diffuse become smaller and the game vanishes with your large battles. Forcing people to play like that is not a workable solution and is a death sentence for the game.

No... just no you're doing it wrong...

[camycamera]

Hex sucks. Ghost capping. not as much strategy because you could go to whatever base that was closest to the base you just capped instead of having to tactically choose where to go next. it has useless parts that are not actual territory/bases and are a waste of space being in a hex. it doesn't make exciting battles as much, zergs meeting are based on luck, instead of being lead there.

i have never played PS1. and i approve of Lattice.