Planetside 2 doesn't need a lattice system, it needs a solution to the eternal 3-way

[Roy Awesome]

Planetside 2 needing a lattice system has come up from time to time, but everyone seems to forget that the the Lattice System also lead to stagnating, meaningless fights when all 3 factions were fighting on the continent. This happened most often on Cyssor, and usually devolved into a clusterfuck of a fight at the Gunuku/Itan/Kang triangle. It was boring, grinding, and every time you focused another part of the map, the 3rd faction stabbed you in the back and you lost territory faster than you gained.

Right now, Planetside 2 is designed to be an eternal 3-way fight between NC, TR, and VS and Indar is the worst example of it. Territory is meaningless because you lose it faster than you can gain it, and a lattice system won't help that.

It doesn't matter if your territory has 5 links or 2 if whenever you primary the TR front you lose the rest of the continent to the NC.

SOE needs to remove the eternal 3-way for territory to have meaning and a front line to form, not reduce the links between bases.

[Sifer2]

That's the whole point of continent locks, and why we need them. But then you have the camp that whines they want to be able to choose what continent they fight on, and not be locked out.

3 ways are fun but they should really be kind of an unusual event that only occurs occasionally when two pushes just happened to end up pushing against the same continent. When the 3rd faction shows up it should be a rare exciting "Oh **** how did this happen!" kind of thing. Not a routine "sigh other faction back capping all our crap again".

[Wahooo]

This was brought up a long time ago, foreseen with the announcement of no sanctuaries and each faction has a continental foothold.

We saw it. We called it bad and predicted what would happen a year ago.

In PS1 the occasional 3way - when pops were high - was a LOT of fun. But they were rare, and more fun was VS-TR, VS-NC, TR-NC on three different continents. One of the biggest complaints about what happened to PS1 as the pops started to drop was the constant 3-way.

[BIGGByran]

I was a supporter of Cont Locks, but now that I think about it, I don't. The reason being is that when most of the continent is locked, you force player's that like small squad to squad fights to fight large battles, or people with horrible PCs.


I think the better solution is to be able to cap the warpgate and force a faction out of the continent and push them back to their Sanc, but not lock a continent so they can always push back out. also have some continents that are not linked to Sancs but are only accessible through a cont that is linked to a Faction Warpgate.

Ex. (without using pics and making up new cont names as I don't know them all, just to show my ex <-> means they r linked by a warpgate)

TR Sanc <-> Indar, Amerish, Essamir <-> Issac
NC Sanc <-> Amerish, Indar, Essamir <-> Issac
VS Sanc <-> Essamir, Indar, Amerish <-> Issac

This ex shows that all Sanc are linked to Indar, Amerish, and Essamir, but not Issac. So in order to get to Issac, you will need to have a warpgate in one of the 3 cont that is linked to Issac.

But if we have Cont Locks, it needs to be a very short period of time.

If we have cont locks, we might be forcing everyone to fight in Indar 80% of the time. (just to say if we only have 3 conts. there will always be fighting on Indar, and the other conts will be locked and then everyone again, will end up on indar. just don't want that to happen. been loving the fighting on Essamir and Amerish with the update)

[Wahooo]

Ex. (without using pics and making up new cont names as I don't know them all, just to show my ex <-> means they r linked by a warpgate)

TR Sanc <-> Indar, Amerish, Essamir <-> Issac
NC Sanc <-> Amerish, Indar, Essamir <-> Issac
VS Sanc <-> Essamir, Indar, Amerish <-> Issac

This ex shows that all Sanc are linked to Indar, Amerish, and Essamir, but not Issac. So in order to get to Issac, you will need to have a warpgate in one of the 3 cont that is linked to Issac.

But if we have Cont Locks, it needs to be a very short period of time.

Because you didn't use some other planetside continent name, I would assume you didn't play PS1. You basically explained... mostly the PS1 lattice system the vets have been whining about so much.

[BIGGByran]

Because you didn't use some other planetside continent name, I would assume you didn't play PS1. You basically explained... mostly the PS1 lattice system the vets have been whining about so much.

I did play PS1, but it was when it first was released, before they release any expansions for it or maybe I just never got the expansions for it and stayed vanilla. I do remember the lattice system, and the hex system is like the lattice system, but just (a lot) more connections. I can understand the frustration on 1 person capping points and as someone suggested on another post, a fix would be to have a minimum of 6 people at the point to start capping it, to prevent 1-5 person to ghost cap it.

I remember the major fights over a bridge, it was so massive and over 1 bridge because it was the only way to get to the next base. I remember the seige tank that would fire from 1 base to another, crazy range. I remember the expansion with the large Mech, but never got to see it.

[Figment]

This was brought up a long time ago, foreseen with the announcement of no sanctuaries and each faction has a continental foothold.

We saw it. We called it bad and predicted what would happen a year ago.

In PS1 the occasional 3way - when pops were high - was a LOT of fun. But they were rare, and more fun was VS-TR, VS-NC, TR-NC on three different continents. One of the biggest complaints about what happened to PS1 as the pops started to drop was the constant 3-way.

And you could win a threeway thanks to the lattice being controllable (not continuously having to go back to stop ghosthack after ghosthack), because the lattice plugged access. That third empire to had to go through the two of you. Ghosts that did occur took long enough and were detectable enough and not incredibly numerous and not covering such a large terrain with so many tanks surrounding a CC that you could organise a response. And when you did respond, you only needed to take the point back, not babysit it against impossible odds.

All that is different in PS2. Each and every one of those elements makes it impossible to really have a well organised two way, let alone a threeway. Maybe if you have a number of well organised zergfits that can swamp several areas at once. But the smaller outfits are struggling not just with competing at all and making a difference, but even with finding their own identity and using it to you advantage over an enemy's identity and exploit your strengths over their weaknesses, because everyone can do everything. That also leads to saturating an area in tanks, libs and Sundies with AMSes. Regardless who you face.

It often makes it really annoying to play at all.

[psijaka]

We just need higher population levels for a proper front line to form. As it is, there are too many options to ghost cap - I did it myself at Vanu Archives last night; had to cap all 3 control points to make progress as NC influence was so low, but I did solo cap the base, which seems a little lame. So server mergers or transfers please!

As for 3 way battles; well, I like the added unpredictability that this adds to fights; gives some really dynamic situations. But I would like to see an intercontinental lattice at some time in the future; problem is; we'll need considerably more continents for this to work; which will spread the population even thinner. Again, server mergers please!

[Bocheezu]

The game needs warpgate locks and the removal of footholds on every continent; you should only get one non-capturable "home" warpgate in the entire game, not one for every continent, with links from one warpgate to another.

So have "home" warpgates be

TR SW Indar
VS S Amerish
NC NE Esamir

with warpgates linked as such (following the current faction arrangement)

N Indar to SW Esamir
SE Indar to NE Amerish
NW Esamir to NW Amerish

include some method of conquering the warpgate; maybe hold all the territories around it for a set amount of time. It's far from perfect, but still miles better than the nothing we have now.

Obviously, there needs to be more continents total, but I feel that's a long way off still with only one new continent in the next couple months.

[Phantomdestiny]

i think connecting the continents together would change the game completly because we will now how 1vs1 fights instead of 3 ways . that would change the way people fight because of a real front line

[Figment]

@bocheezu: Please make clear what you mean by locking, because I'm not sure people understand it the same way (some people think it's a hard lock with a timer before it opens up again, others simply mean "capture everything on continent"). If it isn't a staging ground but simply a place to pass through, it's already quite easy to "lock" as it'll become a psychological barrier and a physical speedbump.

If by locking you mean, a literal lock, I personally don't see the benefit of a timer. It is a possibility, given that there's a huge amount of players to "keep out", but generally it may not be that needed. I'd first see if it can be done without. People would already have to be very careful to not lose their units when passing through the gate as they couldn't replenish them without first capturing some areas around the gate.

[Bear]

The fundamental problem with the lattice system is that it simply won't work in PS2. There are far too many players and far too much stuff to render and the servers wouldn't be able to sustain it.

I agree that PS2 needs a better way to funnel the fight but I don't think the lattice method is the answer. I wish there were a way to establish a dynamic front line.

[Phantomdestiny]

to me lock should be handle in a way from which when you capture say warpgate A on indar you also flip warpgate A on esamir which allows you to use that warpgate to warp to esamir but no actually timer . the warpgate you just capture could be recapted at any time

[MrBloodworth]

This isn't really something new. Its something that was expressed over and over again in beta, while Planetside one had the nickname of Cycsorside ( After the pop drops ), Planetside 2 did not need to be as well. One is an example of emergent game play, the other is an effect of intentional design.

I do like the lattice system for at least one really good reason. Its unmistakeable. But I personally believe they don't need to rip out the hex system to accomplish the same things. What that is, I'm not sure.

But one thing any solution's needs to be, is unmistakeable.

On the case of locking. The net benefit of continental lock system is its function as a map rotation of sorts. This helps with stagnation. Its side effect is knowing that area X is yours, you won it. Feather in your cap.

some people think it's a hard lock with a timer before it opens up again, others simply mean "capture everything on continent"

Can't it be both? A hard timer that once completed, allows for others to attempt to retake it. If they choose to do so, until then, it stays red ( or blue, but never purple :) )

But none of this will work with warp gates as bases. a HUGE element to all this is broadcast warp gates and sanctuaries.

[Bocheezu]

Getting away from all this "locking" idea, which sounds more complicated than it should be, they should make it just like PS1; the non-"home" warpgates shouldn't have anything in them. No terminals, no spawn points, nothing except a warp beam in the middle to teleport to the other continent. They should just be neutral warps from one continent to another and shouldn't be "owned" by anybody. You can warp through the warpgate at any time, but in order to cap anything on the other side, you need adjecency on the continent you came from.

Which makes the "home" warpgate just like PS1 sanc for the most part, and if you use the warp beam in the middle of the "home" warpgate, you can broadcast to any warpgate you have adjecency to.

EDIT: The problem with this system is that you might not be able to go back to "home" warpgate due to population lock. So we would really need a seperate sanctuary continent.

[MrBloodworth]

Something they has said a number of times is that sanctuaries slowed the game down and they want people in the action fast. I propose that with all the ways to get in the actions we currently have, adding sanctuaries would no longer be a detriment. It would not be any different if I hit Deploy on squad leader from the foothold warp gate VS. a sanctuary. No time loss there.

[Rumblepit]

I was a supporter of Cont Locks, but now that I think about it, I don't. The reason being is that when most of the continent is locked, you force player's that like small squad to squad fights to fight large battles, or people with horrible PCs.


I think the better solution is to be able to cap the warpgate and force a faction out of the continent and push them back to their Sanc, but not lock a continent so they can always push back out. also have some continents that are not linked to Sancs but are only accessible through a cont that is linked to a Faction Warpgate.

Ex. (without using pics and making up new cont names as I don't know them all, just to show my ex <-> means they r linked by a warpgate)

TR Sanc <-> Indar, Amerish, Essamir <-> Issac
NC Sanc <-> Amerish, Indar, Essamir <-> Issac
VS Sanc <-> Essamir, Indar, Amerish <-> Issac

This ex shows that all Sanc are linked to Indar, Amerish, and Essamir, but not Issac. So in order to get to Issac, you will need to have a warpgate in one of the 3 cont that is linked to Issac.

But if we have Cont Locks, it needs to be a very short period of time.

If we have cont locks, we might be forcing everyone to fight in Indar 80% of the time. (just to say if we only have 3 conts. there will always be fighting on Indar, and the other conts will be locked and then everyone again, will end up on indar. just don't want that to happen. been loving the fighting on Essamir and Amerish with the update)

i dont rage much, but this got me all worked up. THERE IS NO FING WAY INDAR IS GOING TR HOME CONT. im soooo sick and tired of indar, every dammm day, for weeks on end its been, indar, indar, indar. i dont care who gets but its not gonna be tr. :rofl:

[Figment]

Rumblepit doesn't want it?

Alright then, give it to TR and only have NC and VS swap home conts in the future. Then we can have two ways everywhere and they The Crown every day. :)

[OCNSethy]

Apologies for this question, I didnt play PS1...

What is this Sanctuary I keep hearing about?

[zulu]

Getting away from all this "locking" idea, which sounds more complicated than it should be, they should make it just like PS1; the non-"home" warpgates shouldn't have anything in them. No terminals, no spawn points, nothing except a warp beam in the middle to teleport to the other continent. They should just be neutral warps from one continent to another and shouldn't be "owned" by anybody. You can warp through the warpgate at any time, but in order to cap anything on the other side, you need adjecency on the continent you came from.

I like this idea. I think it gives some incentive to pushing the enemy back (so you can go to the other continents) and seems pretty interesting.

im soooo sick and tired of indar, every dammm day, for weeks on end its been, indar, indar, indar. i dont care who gets but its not gonna be tr. :rofl:
Maybe every month or two the game could reset everything, give a small bonus or something based on what your empire had conquered at the end of the last period, and then switch out the starting points.

Edit: Thinking about it more, it might be better to make each period only last a week or two.

[Kail]

Dollars to donuts that 4+ continents and sanctuary-islands would solve a lot of current complaints. Once you can escape constant three-way fights but still have multiple fronts, and feel like continental conquest actually did something, I think it would really start to feel like a persistent world you're trying to take over for your empire.

Edit: Personally I think that's what a lot of lattice threads are really about deep down.

[Sturmhardt]

Yes, cross continental warfare is IMHO the most important thing that's missing in ps2.

.sent via phone.

[Sifer2]

Apologies for this question, I didnt play PS1...

What is this Sanctuary I keep hearing about?


Basically a big island that served the purpose of the current Warpgate footholds. And it had 3 warpgates I believe that connected to 3 separate continents. It was possible for a faction to be completely pushed off the continents in other words. As the Sanctuary was their base rather than having permanent uncapturable foothold warpgates. So instead of the current system where if you "lock" a continent all you get is a little last captured by bonus you actually completely owned the land, and were able to use those gates to move on to the next one.

The devs have said they would like to move back to this system but not until they have more continents in the game as they don't want the playerbase to get too bottlenecked fighting over the warpgates which would become massive chokepoints.

[OCNSethy]

Basically a big island ~snip~.

Thanks Sifer2, much appreciate the explaination.

[Natir]

Planetside 2 needing a lattice system has come up from time to time, but everyone seems to forget that the the Lattice System also lead to stagnating, meaningless fights when all 3 factions were fighting on the continent. This happened most often on Cyssor, and usually devolved into a clusterfuck of a fight at the Gunuku/Itan/Kang triangle. It was boring, grinding, and every time you focused another part of the map, the 3rd faction stabbed you in the back and you lost territory faster than you gained.

Right now, Planetside 2 is designed to be an eternal 3-way fight between NC, TR, and VS and Indar is the worst example of it. Territory is meaningless because you lose it faster than you can gain it, and a lattice system won't help that.

It doesn't matter if your territory has 5 links or 2 if whenever you primary the TR front you lose the rest of the continent to the NC.

SOE needs to remove the eternal 3-way for territory to have meaning and a front line to form, not reduce the links between bases.

Roy, while I love your constructive criticism, what would you change it to then? You list the problems and say a lattice system wont work. You also do not list what you think would work. If you are going to at least start a thread like this, I would have expected you to give an opinion and what you would put in place to fix the problems you listed.....

[Brusi]

I would also prefer to keep PS2 as sandboxy as possible. I'm not sure how you can channel people into fights with one another without adding the lattice system though.

If the supposed mission system was added and automatically created a Requesting Reinforcements mission, for the right number of infantry, tanks or air to counter an attack on one of your territories, then maybe people would just follow those to the good fights?

[Silent Thunder]

The one thing Im wondering is how it will fare on Esamir and Amerish. Really haven't had much of a chance to have actual fights on that continent since, well since beta really. With the server merges coming I'm wondering how much diffrently it will play out with the much larger territories of those two continents. if you ask me, Indar is just way too goddamn crowded (as in the distance between bases) for it's own good.

[MrBloodworth]

Apologies for this question, I didnt play PS1...

What is this Sanctuary I keep hearing about?

In PlanetSide sanctuaries were miniature continents that each of the three empires owned that only that specific empire could have access to. They were primarily used for staging areas for raids and outfits, as well as a safe place to go away from the keyboard (AFK). Sanctuaries contained all the resources available throughout the game, such as respawn facilities, vehicle and air terminals, implant terminals, equipment and certification terminals, lockers, and Battle Frame Robotics (BFR) terminals. There were also Virtual Reality training zones in the respawn buildings that allowed players access to every empire-specific (ES) weapon and MAX unit, as well as every ES vehicle. Sanctuaries used to be composed of a single staging area with all of these resources, but do to crowded populations, they were eventually enlarged to three different staging areas on the sanctuary continent, coined HART A, HART B, or HART C. The three HARTs were linked by teleportation pads. A HART shuttle would dock in each of the main HART buildings that players could board, which would shoot them down over a contested continent in a Drop Pod. The shuttle was set on a timer.


http://www.blogcdn.com/massively.joystiq.com/media/2010/01/wysbpplanetside580.jpg

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Roy, while I love your constructive criticism, what would you change it to then? You list the problems and say a lattice system wont work. You also do not list what you think would work. If you are going to at least start a thread like this, I would have expected you to give an opinion and what you would put in place to fix the problems you listed.....

It's pretty obvious and more than hinted at in his post.

2-way continental fights
3-way global war.

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive, yet anytime you bring it up on the forums you'll get shouted down.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Dollars to donuts that 4+ continents and sanctuary-islands would solve a lot of current complaints. Once you can escape constant three-way fights but still have multiple fronts, and feel like continental conquest actually did something, I think it would really start to feel like a persistent world you're trying to take over for your empire.

Edit: Personally I think that's what a lot of lattice threads are really about deep down.

I agree. I think on this particular matter we should just wait and see how their plans will play out.

[bpostal]

...Edit: Personally I think that's what a lot of lattice threads are really about deep down.

Exactly. Unlike the previous mechanic that started a 15(?) min timer on a base after a cap to add some semblance of permanence and ownership to a base, you'll be able to add that by pushing up through the lattice and remove/assault the link.
As I type that though, It makes me wonder if my (personal) problem with the hex system is the overabundance of links to any given base. This is especially apparent on Indar where, even if you do set up to defend an area, the enemy forces and simply shift to the left/right/up/down and bypass everything you just set up. Thus, no fight. Just an eternal circle jerk. Hell, I can't think of a single, unified organization that has the numbers to defend a front across the whole of a continent.
As to that problem, here's to hoping the mission system hurries up.