new lattice tweet from higby

[Phantomdestiny]

this was a tweet from higby

let the thread explode

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130302_5132d0376fa72.jpg (http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2322)

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2322

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/308044274384138240

[CrazEpharmacist]

Could that be a capital in the middle?

[Phantomdestiny]

Could that be a capital in the middle?

i have no idea tbh. also they would need to implement more things in order to make it a capital

[Mietz]

It looks...interesting.

No judgment from me as long as no gameplay/mechanics information is available to speculate on.

A map-screen is nice, but there isn't anything here yet to comment on.

[Bags]

Ooh, we can actually see the pretty maps now.

[Phantomdestiny]

to me the main point is that it increases the amount of choke points and allows for better battle flow

[Sturmhardt]

Hm... if you ask me they just visually removed the faction colors from some hexes to make clear where the enemy might head next. From what I see it seems to be more of a visual clarification. It looks good, but Will that change anything?

.sent via phone.

[Phantomdestiny]

Hn... if you ask me they just visually removed the faction colors from some hexes to make clear where the enemy might head next. From what I see it seems to be more of a visual clarification. It looks good, but Will that change anything?

.sent via phone.

actually not because if you see there it reduces the amount of connections between hexes and also makes it so you have to move from base to base in a "link" line

[Sturmhardt]

actually not because if you see there it reduces the amount of connections between hexes and also makes it so you have to move from base to base in a "link" line

Oh I see, you are right, it limits your options a lot. Then I like it :)

.sent via phone.

[Nobel]

The video that explains the idea

Announcing the Community Design Meeting and adding Metagame to Planetside 2! - YouTube

[Sirisian]

Part of me wishes if they go this route that they'd remove the roads and spread the bases out more so we can have fights between points with more cover. 16x16 km maps would really help this game especially with front lines. With the current setup of the map the front lines are basically just bases and roads. It's way too predictable.

[JesNC]

This looks interesting to say the least, and might just turn out to be a good compromise between lattice and hex-based territory.

[Sledgecrushr]

I had a wonderful night playing with the Praetorian Guard. The VS fought us on Indar every step of the way from outpost to major base. Really spectacular fighting tonight. Thank you PG.

[Rivenshield]

I detect Malorn's hand at work.

More, please. faster.

[ChipMHazard]

I detect Malorn's hand at work.

As well you should:D

I do hope that we won't have to wait for this, or something very similar to this, for too long. I know it's not on the roadmap, but still this would be something that would surely make it very hard for me to not start playing again (Hopefully the same would hold true to many others who have left or are just waiting to rejoin).

[capiqu]

The video that explains the idea

Announcing the Community Design Meeting and adding Metagame to Planetside 2! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-yOT5EgYvU)

Brilliant

[Hamma]

actually not because if you see there it reduces the amount of connections between hexes and also makes it so you have to move from base to base in a "link" line

Indeed!

Updated the OP a bit.

This is pretty damn epic looking.. this could create some pretty crazy ass fights.

[WNxThentar]

Hm... if you ask me they just visually removed the faction colors from some hexes to make clear where the enemy might head next. From what I see it seems to be more of a visual clarification. It looks good, but Will that change anything?

.sent via phone.

Yea, the mechanics doesn't really change. They've just put in smaller hexes but the adjacency mechanics seems the same. Actually I take that back ... you can't cap Arraya tarre just because you have strong hold

[Chewy]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BEZkoq5CcAETSK_.jpg:large



My takes on this pic.

1- Each outpost must be taken in a chain in order to move to the next.
I need to see what this looks like in other maps and places before giving a good idea. That area is by road only thanks to those walls. Wonder how it will be on Esamir open ground.

2- Main bases (bio-labs, amp stations, tech plants) require owning the satellites to have access to res flow, base perks, to move further in the chain, and maybe act as influence instead of near outposts.
I like this part. It gives small squads things to do that can fuck a day for the enemy. Example- Holding just the satellites at Tawrich can cut it off and deny MBTs to the plants owners.

3- Able to bypass a main base by going around it thanks to satellites.
This Im a bit iffy on. I like the choice of being able to send a forward group to attack the next outpost in the chain to hold off a counter attack, but it can make bum rushes to a pesky defensible outpost as a dick move a thing. Need to play with it to see what kind of dick it is. (sounds a bit homo don't it? :love: )

4- No more cheap and fast cutting off a WG.
Love/hate going on with this. Depends on the lattice setup for each maps layout before I can give word.

5- The ability to take a WG!?
Isn't the SE WG on Indar in VS hands now? If so then why does TR have that one and why does the VS have the SW WG again while the NC hold the N WG like now? This may be a clue to being able to take what WG we want!



There may be more that Im not picking up yet. But those 5 things are what Im seeing so far and it looks kinda like a MMA asskicking. Something to see no matter the outcome.

[Aaron]

This is really phenomenal. Decisive, game changing decisions. We've said there were too many attack options, and it looks like they're fixing it.

[Malorn]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

[Baneblade]

I think we need more meat for the grinder.

[Electrofreak]

The video that explains the idea

Announcing the Community Design Meeting and adding Metagame to Planetside 2! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-yOT5EgYvU)

Excellent, and well-demonstrated. I've wondered why neutral hexes never made it into release.

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

I like it. Almost a bit too predictable though, but then, there's only so much to tell from a picture.

[Vashyo]

Love it! we need more linearity to keep the battle focused and less messy, this is exactly what I've been hoping for. :)

[Rivenshield]

What do you think?

I'm feeling deeply thankful.

Thank you for this. And don't dissemble and tell me your input wasn't instrumental.

[Sturmhardt]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

I love it, any idea when we might see it in the game? I wanna try it :)

.sent via phone.

[Malorn]

I love it, any idea when we might see it in the game? I wanna try it :)

.sent via phone.

Soon™


I don't know / can't say when or if stuff will be out. But couldn't resist the urge to use that response!

[ChipMHazard]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

Yeah he can be a bit of a troll when he wants to, heh.

What do I think?
http://leanneellington.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/youre-awesome.jpg


Soon™


I don't know / can't say when or if stuff will be out. But couldn't resist the urge to use that response!

So it finally happened, you really have become on of the devs:D


My takes on this pic.

1- Each outpost must be taken in a chain in order to move to the next.
I need to see what this looks like in other maps and places before giving a good idea. That area is by road only thanks to those walls. Wonder how it will be on Esamir open ground.

2- Main bases (bio-labs, amp stations, tech plants) require owning the satellites to have access to res flow, base perks, to move further in the chain, and maybe act as influence instead of near outposts.
I like this part. It gives small squads things to do that can fuck a day for the enemy. Example- Holding just the satellites at Tawrich can cut it off and deny MBTs to the plants owners.

3- Able to bypass a main base by going around it thanks to satellites.
This Im a bit iffy on. I like the choice of being able to send a forward group to attack the next outpost in the chain to hold off a counter attack, but it can make bum rushes to a pesky defensible outpost as a dick move a thing. Need to play with it to see what kind of dick it is. (sounds a bit homo don't it? :love: )

4- No more cheap and fast cutting off a WG.
Love/hate going on with this. Depends on the lattice setup for each maps layout before I can give word.


I would mostly agree with your assessment, I would particularly much like to see how this would look on Esamir where there aren't as many dividing hills/mountains etc.
Overall it's looks extremely promising.

[zulu]

This all seems super awesome.



2- Main bases (bio-labs, amp stations, tech plants) require owning the satellites to have access to res flow, base perks, to move further in the chain, and maybe act as influence instead of near outposts.
I like this part. It gives small squads things to do that can fuck a day for the enemy. Example- Holding just the satellites at Tawrich can cut it off and deny MBTs to the plants owners.

3- Able to bypass a main base by going around it thanks to satellites.
This Im a bit iffy on. I like the choice of being able to send a forward group to attack the next outpost in the chain to hold off a counter attack, but it can make bum rushes to a pesky defensible outpost as a dick move a thing. Need to play with it to see what kind of dick it is. (sounds a bit homo don't it? :love: )


I like both of these things. I like the option of just bypassing a heavily-defended installation and weakening it by surrounding it. I would especially like this if surrounding a base had a greater effect on the defenders (say, by lengthening spawn times a bit).

As far as conquerable warpgates -- that would be really awesome, but my assumption is that they might just be rotating the WGs.

[Mordelicius]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.

[Chewy]

This all seems super awesome.



I like both of these things. I like the option of just bypassing a heavily-defended installation and weakening it by surrounding it. I would especially like this if surrounding a base had a greater effect on the defenders (say, by lengthening spawn times a bit).

As far as conquerable warpgates -- that would be really awesome, but my assumption is that they might just be rotating the WGs.

Messing with spawns is touchy with me. Attackers already spawn faster than defenders but with a heavy depending on AMS location. I wouldn't bother with spawn times for as long as the SCU is in use as that's it main reason to exist. Though Id love to see all terminals stop working if a base is cut off. Make defenders work to get vehicle spawning and class changes back if they let an enemy take to much. Think of it as a cheap way to force people out of places like Bio-Labs and into the satellites or they wont be able to deal with all threats without a death to swap classes or even change loadout.

As for the maybe of a WG rotate. Why only swap the TR and VS and leave NC at north? Iv been reading talk on capping WGs (minus home WG) as part of cont locking and this can be a small clue to how it looks like. Say TR just took the mate to that WG and now are in a grace time to GTFO of it to cap some outposts before getting pushed back out.
Or maybe it's a dev server that has bases, outposts, and maybe WGs that change owners with a small /command and Im over thinking it. Iv been known to do that a lot with things like this. ADHD, I think non stop and with my being an idiot as well it turns out to be mostly bullshit. :dance:

[artifice]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

This is great. Would it be possible to put some paths that only infantry, even light assault could traverse to get access to? They could be mountain passes or caverns that vehicles can't fit through.

Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.

I disagree with this. There are already four paths from the warpgate to Tarwich. That is plenty.

[Xaine]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

For the love of God, yes please!

[Lonehunter]

Full of EPIC

[artifice]

It would be nice if every place on the map produced benefits or resources. The more you link together, the more benefit your faction gets.

I think a capture the flag mechanic to connect bases would be nice using this system. Want Tawrich connected to Gravel Pass, Blackshard Iridium Mine, Red Ridge Communications, or Arroyo Torre Station after you just captured Tawrich? Take something from Tawrich to wherever you want to link it to. The only way to unlink them would be for the enemy to capture Tawrich or one of the places it is connected to.

I also really want an event system where a road could get cutoff by a landslide or a blizzard could make part of the continent hard to traverse.

[Sturmhardt]

Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.

I also disagree with this, if you add more path ways again we could basically just keep the current hex system. Real testing should determine how it works out in the end.

.sent via phone.

[Ohaunlaim]

OMG... thank Vanu! Finally they made the hex sizes smaller, to better be able to get control areas to conform to actual ground features.

Love the concise feel to the line and flow of battle this will invoke. I hope when it is final it looks very similar to this.

[Mox]

This look realy interesting.
The number of links seems a little bit high.
To say more i need further information.
I hope we will see some lattice like this soon.

[raw]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?


How is that different from what we have now? You'd still have no idea where the attacker/defender is gonna be.

The lack of lattice isn't the problem. The PS1 lattice was just a tool to guarantee combat flow on a global scale. There are indefinitely more tools that accomplish the same but are not called "lattice".

The "predictabiliy" in PS1 came from the smaller amount of bases, not the lattice itself. If you'd put as many bases on PS1 Indar as on PS2 Indar, it would just be as unpredictable.

This solution looks cool, but it won't solve any problems.

I say, flow is something that has to be solved by level design. If you look at Amerish, it is pretty "lattish" when you start out from your WG, forcing you along narrow serpentines and spreads out towards the middle to allow for more unpredictability in that area of the map. This is definitely what we want.
Then there is this mission system that has been talked about, which can be constructed to help a ton in directing the battle. Dynamic solutions over static solutions.

[Shamrock]

Looks good.

[Nathaniak]

This has the potential to be interesting, I agree. But only if we give some more defender buffs. Currently, a lot of players flee before the zerg. If this means bigger zergs, then this effect might become even more worrying. We need bases that are easier to defend. This can be directional - for example, the bases near WGs should be a lot harder for attackers to take then for the WG owners to win back.

Overall, I'm on the fence about this one. I don't like the limiting of options, but I feel that if it successfully increases the quality of the gameplay, then that's a price worth paying. We'll just have to wait and see.

[camycamera]

i think it could be related to continent locking/capping the warpgate

[igster]

Best news I've heard for a long time. I have high hopes and am glad that the 'metagame' improvements are so high on the radar.

It's very desparately needed!!

[Ruffdog]

Pretty darn fantastic!

Now please remove xp for resistance-less base captures so that the zergs can meet more often.

[Sonny]

The new lattice/hex system looks great!

I'm also not sure that it would be good to bypass large bases simply by taking the satellites. I can imagine that a lot of attackers would end up avoiding ever attacking the main base at all and simply moving to the next base, then taking the main base when the defenders have moved on. This may lead to less epic base battles.

But I love the rest :).

[Dougnifico]

http://www.seymourduncan.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=35533&d=1353977687&thumb=1

[Mietz]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

Are we to understand that its only the connections that have/will be changed but not the influence system itself or the capture mechanics?

Because I'm afraid simply limiting the connections will not necessarily lead to better battle flow on its own.

[TheDrone]

I'm hoping Malorn is reading this...

Sorry for any harsh words, it's not personal.

I greatly dislike it, have good reasons to do so, and would be really unhappy if this were to become the future of PS2. I know I'm going against the grain here, but my opinion probably differs from the community's because I've thought this over. (I'm the author of this tome (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r2AT1R0Ug6jykUy72gHgVU8xiQcdwEp-Nh2jsVm-7UE/pub) intended for the metagame design meeting)
I'm not saying my ideas are better. I'm saying the lattice is horrible.

The lattice in PS1 was an easy way out, wasn't interesting and sure as hell wasn't even remotely fostering a metagame.

Yes, this alternative is in fact superior. Of course because there are more options. But the lattice gravely lacks player control.

IMHO if the intent is to limit the options of the players to direct the flow of battle then a) This is attempting to paint over the symptoms in stead of trying to fix the reasons why there isn't a flow of battle and b) even in the realm of easy fixes there are more interesting options, such as player-controlled region-locking.


BTW, even if I were to like the lattice 2.0, I don't really like the presentation. Parts of the map not filled with a color... I'm thinking there are better ways to do so.

Anyways, here I go again typing up a wall of text no one cares about...

[TheDrone]

The more I think about it, the more I hate it.

It's like joining a server of a run-of-the-mill arena shooter and then having an upcoming playlist of maps. That's it. It's a way of presenting a list of maps you're going to play. All of them big battles. All of them chokepoints. No jobs for smaller squads. No surprises. The tedious grind, ad infinitum.

The problem with a 100% freeform hex-system is that there are more options than the zerg can coordinate around. It's an issue of communication, overhead and INCENTIVE.

With a lattice, you're not fixing anything, you're killing the MMOFPS genre because you refuse to fix the fact that the zerg can't/won't coordinate and therefore simply tell the zerg what they're going to do.
SOE is going to give us a list of maps we're going to play and that's it.

The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

Yes, I'm bitter. Goddammit. I knew the community was going to kill this game, but I hadn't expected them to be so very efficient and thorough at it.

[elementHTTP]

My concern is crown, TI and cross

Can lattice system prevent empires concentrating in middle of map ?

This can lead to non populated lattice lines/roads

[Carbon Copied]

Like the look of the system here - we can only speculate how it's going to play out on whatever GU it releases but initial impressions I do like; however if it does turn into a stalemate on 3 fronts for whatever reason maybe there could be some form of dynamic lattice overlay (the system picking randomly from 1 or 2 extra pre-defined layouts) - by that I mean if a continent hasn't been capped in (insert xx value of pre-defined hours/days here) the "pipelines" to the warp gates switch to another layout?

Ok that may encourage the zerg to cap as fast as possible through a continent but it'd potentially break any stalement and have to have people thinking on the fly adapting at change.

[Rago]

Did i read Lattice ? !:D

[Mietz]

I'm hoping Malorn is reading this...

Sorry for any harsh words, it's not personal.

I greatly dislike it, have good reasons to do so, and would be really unhappy if this were to become the future of PS2. I know I'm going against the grain here, but my opinion probably differs from the community's because I've thought this over. (I'm the author of this tome (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1r2AT1R0Ug6jykUy72gHgVU8xiQcdwEp-Nh2jsVm-7UE/pub) intended for the metagame design meeting)
I'm not saying my ideas are better. I'm saying the lattice is horrible.

The lattice in PS1 was an easy way out, wasn't interesting and sure as hell wasn't even remotely fostering a metagame.

Yes, this alternative is in fact superior. Of course because there are more options. But the lattice gravely lacks player control.

IMHO if the intent is to limit the options of the players to direct the flow of battle then a) This is attempting to paint over the symptoms in stead of trying to fix the reasons why there isn't a flow of battle and b) even in the realm of easy fixes there are more interesting options, such as player-controlled region-locking.


BTW, even if I were to like the lattice 2.0, I don't really like the presentation. Parts of the map not filled with a color... I'm thinking there are better ways to do so.

Anyways, here I go again typing up a wall of text no one cares about...

I partially agree with this, the problem is however one of the developers that read what they want to read, not necessarily the community.

They read "lattice" from people and knee-jerk react to it by making The Lattice. They read "resources are unimportant" and they remove auraxium. They read "AA too weak!!" and buff AA directly. Its like they only read the titles of posts and then go on as taking those as feedback.

The community has presented a myriad of ways on how to direct or restrain battle-flow in a dynamic way, they were all summarily ignored for cop-out solutions.

I have no input for the idea presented by higby because I don't have all the information but it will not lead down a path they intend to by just looking at what we know. Just restricting options is not going to make the game flow better.
i.e. without a look at capture mechanics and resources a "lattice-fix" does nothing and shows a design-philosophy that is not concerned with interdependence of mechanics and foresight but rather a localized easy solution for a singular problem. This is why we continuously get more problems after each GU, because nobody thinks of the gameplay consequences long-term.

[Assist]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

Increases strategy, helps the defensive faction out because of choke points and finally gives the attacking faction a real disadvantage. Increasing the ability to defend without changing bases - +1

[raw]

Just restricting options is not going to make the game flow better.


They're not even restricting options; looking at that picture it's the exact same routes people take right now. Again, the lattice worked in PS1, because it had a magnitude less bases. PS2 needs a flow control mechanism that takes the amount of bases into account and not try to make the square go through the round.


The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

+1

[Assist]

The more I think about it, the more I hate it.

It's like joining a server of a run-of-the-mill arena shooter and then having an upcoming playlist of maps. That's it. It's a way of presenting a list of maps you're going to play. All of them big battles. All of them chokepoints. No jobs for smaller squads. No surprises. The tedious grind, ad infinitum.
That's your opinion on it, none of those are facts. It's not an upcoming playlist at all, there's still plenty of options on which base you want to go to. There's also plenty of routes to get there, you don't have to follow the yellow brick road to get to point A. Sure you need to take base A to get to base B, but it's not a whole lot different than it is now for the big bases. Just at a quick glance you see there's AT LEAST 5 ways into Tawrich, this is not a defined Point A to Point B lattice system and there's no reason to make it out to be. If your concern about the system is smaller squads, then tell me what exactly is the point of smaller squads now? To take empty territory until someone realizes they're there? Smaller squads are squashed under massive numbers because there are no choke points for them to work from.


The problem with a 100% freeform hex-system is that there are more options than the zerg can coordinate around. It's an issue of communication, overhead and INCENTIVE.

With a lattice, you're not fixing anything, you're killing the MMOFPS genre because you refuse to fix the fact that the zerg can't/won't coordinate and therefore simply tell the zerg what they're going to do.
SOE is going to give us a list of maps we're going to play and that's it.

I disagree again. The problem is incentive and they are fixing that by removing the need for incentive(which they've already said will be added LATER, not never). This fixes the immediate problem, just not the way you would like. It's also not an issue of communicating the zerg, that exists even in the lattice system, it's an issue of the zerg being able to flat out overrun every battle because they don't have to think strategically when assaulting any base. Once again you see lattice and you're assuming "Point A to Point B", but if you look at the map it doesn't at all play that way.
What does this system have to do with the FPS genre? Pure FPS players don't care one way or another about the system if you're going to assume they're that way. But FPS players who are playing PS2 are here for more than just the regular FPS. Don't brand a group of people because you think all they care about is shooting some guy who is going to respawn. Both systems the MMO and FPS community feel the same about, where a player came from has nothing to do with what they want this game to be. I personally have played MMO's and tournament-level FPS, I prefer the lattice system presented.



The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

Yes, I'm bitter. Goddammit. I knew the community was going to kill this game, but I hadn't expected them to be so very efficient and thorough at it.
This is not a PS1 vs PS2 addition to the game. Plenty of non-PS1 players want a lattice system.

[raw]

Plenty of non-PS1 players want a lattice system.

That's a pretty bold claim. A lot of players want to eat at least 3 meals per day, too.

[Assist]

That's a pretty bold claim. A lot of players want to eat at least 3 meals per day, too.

Why would you assume they don't? Other FPS games all have huge amounts of structure in their PvP, as well as MMO's. The few people I play with who never played PS1 liked the idea of the lattice when myself and another presented it to them during beta.

[Stanis]

I need new underwear.

That is an excellent step in the right direction.

The bit that pleases me most is the diverse paths now have seperate strategic importance.

And most importantly the satellites around tawrich become seperate territories - hopefully making base captures more significant as the enemy can't just jump over any defenders where they don't have a viable link.

Brilliant.
Now please, put it on the roadmap for April ?

[raw]

Why would you assume they don't? Other FPS games all have huge amounts of structure in their PvP, as well as MMO's.

Exactly. FPS are all about battle flow. You don't need a lattice to maintain a flow, in fact a lattice in an open world FPS game is counter productive from the outset as it obviously makes everything less open.

When people are babbling about "lattice" they want something that puts a flow down on the map and not neccessarily The Lattice.

[TheDrone]

That's your opinion on it, none of those are facts. It's not an upcoming playlist at all, there's still plenty of options on which base you want to go to. There's also plenty of routes to get there, you don't have to follow the yellow brick road to get to point A. Sure you need to take base A to get to base B, but it's not a whole lot different than it is now for the big bases. Just at a quick glance you see there's AT LEAST 5 ways into Tawrich, this is not a defined Point A to Point B lattice system and there's no reason to make it out to be. If your concern about the system is smaller squads, then tell me what exactly is the point of smaller squads now? To take empty territory until someone realizes they're there? Smaller squads are squashed under massive numbers because there are no choke points for them to work from.

There's a difference between what can happen and what will happen. All the current misgivings with the hex system don't HAVE to happen. There are plenty of other options. Yet those other options don't happen. There are reasons for this.

And there are reasons for the lattice having serious issues in PS1. There are reasons why your interpretation of the lattice won't happen in PS2. Ironically the same reasons why the hex isn't working.

I agree it's maybe not one playlists. Every few fights you get to choose the next playlist. That's not strategy. That's pandering to the COD crowd and the PS1-romanticizing-crowd.

Stop presenting a false dichotomy. I'm the first to say the hex isn't perfect. That link you conveniently ignored as it's a long text and you don't care about to read it and/or lack the attention span to read it? That was my attempt at fixing the hex, thus acknowledging it's flawed.
It's not either the lattice or the hex. There are plenty of options. And some of those actually fix the core issues, something neither the hex or the lattice does.
So there are options to allow smaller squads to have their role and allow for their play-style. These options are destroyed the second you implement a lattice. Simple as that.

I disagree again. The problem is incentive and they are fixing that by removing the need for incentive(which they've already said will be added LATER, not never). This fixes the immediate problem, just not the way you would like. It's also not an issue of communicating the zerg, that exists even in the lattice system, it's an issue of the zerg being able to flat out overrun every battle because they don't have to think strategically when assaulting any base. Once again you see lattice and you're assuming "Point A to Point B", but if you look at the map it doesn't at all play that way.
What does this system have to do with the FPS genre? Pure FPS players don't care one way or another about the system if you're going to assume they're that way. But FPS players who are playing PS2 are here for more than just the regular FPS. Don't brand a group of people because you think all they care about is shooting some guy who is going to respawn. Both systems the MMO and FPS community feel the same about, where a player came from has nothing to do with what they want this game to be. I personally have played MMO's and tournament-level FPS, I prefer the lattice system presented.

You don't fix incentive by removing it. PlanetSide 2 shoulod have a metagame. Destroying player-options and destroying all options for incentive is in effect destroying all hopes for a metagame. Period. There can't be a metagame with a lattice. Period.
A metagame needs variety and changing conditions. A metagame needs the option of investment and the occasional sense of urgency.
All these potentials are gone when the lattice is introduced. There is simply no way to introduce these variables in a lattice. Can you present a way to introduce these? Honest question.

This is not a PS1 vs PS2 addition to the game. Plenty of non-PS1 players want a lattice system.

Which proves my point. PlanetSide 2 isn't run by experienced and motivated developers. PlanetSide 2 is the hostage of an insane and schizophrenic bandwagon, its community.

[NewSith]

Okay there was me hoping I can refrain from posting.


@ all people giving negative feedback:
Please hold your judgement on the matter until you see a bigger picture, literally. The lower right corner of Indar is by no means illustrative of the overall effect. This is mostly due to the fact that this very part of the continent will always have pre-defined paths of combat, dictated mostly by the landscape.


I myself see one great necessary upgrade to the current hex system - neutral hexes. This is not making it into the game during the next 4 months, which I'm pretty sure of, since Hossin will probably be the testing field for such a mechanic, as other continents were not designed with such scheme in mind. So let's wait until we get more "how" information.

[Aaron]

Drone, can you perhaps explain why this new layout would play in a less fun way, or why it can't have some interesting mechanics added to it in the future?

SOE can't do everything at once, and I think this is a decent response to a critical problem. I've been capping uncontested territory since beta, and it isn't exactly invigorating.

EDIT: And what NewSith said. We can only see a very, very small portion of what this is.

[Maarvy]

I like it we need to see this in action realy soon and judge it in action .

Also a return for deffensive exp would be cool Imo .

P.s this might have saved me just as interest was waning a little .

[capiqu]

It would be nice if every place on the map produced benefits or resources. The more you link together, the more benefit your faction gets.

I think a capture the flag mechanic to connect bases would be nice using this system. Want Tawrich connected to Gravel Pass, Blackshard Iridium Mine, Red Ridge Communications, or Arroyo Torre Station after you just captured Tawrich? Take something from Tawrich to wherever you want to link it to. The only way to unlink them would be for the enemy to capture Tawrich or one of the places it is connected to.

I also really want an event system where a road could get cutoff by a landslide or a blizzard could make part of the continent hard to traverse.

Maybe those neutral hexes can then be instanly hack to obtain their resources by adjacency to the outpost and bases.

[Hmr85]

I am loving the look of what I am seeing. All I have to say is "Its about time" :D

[capiqu]

What about Battle flow hexes, and adjacent hexes? Adjacent hexes to the bases and outpost can then be instantly hacked to obtain their resources. This would allow these territories to still play an important part in the game.

[Crator]

OMG, a hex-lattice! :rock:

[TheDrone]

Okay there was me hoping I can refrain from posting.


@ all people giving negative feedback:
Please hold your judgement on the matter until you see a bigger picture, literally. The lower right corner of Indar is by no means illustrative of the overall effect. This is mostly due to the fact that this very part of the continent will always have pre-defined paths of combat, dictated mostly by the landscape.


I myself see one great necessary upgrade to the current hex system - neutral hexes. This is not making it into the game during the next 4 months, which I'm pretty sure of, since Hossin will probably be the testing field for such a mechanic, as other continents were not designed with such scheme in mind. So let's wait until we get more "how" information.

If this image can cause a massive part of the community to whip out their COD or PS1 cd's and then violently copulate with them (why you think CD's have holes in them?) until they blow their red/blue/purple load then I can at least try to stem the tide by painstakingly trying to explain that 2+2=4.

It's a lattice. Period.

Drone, can you perhaps explain why this new layout would play in a less fun way, or why it can't have some interesting mechanics added to it in the future?

SOE can't do everything at once, and I think this is a decent response to a critical problem. I've been capping uncontested territory since beta, and it isn't exactly invigorating.




It's not fixing the issues at hand. It's doing what was done in PS1, a thin coat of paint over the hole in the wall.

Yes, a limitation of options is necessary. But you can't fix that by making a somewhat large MOBA map where 3 or 4 zergs per faction will clash mindlessly for all of infinity. Well, yea, it does fix that. But it's like you're lobotomizing a child because he's got ADD.

The first thing we need to foster strategic play is some kind of organ that will formulate strategies. Now we barely have that, which makes sense as the tools for coordination and command are woefully inadequate.
No matter the system, hex or lattice, people will still be mindless zergs until we address this issue.

Doing so would even make the hex a lot better.

The second step should be to have a metagame. Any metagame. Soemthing that motivates and rewards players.

These elements combined, a kind of brain at the top and some kind of reason to get out of bed, WILL de facto mean limited options.
It's a WARgame. Look at WW2, for example. Now that's a bunch of hexes. And due to the fact that there were reasons why Hex A was more valuable than hex B there WERE lanes, there WERE limitations and there WAS (absolutely horrific) epicness to be had.

Oh, and I think SOE has done an exemplary job trying and I applaud them for holding off the mindless mob for so long.

[MrMak]

On Esamir the Frozen river could be a big influence devider. Hexes could only connect via the Bridges with maybe an exception at the eastern warpgate since there is no bridge connecting it to the south side of the map. Not sure about the rest of the continent but im pretty sure there are at least a few places where terrain would "rationalise" neutral hexes.

[Stanis]

Soon™


I don't know / can't say when or if stuff will be out. But couldn't resist the urge to use that response!

Your sir. Are a mean, mean man!

[Hamma]

What we need now is a test server. ;)

[Stanis]

<snip>.

I read your metagame design document.
Interesting ideas. I do like the changes to resources - or rather a meaningful drain on them and something to spend them on.

However I disagree that structuring resources or developing command are either the best or only method to provide a metagame.

I'd be very interested in your ideas being explored - but I think the resource investment in bases and command voting would be in the hands of a few elite players and beyond the zerg.


The changes we can see in that single image on twitter get me very interested. It offers what I can see as a solution for my biggest problem with the strategic game and tactical play right now.

Your proposal does not stop the enemy bypassing any form of defence.
(with the exception of heavily invested fortress regions).

Your prosposal does not stop the enemy jumping across inumerable possble hex adjacencies.

Comment regarding a 'maplist' are mostly irrelevant. I'm sure we've gone in circles hacking the same bases hour after hour. Or even locked the continent to have it fall within the hour.
Restrictions are just as important as freedoms. restrictions are rules - they allow strategy and tactics by being predictable.
There will still be big fights - but now those that are using teamwork and co-operation with allies can actually play a game that is deeper than 'zerg more'.

I have written in another thread about the futility of defending Onatha on Amerish.
When the enemy only has adajaceny to the north - the main base is as impossible to defend as when they surround every hex.

A well defended northern satellite is irrelevant.

The adjacency and current hex systems lets the attack ignore any defence or choke point. Lets them jump to any satellite.
Let's them go immediately for generators.

The image we see for tawrich with hex walls providing a lattice rather the every hex being adjacent makes flanking attacks beneficial to the attacker.
Most importantly seperating the satellites into surrounding hexes makes their defence impossible for the enemy to ignore.

Finally a base such as The Stronghold actually becomes one.
It is a fairly defensible structure at the now junture points of two or more hex walls.

This has the potential to mean that as a defender the location of the enemy attack can be predicted.
This means as an attacker you can not afford to leave the enemy behind you.

In short - it makes strategic and tactical combat at platoon and squad level meaningful.

Right now we are run ragged trying to defend at numerous points and on many objectives.

I would welcome the addition of your metagame ideas to the commanders role and resource system.

I think this hex wall is a fantastic idea.

Finally - it may be that the hex system will actually be different on various continents. That also has potential to make for engaging and different game play.

[TheDrone]

I read your metagame design document.
Interesting ideas. I do like the changes to resources - or rather a meaningful drain on them and something to spend them on.

However I disagree that structuring resources or developing command are either the best or only method to provide a metagame.

I'd be very interested in your ideas being explored - but I think the resource investment in bases and command voting would be in the hands of a few elite players and beyond the zerg.


The changes we can see in that single image on twitter get me very interested. It offers what I can see as a solution for my biggest problem with the strategic game and tactical play right now.

Your proposal does not stop the enemy bypassing any form of defence.
(with the exception of heavily invested fortress regions).

Your prosposal does not stop the enemy jumping across inumerable possble hex adjacencies.

Comment regarding a 'maplist' are mostly irrelevant. I'm sure we've gone in circles hacking the same bases hour after hour. Or even locked the continent to have it fall within the hour.
Restrictions are just as important as freedoms. restrictions are rules - they allow strategy and tactics by being predictable.
There will still be big fights - but now those that are using teamwork and co-operation with allies can actually play a game that is deeper than 'zerg more'.

I have written in another thread about the futility of defending Onatha on Amerish.
When the enemy only has adajaceny to the north - the main base is as impossible to defend as when they surround every hex.

A well defended northern satellite is irrelevant.

The adjacency and current hex systems lets the attack ignore any defence or choke point. Lets them jump to any satellite.
Let's them go immediately for generators.

The image we see for tawrich with hex walls providing a lattice rather the every hex being adjacent makes flanking attacks beneficial to the attacker.
Most importantly seperating the satellites into surrounding hexes makes their defence impossible for the enemy to ignore.

Finally a base such as The Stronghold actually becomes one.
It is a fairly defensible structure at the now junture points of two or more hex walls.

This has the potential to mean that as a defender the location of the enemy attack can be predicted.
This means as an attacker you can not afford to leave the enemy behind you.

In short - it makes strategic and tactical combat at platoon and squad level meaningful.

Right now we are run ragged trying to defend at numerous points and on many objectives.

I would welcome the addition of your metagame ideas to the commanders role and resource system.

I think this hex wall is a fantastic idea.

Finally - it may be that the hex system will actually be different on various continents. That also has potential to make for engaging and different game play.

The fact that I created an elaborate idea kinda means I acknowledged the hex system is not ideal. Far from it.
My proposal isn't perfect either.

However, the criticisms on the lattice do not hinge on the hex or my proposal being superior alternatives or not.




The lattice is flawed all on its own.


The fact remains that the lattice massively decreases the amount of activities (to exactly one: be part of a zerg and fight a zerg) massively increases the predictability and STILL does not fix the simple fact that a zerg or even a collection of zergs will not be able to provide any kind of strategic planning.
With the lattice the amount of options will be insanely limited, and what's worse, there will be NO framework provided to expand upon later on. Where I thought the community would have to spend at least an entire year to destroy the game, I could see them succeed by June.

BTW, my proposal does feature the inability to bypass defenses unless heavy investments are made beforehand. See how that works? In stead of having 5 options at a time, there are long-term elements in play, various objectives for various kinds of players and various incentives each with their pro's an con's.

With the lattice there are 5 playlists of maps to choose from and exactly 1 (one) kind of play-style catered to. That's it.

[Mietz]

There is only one question here.

Where the fuck is Figment?

He's either missing out on a great mechanics thread because hes drunk, or hes writing the mother of all posts that will end PS2 as we know it.

[NewSith]

If this image can cause a massive part of the community to whip out their COD or PS1 cd's and then violently copulate with them (why you think CD's have holes in them?) until they blow their red/blue/purple load then I can at least try to stem the tide by painstakingly trying to explain that 2+2=4.

It's a lattice. Period.

First off - current system is also lattice.
Second thing to say is a question - what alternatives do YOU propose?

This:
"The first thing we need to foster strategic play is some kind of organ that will formulate strategies. Now we barely have that, which makes sense as the tools for coordination and command are woefully inadequate."

...is pure waffle, not a suggestion of an alternative way. I hope you realise that strategy is based off sequences, not the other way around? You can't FIRST have strategy and AFTER - an object of strategy.

Bring up an idea of your own, starting with the following basement - "You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

[Mietz]

They're not even restricting options; looking at that picture it's the exact same routes people take right now. Again, the lattice worked in PS1, because it had a magnitude less bases. PS2 needs a flow control mechanism that takes the amount of bases into account and not try to make the square go through the round.


Routes don't matter, what matters are the connections. If the connections will be reduced then the influence mechanic will reduce the choices where to go.

A simple route-system only creates one way to play the game, the developers way, no matter what is going on with bases, troops or movement.

[Akrasjel Lanate]

Looks nice

[CrazEpharmacist]

I'm not sure if Cyridius is a member here but he wrote a really good post directed at Lattice nay-sayers on the official PS2 forums. It's a really good read:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-nay-sayers-to-the-prototype-hex-system-are-wrong.100415/#post-1333415

[TheDrone]

First off - current system is also lattice.
Second thing to say is a question - what alternativces do YOU propose?

This:
"The first thing we need to foster strategic play is some kind of organ that will formulate strategies. Now we barely have that, which makes sense as the tools for coordination and command are woefully inadequate."

...is pure waffle, not a suggestion of an alternative way. I hope you realise that strategy is based off sequences, not the other way around? You can't FIRST have strategy and AFTER - an object of strategy.

Bring up an idea of your own, starting with the following basement - "You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

"Mmmmh. This person seems to be suffering from a headache. I propose decapitation. What do you mean, bad idea? Listen, you dimwit, none of your criticisms of my idea are valid, unless you can provide a better idea. Yes, this is a completely illogical, non-constructive and arbitrary rule I've just made up. So what?"

I have proposed an idea of mine, BTW, which I doubt you will read anyways as it contains a lot of words.
Next up you're going to try and find my idea, take a few hours/days to read it and then rebuke my idea pretending that also rebukes are criticisms of the lattice, which it of course doesn't.

Stop being so very, very illogical.

[NewSith]

"Mmmmh. This person seems to be suffering from a headache. I propose decapitation. What do you mean, bad idea? Listen, you dimwit, none of your criticisms of my idea are valid, unless you can provide a better idea. Yes, this is a completely illogical, non-constructive and arbitrary rule I've just made up. So what?"

I have proposed an idea of mine, BTW, which I doubt you will read anyways as it contains a lot of words.
Next up you're going to try and find my idea, take a few hours/days to read it and then rebuke my idea pretending that also rebukes are criticisms of the lattice, which it of course doesn't.

Stop being so very, very illogical.

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

[TheDrone]

I'm not sure if Cyridius is a member here but he wrote a really good post directed at Lattice nay-sayers on the official PS2 forums. It's a really good read:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-nay-sayers-to-the-prototype-hex-system-are-wrong.100415/#post-1333415

This doesn't address any of the criticisms. It's just the onset for yet another dimwitted circle-jerk.


I'm so right not to touch the official forums with a ten-foot pole.

[Jaegen]

The changes seem pretty good. I really think the idea for limiting resource flow is important to keep battles away from one area (The Crown) all of the time.

[TheDrone]

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next? And then... Hey, let's act like something somewhat resemble an adult and have an actual conversation about the lattice system."

Is what I would say. If you are too lazy to look for the idea I posted in this thread then you'll be too lazy to read and understand it.

I implore you to take this a little more seriously, do a little logical reasoning or just read up on a "red herring".

The validity of the anti-lattice arguments does not depend on any childish limitations of discussion you impose or on the validity of any proposed alternatives. Got it?

[MrBloodworth]

This looks over engineered. Its not instantly recognizable as to its function, something that is EXTREMELY important. I do not really see what this does, that lines connecting to bases showing optional advancement lines across a continent would do ( From A, take A, B, or C base to fulfill continental dominance ).

It feels over engineered.

[TheDrone]

This looks over engineered. Its not instantly recognizable as to its function, something that is EXTREMELY important. I do not really see what this does, that lines connecting to bases showing optional advancement lines across a continent would do ( From A, take A, B, or C base to fulfill continental dominance ).

It feels over engineered.

Well, in essence it's SOE holding our hands and telling us which maps we're going to play in which succession... So... Yea. That's super-over-engineered.

[Snipefrag]

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

Mmmm, I thought you left? Indecisive much?

[MrBloodworth]

Well, in essence it's SOE holding our hands and telling us which maps we're going to play in which succession... So... Yea. That's super-over-engineered.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, this does not show relationships between continents. For all we know footholds still exist in this version. Meaning no global movement.

[NewSith]

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next? And then... Hey, let's act like something somewhat resemble an adult and have an actual conversation about the lattice system."

Is what I would say. If you are too lazy to look for the idea I posted in this thread then you'll be too lazy to read and understand it.

Why do you assume so much? Why don't you answer one simple question I asked? Isn't that what a converstation is supposed to be?

Whatever your idea is, it has some basement, some foundation that your idea is built upon. I'm asking what that foundation is and instead you keep jumping inside your "I'm being attacked by ignorance" shell. It's either you're too afraid of your idea being rejected or you're trolling. If former - please, don't be. Everyone here is mature, and if you wish to be treated as mature yourself, don't view everyone who enters a conversation with you hostile.

Mmmm, I thought you left? Indecisive much?

Blame the picture and mr. Drone here.

[Crator]

The one thing I like the most about it is that it makes it easier to read the options on a strategic level an empire can choose. It's better in that aspect instead of no neutral spots in the hex grid.

[MrBloodworth]

The one thing I like the most about it is that it makes it easier to read the options on a strategic level an empire can choose. It's better in that aspect instead of no neutral spots in the hex grid.

So would.... Ahem.

[CrazEpharmacist]

Well, in essence it's SOE holding our hands and telling us which maps we're going to play in which succession... So... Yea. That's super-over-engineered.

Why don't you wait until they release a picture of the entirety of Indar..as well as other continents. We know very little information aside from that tiny portion of Indar, a portion that was already quite linear to begin with.

[Crator]

So would.... Ahem.

Yes, of course a line representation lattice would work as well. But the idea was put forth as a quick remedy, correct?

[capiqu]

Why does higby do this to us? WHY, WHY?

[MrBloodworth]

Yes, of course a line representation lattice would work as well. But the idea was put forth as a quick remedy, correct?

It's clear and Concise. This is important.

This looks over engineered and muddied, even a bit restrictive. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it feels like what you do, in order to "design" something that "different" than what you do not want to use from a previously working design.

Because, Different?

In what way shape or form is this different then lattice lines? and in what way does this have a function to avoid the stated reason for not using a lattice. IE: To many users in one location.

I currently look at this, see the same benefits and downsides as the lattice system, its just more muddied in its presentation.

I believe that's a fair critique.

[capiqu]

Well if Tr called for Forseral then Anu would be TR's first fight so all tr would be Fighting at Anu. IN PS2 on Indar Tr will have 4 different links to the warp gate so all of the Tr would not head to one base or outpost. Four roads gives you options.

[MrBloodworth]

Also, I can't really shake that the more I look at this the more it looks like a crooked lattice system, connecting useless bases and adding an SOI system over the main bases that has no function.

Just ditch the hexes. Use a clean lattice system, add the SOI's back, ignore outposts in your connections add back in the Activity grid ( What the hex emulates already ).

Still, none of this avoids the reason that's been stated PS2 Can't use the lattice system "To many users in one location".

[MrMak]

It's clear and Concise. This is important.

This looks over engineered and muddied, even a bit restrictive. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it feels like what you do, in order to "design" something that "different" than what you do not want to use from a previously working design.

Because, Different?

In what way shape or form is this different then lattice lines? and in what way does this have a function to avoid the stated reason for not using a lattice. IE: To many users in one location.

I currently look at this, see the same benefits and downsides as the lattice system, its just more muddied in its presentation.

I believe that's a fair critique.

Thing is this is presented in an area where the Terrain pretty much dictates the paths. The main diference to the current system is that bases which are not actualy linked to eachother (as in roads or at least normaly passible terrain) no longer affect any influence on echother. Otherwise i dont think it woud change the flow in that particular area that much. I think it should be less restrictive in more open areas.

For inctance in the desert at the north of indar you would pretty much have the same flow as you have now but moving further south would be more restricted.

For instance: Right now if you controll Howling Pass or even Abandoned NS Offices you can go straight to Crimson Bluff Tower and capure it despite the fact there is a freaking cliffside in the way.

In this system (at least i hope this is how it works) you would have to take NS material storage which would open a more logical link to Crimson Bluff.

Another logical path would be through East Canyon Checkpoint and the Palisade.

[MrBloodworth]

I get the influence thing, I do.

I just don't see why it matters. Removal of it is in effect, the same as the linear options the lattice provided.

Its the same thing, just, with a different presentation. The only real practical thing I see in this system, is it cares and incorporates outposts.

Outposts will never be anything than a steamroll if they do not change the base designs. At best, in this system they MAY be a speed bump to the cluster at the main bases. Instead of a Distraction FROM them ( Adjacent ).

*shrug*


Lets be clear, the Hex system as it stand, and in its wholly unpredictable nature has been stated as to be a major reason the servers do not melt.

This confusion of where to go is what keeps technical issues from cropping up in relation to population. Tech issue avoidance is reliant on confused or unclear data to the user.

How does this help that in any way that is different from the more clear ( IMO ) lattice system?

[ChipMHazard]

Why does higby do this to us? WHY, WHY?

Why?
http://kingloaf.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/drevil_l.jpg
That's why.

[TheDrone]

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, this does not show relationships between continents. For all we know footholds still exist in this version. Meaning no global movement.

With "map" I don't mean continent. I mean base. With the lattice a play-session would be indistinguishable from playing, say a BF game, and getting a list of upcoming maps upon logging on.


Why do you assume so much? Why don't you answer one simple question I asked? Isn't that what a converstation is supposed to be?

Whatever your idea is, it has some basement, some foundation that your idea is built upon. I'm asking what that foundation is and instead you keep jumping inside your "I'm being attacked by ignorance" shell. It's either you're too afraid of your idea being rejected or you're trolling. If former - please, don't be. Everyone here is mature, and if you wish to be treated as mature yourself, don't view everyone who enters a conversation with you hostile.




The question you are asking is completely and utterly irrelevant. Answering it serves no purpose. Further more, your question has been answered in extreme depth some weeks ago. There is even a thread in these very forums where you could discuss my ideas if you so wished. The link I posted in this thread will get you going.
I suggest we use this thread to discuss the lattice proposed by the community, propagated by Malorn and tweeted by Higby.

And of course I assume people are hostile. Imagine you had a favorite bar. Wouldn't you be hostile towards the people coming in and smashing it apart?

[MrBloodworth]

With "map" I don't mean continent. I mean base. With the lattice a play-session would be indistinguishable from playing, say a BF game, and getting a list of upcoming maps upon logging on.

Yeah, I see what you want to say. But 10 Years of <SHALLNOTBENAMED> has shown its not nearly as predictable as you imply. And that's with less bases.

[NewSith]

The question you are asking is completely and utterly irrelevant. Answering it serves no purpose. Further more, your question has been answered in extreme depth some weeks ago. There is even a thread in these very forums where you could discuss my ideas if you so wished. The link I posted in this thread will get you going.
I suggest we use this thread to discuss the lattice proposed by the community, propagated by Malorn and tweeted by Higby.

Your next steps, from what I can tell from this very thread is putting a layer of some "strategical depth" (I imagine it is based on values of territories, since it is the most common suggestion). But you cannot take this step right after you implement a continent with capturable bases and nothing else on it.

Why so? Because such idea is based on the belief that people following strategy is a majority. That statement is incorrect, which is easily proven by checking out many objective-based modes in different games (be it BF3 rush, a typical CTF, or any take'n'hold type of game). Many people play just to shoot stuff, even in PlanetSide.

Example: Why should I go to base A that the strategy tells me to if I can go to base B, because I can?

The first step to take after what I put in my original question is to make something easily readable for people not interested in strategy. In other words, you need to put some limit to FORCE such people into participating in strategical play. If you compare PS1 and PS2 (and one core difference between having some uncapturable territories on a grid against plain capturable hex grid, essentially lattice vs current hex system) you will see that in PS1 zerg contributed to strategical gameplay, unlike in PS2.

---
TL;DR I'm not asking you to give me an elaborate design scheme. I'm saying that the third step after having land and bases is having some sort of limitations. What are these limitations you propose?
---

Because otherwise we're back to to square one, Closed Beta, where everything was capturable and people captured everything creating chaos, completely ignoring the adjacency system (strategy incentive), that by that time was only affecting the speed of a hack. Such way of things nobody liked.

And of course I assume people are hostile. Imagine you had a favorite bar. Wouldn't you be hostile towards the people coming in and smashing it apart?

Nobody is "smashing your bar". One of the key strategies behind properly presenting an idea to sceptical people is to prove you are right, not to prove they are wrong. Otherwise the idea gets dumped. And while people will go away as if nothing happened, you yourself will not be so indifferent.

[Malorn]

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

[bpostal]

There is nothing about this that does not get my mouth watering.
From what I can see; this system stresses the links between bases, emphasizes the actual geography surrounding the outposts/towers/facilities (adding in, from my point of view, more unconventional lines of assault on a given hex) and just looks less cluttered overall.
We need a test server so I can play with this, like right now.

[ChipMHazard]

Rush lanes, eh? Heh, that sure brings up images of mile long traffic jams:p

[TheDrone]

Your next steps, from what I can tell from this very thread is putting a layer of some "strategical depth" (I imagine it is based on values of territories, since it is the most common suggestion). But you cannot take this step right after you implement a continent with capturable bases and nothing else on it.

Why so? Because such idea is based on the belief that people following strategy is a majority. That statement is incorrect, which is easily proven by checking out many objective-based modes in different games (be it BF3 rush, a typical CTF, or any take'n'hold type of game). Many people play just to shoot stuff, even in PlanetSide.

Example: Why should I go to base A that the strategy tells me to if I can go to base B, because I can?

The first step to take after what I put in my original question is to make something easily readable for people not interested in strategy. In other words, you need to put some limit to FORCE such people into participating in strategical play. If you compare PS1 and PS2 (and one core difference between having some uncapturable territories on a grid against plain capturable hex grid, essentially lattice vs current hex system) you will see that in PS1 zerg contributed to strategical gameplay, unlike in PS2.

---
TL;DR I'm not asking you to give me an elaborate design scheme. I'm saying that the third step after having land and bases is having some sort of limitations. What are these limitations you propose?
---

Because otherwise we're back to to square one, Closed Beta, where everything was capturable and people captured everything creating chaos, completely ignoring the adjacency system (strategy incentive), that by that time was only affecting the speed of a hack. Such way of things nobody liked.



Nobody is "smashing your bar". One of the key strategies behind properly presenting an idea to sceptical people is to prove you are right, not to prove they are wrong. Otherwise the idea gets dumped. And while people will go away as if nothing happened, you yourself will not be so indifferent.

The validity of the criticisms towards the lattice are not more or less valid depending on any alternatives I can present and their quality. Period. In order to present yourself as someone who would score positive on an IQ test it would be best if you were to pretend you understand this and then act accordingly.

Stop trying to derail the thread by simply imagining, inventing, shitting your twisted interpretation of "my idea" which you have not even taken the effort to read.
I will be more than willing to entertain any crazed ramblings on my idea in the appropriate thread.

[Azren]

This may just get me back into the game, along with a bunch of my outfit mates.

[J Baley]

I love this. Can't wait to hear more about.

[TheDrone]

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

"It's the PS1 lattice, only more". This doesn't fix the issues the PS1 lattice had and this doesn't fix the issues the hex has now.

There are other, superior ways to add predictability while not completely cutting out most strategic depth.

There was an ideal way to cap a PS1 continent, there will be an ideal way to cap a PS2 continent. I'm not exaggerating by predicting there will be only a handful of possible ways to experience each continent.

The lattice offers only complete determinism and can not infinitely (or even sufficiently) generate new experiences as there simply aren't enough variables.

As for small-outfit action... Sure err... What will they do? There are say 7 fights going on on the map at all time. All of them on those MOBA lanes, and all of them zerg-vs-zerg (as there are vastly insufficient tools for the zergs to be directed and direct themselves).
What will be the activities these squads can engage in?

As for not set in stone... I don't believe that. By posting that pic Higby has basically made sure there is no other option. Can you imagine the mob's reaction if this, or something extremely similar, wasn't implemented? The outrage would be complete and the downfall of the game would most certainly be the result of whatever system implemented.

[capiqu]

There is nothing about this that does not get my mouth watering.
From what I can see; this system stresses the links between bases, emphasizes the actual geography surrounding the outposts/towers/facilities (adding in, from my point of view, more unconventional lines of assault on a given hex) and just looks less cluttered overall.
We need a test server so I can play with this, like right now.

Ay AY, test server. so says Hamma, so says Bpostal so say we all.

[Kail]

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

With the reduced connections, will it still be possible to cut off territory from an empire's warp gate? I would hope it still would be - and as an aside, when considering resources / base benefit changes, making it more punishing for that to happen (ie, making getting territory cut off a high risk/reward option)

[CrankyTRex]

I have mixed feelings on it.

The game is sorely lacking in structure, so that part of it is good, but I don't think it solves anything to just force everybody into channels, which is what this looks like it's going to do. My expectation is that everyone is going to get funneled into a couple of paths such that it'll actually turn the game from join the zerg/get run over the by zerg/ghost cap to just join the zerg or don't do anything.

Malorn mentions BF3's Rush being part of the inspiration, but I hate Rush. They designed all the maps with Rush in mind instead of Conquest and it totally ruined the game for me. It just makes everyone come down incredibly predictable routes that one side or the other can camp to their hearts' content.

Further, at least in Rush one side has to take the objectives or they lose. In PS2, there's no ultimate win or loss, so it would not surprise me if the game turns into WWI, with each side dug in and a no-man's land in between them.

[Chefkoch]

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

Any chance to make MBT & Libs have a Techplanet requierement and only be spawnable on "big" Facilities and not every tower ?

This way the tank zerg might be a bit smaller.

[Rahabib]

I am not excited about this. I think that defining resources would funnel action just as effectively if not better and bring more meta game elements than just funneled territory control.

[Dkamanus]

This isn't something Im actually expecting and WANTING to go live. This will actually streamline the fights and will make the strategic level of the game MUCH more poorer. And this WON'T fix the metagame, since it also involves rewards for continent locking which aren't present. Allow me to elaborate:

Let us think Hvar Tech Plant as an example. Around it we have Sandstone Gulch mine, Indar Bay Point, NC secure data lab and Quartz Ridge Mining. Those 4 places is what secure Hvar Tech Plant once taken. Considering that you only need to take Indar Bay Point to open adjecency and start a Hvar Cap.

Considering the defending faction, they'll most probably be on Indar Bay Point trying to stop an advance. If people want Hvar to open easily, they'll either have to go through Sandstone Gulch Mining or NS Research Data Lab, so adjecency can be opened, and force the defenders to either secure what they have or lose it all.

This is critical in a game like this: Options. With the new lattice system, options will diminish a lot, mostly because NOW, predetermined path are whats necessary to actually grab bases on the map. Anyone with more the 2 months of PS2 can actually understand the current adjecency system. To actually counter attacks, it is quite easy to presume their next attacks and be able to repel them.

This new lattice system will focus things NOT for the sake of strategy (since smaller outfit will still be rolled over by larger outfits) while also killing an important part of the game that is ghost capping. People complain and moan and bitch about ghost capping, but they only do so because they ALLOW it to happen.

Not only that, actual flanking manouvers in a strategic level (NOT A TACTICAL LEVEL) won't exist anymore, since now you can't force your enemy to go after you to actually try and avoid you to lose adjecency. I remember we once saved Hvar just by pod dropping on NS Research Data Lab and resecuring it, giving us precious minutes to get in and resecure Hvar.

In that image, the bridge leading to arroyo torre. With the current system, there is an incentive to go there instead of going back to Tawrich and then go for it, like in the new system. The game, as it is now, rewards Fast Striking movements and slower formations as well. When the new system arrives, pre determining paths will create EVEN more stalemates and promote even bigger zergs.

And don't think for one second that those zergs will break up, cause they won't. This will promote EVEN more zergish outfits on the advantage. For those saying they hardly find good fights, they aren't looking at the map hard enough. I'm NEVER out of fights, me and my outfit, due to a simple map check always.

I do some capping work as needed (on Indar, where fights are always constant) and I can actually cut enemies off as well. This is possible thanks to the hex system, which allow free flow of battles. It allows for clever base taking and different types of holding a front without actually fighting for the base you are now. Decoy manouvers are also a lot used in this current system.

With the new system, you are bottlenecked to 4 options of paths, which can be predicted even by the most retarded of players (Which should be punished for being so retarded), and bring the zergs to one place, where once smaller, organized and smarter outfits could outmanouver and actually be of use. In this new system, smaller outfits will lose a lot of their purpouse.

This WILL NOT bring a metagame. We want reasons to fight. I already fight a lot in this game, and since there is no real objective besides fighting, there will be no point in this as well, as we won't be able to claim anything for our empire and win something from that (while punishing the other two empires).

This will only diminish the utility of smaller outfits, which can very effectively capture a lot of territories when people don't want to defend them. They can cut resources quickly. Outmanouver sluggish armour column formations. I like big fights, and I also like to outsmart other empires. If I'm not allowed to outsmart and use the current game systems to actually make your small outfit effective. This will pit small outfit vs. larger outfits, making the need for zergish outfits MORE apparent.

This isn't something that will be good for the game. It is only made to promote the "SIZE.ALWAYS.MATTER" stupid PR campaign, where it doesn't rewards gameplay, nor skill, nor map coordination. ONLY.NUMBER. At least of now, zergfits are very limited due to the sheer amount of players. They are a liability, and should be so. A force to reckoned to fight, but HARD to organize, and effectively conquer the whole map.

I don't like this system so far. I would need for information about it, but as we all feel it will be, I say no. This isn't PS1, it´s PS2. Changing a core mechanic already on the live game will make people be turned off.

[MrBloodworth]

like dozens of towers per map

Towers in PS1 were not isolated, they were connected to bases for the most part. Towers in PS1 are to Forward satellites of PS2.

[NewSith]

The validity of the criticisms towards the lattice are not more or less valid depending on any alternatives I can present and their quality. Period. In order to present yourself as someone who would score positive on an IQ test it would be best if you were to pretend you understand this and then act accordingly.

Stop trying to derail the thread by simply imagining, inventing, shitting your twisted interpretation of "my idea" which you have not even taken the effort to read.
I will be more than willing to entertain any crazed ramblings on my idea in the appropriate thread.

I hate IQ tests, they always show something around 30...

But, well, arguing with a hothead is never good. Let's just say, I'm glad you are not part of the dev team, since your current attitude is such as which makes empires fall.

This isn't something Im actually expecting and WANTING to go live. This will actually streamline the fights and will make the strategic level of the game MUCH more poorer. And this WON'T fix the metagame, since it also involves rewards for continent locking which aren't present.

Alot of your points miss the other side of the coin. The more choices there are, the more unpredictable the zerg is, the less defensive strategy is involved.

As for smaller outfits - while it sounds so epic, when you use words like "flanking" and "outmaneuvering", what happens in reality is there are 10 guys hacking 10 different hexes simultaneously, while NewSith is riding around all alone in his ATV all across a continent trying to resecure hexes, that nobody else cares about, since it's easier for everyone to do the exact same thing these 10 fellas are doing.

In other words, the system is trying to negate the very core problem of PlanetSide 2 - the game consisting of Attack vs Attack, as opposed to Attack vs Defense.

[DirtyBird]

A selective cropped image of a small corner of Indar with paths that are already predefined.
It's way too early to get sucked in to the hype with that small titbit.
However it ends up it will definitely needs extensive testing(test server) on all continents.

[Dkamanus]

As for smaller outfits - while it sounds so epic, when you use words like "flanking" and "outmaneuvering", what happens in reality is there are 10 guys hacking 10 different hexes simultaneously, while NewSith is riding around all alone in his ATV all across a continent trying to resecure hexes, that nobody else cares about, since it's easier for everyone to do the exact same thing these 10 fellas are doing.

In other words, the system is trying to negate the very core problem of PlanetSide 2 - the game consisting of Attack vs Attack, as opposed to Attack vs Defense.

Simple solution. To actually cap something, people must stay on point all the time. This adds strategic value and Tactical value as well. The problem with ghost capping is the fact that noone is on it at the time, as now to flip a base you MUST have people on point all the time, hence the flipping stops.

If noone is falling back an resecuring our lines, we MUST suffer the consequences of those. Without them, the game will become EVEN more stale then it already is. The Attack vs. Attack mentality is one that the players create, not the devs. People must be willing to fall back sometimes and resecure our possessions.

By pidgeon holing zerg formations against each other, you are creating new crown, which by themselves are problematic for making the game flow go to a complete stop. Harsh punishments should be instilled to the faction that doesn't protect its territories (in this case, resources - kinda).

As others have said, MBTs and liberators should only be able to be pulled from large facilities. I agree. There's nothing more stupid then actually be able to pull powerful vehicles from almost every place. I say restrict sunderers to towers as well, so a supply line must be established for a better metagame.

[Figment]

There is only one question here.

Where the fuck is Figment?

He's either missing out on a great mechanics thread because hes drunk, or hes writing the mother of all posts that will end PS2 as we know it.

Actually, I have both sports and work during weekends. No coffee breaks to type essays.


Edit: In fact, Malorn had some feedback from me already many months ago on the general idea of lattices and hex revision systems regarding not connecting all hexes and having "side paths"/"indirect routes", "staging areas" and "main routes" and how to guide players both by map and vision and discussed zerg behaviour influencing principles (nearest base, "can see or not see next target", population suction effects, nice border shape fetishists, completionists, geographic features, etc). We kinda had the same ideas on some levels there and differed on other points.

So I'm curious to see what was done with the feedback as Malorn is fun to discuss this sort of thing with.

But as I haven't seen this worked out incarnation and don't see enough information (see NewSith's post) I can't really pass judgment. It does seem to have a more mental and physical guidance for players and that's always a good thing. I don't agree with the person who thinks the inbetweens should be coloured per definition. Could be a cosmetic extra later for "nice border shap fetishists" and "completionists", but wouldn't drive it as much.


It all ending on a red section does kinda feel like a number of dead ends. This might be down to how Indar is designed (currently) with the canyons all ending at the gate itself. Of course, if you can pass through the warpgates at some point or it becomes neutral or capturable, then that "dead end, must hold end point against all odds cause we can't move on" is going to feel different (but as long as the gate has fixed allegiance, those territories will probably be seen as too hard to control near the ends). So I wonder if having "split-plugs" there could work or even one major base just outside the gate to control the adjecent territory ("end-plug", like any base in such a line would be a "plug" or choke point that could slow down advances by good defense).

Plus it limits the options a bit. Where we have up to 30 targets per continents (to defend or attack) today, we'll have less. That should make it a bit more easy to direct combat as commanders.

But that's a bit much speculation on a single work in progress tweet. So I'm going to keep some reservations about it before passing judgment. I do see the potential, though it may still need more refinement and I still would expect the different capture systems to be carefully (re)considered under the new state. Speaking of which, I expect more predictable timers to come out of this due to the influence being more linear.

[capiqu]

I really wish Devs would give us a test server where WE, can test things out and give them imput before they make drastic changes to the live game.

As far as Figment, we need those Demomaps :)

[Daimond]

this was a tweet from higby

let the thread explode

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media/album/mp52rz6sp6/20130302_5132d0376fa72.jpg (http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2322)

http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2322

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/308044274384138240


WE definantly need a test server to test and tweek this, if needed. But I like what I see, it brings in a form of the lattice system from PS1 while improving apon it, as to not lose to much of what they have done in this game.

As you can see it appears that around Main Bases, they have keeped the curent style of hex systems. While on the other hand, gives you an expanded lattice system on the outposts only, with multi routes, alowing in some forms a possable predictable path, as they try and advance. You can still be flanked for all sides, but lest you know as they approch where you may want to consentrate forces on a peticular path they are taking. Alowing for possable accual pre-defence lines to be set up, before they get there, not trying to set somthing up after they have breached walls.

[NewSith]

Simple solution. To actually cap something, people must stay on point all the time. This adds strategic value and Tactical value as well. The problem with ghost capping is the fact that noone is on it at the time, as now to flip a base you MUST have people on point all the time, hence the flipping stops.

If noone is falling back an resecuring our lines, we MUST suffer the consequences of those. Without them, the game will become EVEN more stale then it already is. The Attack vs. Attack mentality is one that the players create, not the devs. People must be willing to fall back sometimes and resecure our possessions.

By pidgeon holing zerg formations against each other, you are creating new crown, which by themselves are problematic for making the game flow go to a complete stop. Harsh punishments should be instilled to the faction that doesn't protect its territories (in this case, resources - kinda).

The way, I see it (from a standpoint of that guy in an ATV), even if you force attackers to stay on points, you will still have 10 people hacking 10 hexes simultaneously and 0 guys trying to resecure.

You're absolutely right that the Attack vs Attack mentality is player driven, however the problem is - you cannot punish people that do not want strategic gameplay. They have the same right to play the game, as strategy-utilizing players. If you allow freedom for both groups, on the other hand, both groups will suffer. You have to find a compromise (a harsh description of which would be "punishing both"), to actually lead to fun for both sides. It's very much like visiting a doctor when you need to reset a broken arm. In the moment of resetting, you'll feel even greater pain, than you are already experiencing, but if you don't do that, you'll remain crippled. So is with the system.


Allow me to elaborate on what PS2 Strategy is like at the moment: Imagine a 12-player Capture The Flag server. With one catch - there're 10 flags per side, randomly situated across the map. For 12 players, there are 20 flags. Even if you do want to defend, that is completely unfun and masochistic, since the only real option you have if you want to win is to go on a complete offense, racing for the captures with your enemy. This is a result of an overabundance of choice.

[Thunderhawk]

Bring this in soon, all I have to say, done enough Lattice posts discussing the benefits, this is a good compromise bringing in the direction of PS1 lattices mixed with the optional extras that exist with PS2 system.

Good, very good, but need more information regarding what is Malorn and Higby considering and how far they want to go to make this work.

Look forward to the development of this idea further, and would like to see if we could get more information regarding how they want to go with this.

[Baneblade]

I'll be impressed when I see what it looks like on say... northeast Esamir.

[Dkamanus]

The way, I see it (from a standpoint of that guy in an ATV), even if you force attackers to stay on points, you will still have 10 people hacking 10 hexes simultaneously and 0 guys trying to resecure.

You're absolutely right that the Attack vs Attack mentality is player driven, however the problem is - you cannot punish people that do not want strategic gameplay. They have the same right to play the game, as strategy-utilizing players. If you allow freedom for both groups, on the other hand, both groups will suffer. You have to find a compromise (a harsh description of which would be "punishing both"), to actually lead to fun for both sides. It's very much like visiting a doctor when you need to reset a broken arm. In the moment of resetting, you'll feel even greater pain, than you are already experiencing, but if you don't do that, you'll remain crippled. So is with the system.

Allow me to elaborate on what PS2 Strategy is like at the moment: Imagine a 12-player Capture The Flag server. With one catch - there're 10 flags per side, randomly situated across the map. For 12 players, there are 20 flags. Even if you do want to defend, that is completely unfun and masochistic, since the only real option you have if you want to win is to go on a complete offense, racing for the captures with your enemy. This is a result of an overabundance of choice.

But here's the thing. Ghost capping is only allowed on places NOONE is fighting even the slightiest against. And even then, ghost capping is limited by the number of hexes connected to a friendly hex. The maximum amount of numbers connected to a single hex is 6 (which is almost impossible to have), therefore, defending the hex that opens the other hexes is needed. You don't need to go against 20 hexes, you just need to go against 1 hex, hence it'll open more hexes.

There is no way for you to actually ghost cap a whole continent unless the opposing faction is letting you do it. And that's where the problem lies, not the system itself. I have already said about that earlier. The system should punish the faction further for not defending what it has (like in other FPS shooters, which punish the losing faction with actually losing the game).

In this case, a stricter, harsher resource punishment and systems like the loss of a tech plant not allowing MBT spawns are options that can surely help make people more inclined to defend their territories, before things turn uglier for NOT doing so. Smed likes to compared PS2 to EVE, though it would be necessary for stricter measures to make it look more like EVE.

Cattering to the CoD community by streamlining such a good system is asking to allienate even more your community with feelings that the devs REALLY don't know what they are doing. Which is already bad enough.

[NewSith]

But here's the thing. Ghost capping is only allowed on places NOONE is fighting even the slightiest against. And even then, ghost capping is limited by the number of hexes connected to a friendly hex. The maximum amount of numbers connected to a single hex is 6 (which is almost impossible to have), therefore, defending the hex that opens the other hexes is needed. You don't need to go against 20 hexes, you just need to go against 1 hex, hence it'll open more hexes.

There is no way for you to actually ghost cap a whole continent unless the opposing faction is letting you do it. And that's where the problem lies, not the system itself. I have already said about that earlier. The system should punish the faction further for not defending what it has (like in other FPS shooters, which punish the losing faction with actually losing the game).

In this case, a stricter, harsher resource punishment and systems like the loss of a tech plant not allowing MBT spawns are options that can surely help make people more inclined to defend their territories, before things turn uglier for NOT doing so. Smed likes to compared PS2 to EVE, though it would be necessary for stricter measures to make it look more like EVE.

Cattering to the CoD community by streamlining such a good system is asking to allienate even more your community with feelings that the devs REALLY don't know what they are doing. Which is already bad enough.

I guess, I can only add one thing. You're right again, yet there's just one thing, you need to understand... Allow me to do the comparisons again.


As I said above, it is the same as resetting one's arm. Though PlanetSide 2 has way more crippled limbs, and resetting them all at once may result in shock and patient's unconciousness. The devs are already feeding anaesthetics to the community, like these small, yet tasty changes (buggies, class revamps, account-wide unlocks, etc), but they still cannot fix everything at once, since as you can clearly see, even such matter as territory system caused such a wild commotion.


If they, say, implement, the lattice, generators and resource system revamps all at once, there's a high chance of losing a very big portion of the community that either can't or afraid to see the bigger picture. I understand why and what you're proposing, but you'll be surprised to know (I was, at least), how many people would actually EXPLODE with rage if suddenly you couldn't pull MBTs from sanc without a Tech Plant.


The game Sony released (again with comparisons) is like a cardhouse built without cards in critical supportive positions, and now they are puting in the missing cards. The more cards they try to push in at the same time, the bigger the chance of the cardhouse breaking down. Problem is - the majority of the people watching the process will go away if the construct fails. And even though it would not take much effort to rebuild it, the chance for getting more observers will already be lost.

[Figment]

Dkamanus, your argument is flawed entirely.

First off, ghost hacking should never be encouraged in the first place. Why? Because this is a game and ghosting is boring. Gaming is something you do to not get bored.

Secondly, less predictability leads to more offensive strategies and less defensive strategies, but also reduces the value of the offensive strategies, because the offensive strategies of the opponent will undo them completely as there's no way to hold on to what you gained with your previous strategy. In short, you completely devaluate any and all semi-long term and long term strategy.

Not having options also devaluates strategy, but in PS1 you had more options than you seem to be able to admit. Never drained Pamba in a Cyssor threeway fight over Leza, or a Zotz drain in a Naum stalemate I see. Just as shortsighted as 90% of the playerbase was then that never considered a drain on continent as a valuable alternative and only zerged the nearest base open to attack, or perhaps that one far away, linked base.

There was tons of strategy in PS1 from taking bases in the appropriate order to minimise resistance and optimise continent capture time, taking or leaving targets of opportunity, stalling for reinforcements, drawing people to other continents, you name it. I'm sorry, but even within the restrictions of the PS1 system - EVEN WITH CAPITAL RESTRICTIONS (which I hate, btw) - the amount of strategic choices are enough for 15-30 minutes of /c discussion PER CHOICE during a campaign.

Acquisition of "soft" resources (influencing the resource ticker) will never be considered a reason for defense. These aren't felt till long after the fact and often changes are undone anyway by gains elsewhere. "soft" resources are at most a reason for counter-offensives. When they're "hard resources" like direct benefits that are felt immediately in battle (like indeed, tank generation), then yes. Up to a point. It has to be considered viable.


When we're talking a defense though, we're talking about a concentration of troops, typically inferior in number. If you have superior numbered groups that can ignore the defenders (which have to be in place before the act of defense can occur), especially if you have a poorly defensible position, this concentration will be higher. It means this draws away potential defenders of surrounding areas. Especially if you also consider hardware differences (tanks) and temporal chokepoints.

If you then consider NewSith's example, then to fend off even a 1:1 ratio in defense may cause too great a temporal chokepoint for the defenders and attackers could have easily ghosted other terrain already - and if the position is indefensible, will likely get this too. UNTIL a massive counter-offensive takes place. Guess what happens in PS2 now?


Imagine for instance if you can defend one or two hexes against an almost even, but slightly bigger group, but there are 4 hexes to defend. If the attacker moves in large groups and splits up, the defender will have to split up as well. But since the defender is in a worse numerical position, even if you manage to hold two areas with 1:1 ratios, you'll lose others to shear population differences, simply because you can't be everywhere at once to defend.

The current system caters to nobody, not even CoD, because it DOES NOT streamline anything, but instills absolute chaos beyond any player(group)'s control. And to say a streamlined version caters to CoD crowd is just utterly preposterous, because all CoD is about is chaotic deathmatch! If anything, you'd think the current system (with all the bases designed like a deathmatch and next to no strategic flow value to territory) is more CoD than BF or PS.

Sorry, but you don't make sense and you seem trapped in tunnelvision of your own ideas.




If you make the current system punish players for not defending and force players to defend areas they know they can't defend due to base design, you're going to kill the game almost over night. If the bases were defensible there'd be something to say for that, because then defense could be fun. I play nothing but defense and I get utterly infuriated and frustrated by the lack of time and options to mean anything in a fight as defender, while you're constantly being outghost UNTIL YOU SAY FUCK IT, AND GO OUT AND OUTGHOST THEM.

Neither of which is fun and the current system is almost entirely to blame. Almost, because of the other design choices worsen the situation.

[NewSith]

Long post

Actually Figgy, he's right. The system itself, without anything else, would really add nothing, but only take away. But since it's Malorn's design we're speaking of, I am sure he has some extra-steps in mind, after the thing gets in.

[Figment]

Actually Figgy, he's right. The system itself, without anything else, would really add nothing, but only take away. But since it's Malorn's design we're speaking of, I am sure he has some extra-steps in mind, after the thing gets in.

I disagree.

Less can be more.

More can be less.

It's too early to say, but in this case, the current system is definitely more is less.

[NewSith]

I disagree.

Less can be more.

More can be less.

It's too early to say, but in this case, the current system is definitely more is less.

Elaboration: with less choices, the size of an average fight increases. That's fun, true that, but it also works both ways, since we don't have NTU, Generators, Benefits worth of having and Inter-Continental Lattice. Small groups will have even less to do. He's coming from that angle.

[VGCS]

As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

sound like a good enough /vouch to me. Only thing I'm not clear on is how it's going to affect the flow of vehicles and that "balance" of resources which has always been widely criticized here?.... For instance I hate how often I run out of Infantry creds & always seem to have way too many Vehicle creds. I'd probably use those extra creds more often but the flow of reinforcements in these "hexes" usually meant I was wasting every point I spent because I rarely ever got any support when I drove in that direction from the nearest base. Most times I'd get rocket podded 500m in despite being under dense Trees while it was pitch black out.




Brainfart to go along with this: Y'know what we need?.... a /Bet option like CSS. Ya put how ever many points of extra resource you have like "Vehicle" creds down when you get near a contested base... and the longer it takes to capture or defend it, the more of those points are converted into that base's reward resource.

[Figment]

Elaboration: with less choices, the size of an average fight increases. That's fun, true that, but it also works both ways, since we don't have NTU, Generators, Benefits worth of having and Inter-Continental Lattice. Small groups will have even less to do. He's coming from that angle.

Which is why I've mentioned the other design elements like base layout.

Small groups in a choke system can actually perform a defensive and stalling role which they can't now. So I have to disagree with his assesment.

Intercontinental lattice is irrelevant at this stage (sadly) and NTU is not needed as long as defensibility isn't high enough for sieges to last.


I don't actually see any role for small groups in the current fight aside from zerg assistance (mini-objectives) and ghosting, because defense is pointless for small groups, offense is pointless for small groups aside from zerging together.

And while zerg-assistance will always remain, ghosting is not something to hold on to.

To say their role would decline in a slightly more restricted fight is laughable at best. If anything, small groups can start holding off zergs in defensible locations and block an entire "capture passage route". Look, we had a hugely restricted fight in PS1 and small groups were key everywhere. Why? Defensibility and blocking routes.

I'm sorry, but genholds isn't the only thing you can do. Even if those sort of strategic ops are much needed AND WOULD ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN THE NEW SYSTEM SINCE YOU COULD CUT OFF PATHS WAY BETTER IF EVERYTHING ISN'T DIRECTLY CONNECTED THROUGH SIX OR MORE ROUTES.

One could not block a PS1 capital benefit because of the shield without extreme measures (downing everything linked to that base). This mean that it was virtually impossible to deny benefits back then. But on continents like Cyssor, Ishundar and Searhus, with more links and more hubs WITHOUT capital shields, that wasn't the case at all. The current PS2 hex system passes benefits far more readily than a restricted system.

Bleeding an enemy dry by cutting them off would quite likely be much easier for small teams in the new system than the old. Especially if gens and other such objectives and mechanics are introduced.

[Phantomdestiny]

Which is why I've mentioned the other design elements like base layout.

Small groups in a choke system can actually perform a defensive and stalling role which they can't now. So I have to disagree with his assesment.

Intercontinental lattice is irrelevant at this stage (sadly) and NTU is not needed as long as defensibility isn't high enough for sieges to last.


I don't actually see any role for small groups in the current fight aside from zerg assistance (mini-objectives) and ghosting, because defense is pointless for small groups, offense is pointless for small groups aside from zerging together.

And while zerg-assistance will always remain, ghosting is not something to hold on to.

To say their role would decline in a slightly more restricted fight is laughable at best. If anything, small groups can start holding off zergs in defensible locations and block an entire "capture passage route". Look, we had a hugely restricted fight in PS1 and small groups were key everywhere. Why? Defensibility and blocking routes.

I'm sorry, but genholds isn't the only thing you can do. Even if those sort of strategic ops are much needed AND WOULD ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN THE NEW SYSTEM SINCE YOU COULD CUT OFF PATHS WAY BETTER IF EVERYTHING ISN'T DIRECTLY CONNECTED THROUGH SIX OR MORE ROUTES.

One could not block a PS1 capital benefit because of the shield without extreme measures (downing everything linked to that base). This mean that it was virtually impossible to deny benefits back then. But on continents like Cyssor, Ishundar and Searhus, with more links and more hubs WITHOUT capital shields, that wasn't the case at all. The current PS2 hex system passes benefits far more readily than a restricted system.

Bleeding an enemy dry by cutting them off would quite likely be much easier for small teams in the new system than the old. Especially if gens and other such objectives and mechanics are introduced.

i'm pretty positive that if they introduce this prototype , they will later introduce other mechanics such as gens holds , ANTs , maybe resource convoys protection with the new resources introduced later , protection of mining the vehicles themselves? , we have yet to see what ps2 truly will be after the first year .

[Badjuju]

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

Love it. Thanks for the updates.

[Dkamanus]

Then the whole problem (again) is not in the Hex system, but the insistence of actually NOT adding extra systems to the game for fear of them "over complicating" the game, which is non-sense. Smaller groups Won't be able to stop zergs because they are SMALL groups. This isn't a mechanics problem, is a base design problem. Smaller outposts are simply rolled over because there are too many entry points at all times, making smaller outfits not be able to defend everything in a small outpost because people can pour through every direction, or shell indescriminately.

Less predictable defense? We all know players have a natural tendency to go towards bigger bases and its outlyings and you can actually predict quite easily thanks to the map informing you there are enemies at a location and that it is being capped. Done lots of defenses and attacks trusting completely on the information the map gives me (even an outfit members actually corrected me when I said that "we know when and where to strike" while he said "I know...".

The hex system is awesome. It allows control of the map and makes smaller outfits actually contribute by capping map parts where the bigger zergier outfits can deal with the enemies zergfit. Remembering that this is a continental conquest game, if we only have zergs, the continent becomes meaningless and only the fights (which are already meaningless enough) matter. This will actually drive more of their established base of players off because LESS meaning is given to the Metagame and more to the Huge battles.

Bleeding an enemy is easy enough as it is. Without the map, clueless zergs have a pre determinate direction to follow, actually steamrolling anything in its path. NOT only that, smaller outfits trying to outflank the zerg is something that'll be near to impossible, because now, you wont be able to "hide" on the map. This change creates EVEN more reactive players then proactive players, which, in the end, is even more detrimental overall.

They want some extra focus? Make all large bases lattice between themselves, forcing zergs to go towards those objectives to keep moving forwards to the big next objective, while retaining the hex system, which will be used to delay, flank and outmanouver. I've done this several times, and it's quite easy to do so. Some people ghostcap for ghostcapping, others because they want to take the heat off the frontlines, or want the enemy to focus their attention on that specific spot.

We can't forget that a choking system doesnt mean chokepoint at all, making defending objectives more about straight forward defense (which noone does because "it doesn't rewards good exp or is of no consequence) and less about unconventional defense strategies (like actually being able to hit ANY part of the map in less then a minute or adjecency contest), all of which are valid strategies and can be very fruitful, just need more willingful players to stop feeding the enemy and take their heads out of their asses.

i'm pretty positive that if they introduce this prototype , they will later introduce other mechanics such as gens holds , ANTs , maybe resource convoys protection with the new resources introduced later , protection of mining the vehicles themselves? , we have yet to see what ps2 truly will be after the first year .

Which should have been added at first, and not now, when things look worse. Hopefully they stop this non-sense of BF or CoDing the game and actually gave people objectives, REAL objectives to fight over, making us actually fight for the god damn whole continent, and not some useless base that's only worth as a passage for a bigger, important base. The Stronghold is an example. It's nice to defend, and yet, completely meaningless to do so.

Excelent Examples are SCUs in biolabs. They are the objectives that are missing a lot in PS2. If you lose it, you lose the base, that simple. That HARSH punishment makes players actually try to fight harder, making them try to stop the enemy from blowing the SCU and making them lose the base. When I say that punishment in this game ins't that harsh, this is a prime example (and direction) PS2 developers should look for. If I can actually lose a base because of one single generation (which has to be brought down after a generator), then I'll fucking fight over it, in order to repel the enemy attack. It is that simple.

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

Extra systems, like all of those in PS1, will make small squad action become better. Not a reinvention of the hex system. Predictability is something your map system gives away VERY reliably, but the players don't use it. Better signaling of "lattice" like from big instalations to big instalations to warpgate would be much more appreciated. For instance, we have Zurvan. With Zurva on NC possesion, Tawrich and Rashnu Open up for attack. While rashnu could be open for attack one you had Mao Tech Plant, Tawrich would be open for NC attack only if they had Zurvan or Allatum. This would force NC to seek out Zurvan more often in order to hit Tawrich and stop magrider production except on warpgate.

Smaller squads want more interaction with the game. Actually influencing the MAP by ghost capping is what some players like, A LOT, and how a lot of smaller outfits actually benefit from the strategic level. For instance, on the screenshot higby gave us. If I attack Feldspar, I'm unable to attack Arroyo Torre unless I have the Tawrich tech plant. And this is a problem because, If I want to stop the enemy AT arroyo torre, so the people on tawrich can secure easier, I cant do it, because there won't be adjecency, or a tower to help me secure that location.

[Figment]

No, you miss the point: bases like The Crown doesn't STOP a zerg even when it DOES prevent going through them because zergs simply go AROUND the defender under the current capture system.


You're now a pebble in a river, not a dam.


A dam that isn't reinforced will break (bump in the road).

A dam that's reinforced but in the middle of a lake, rather than containing the lake in its basin is an useless waste of effort.


You need both a reinforced dam (defensible base) and a river (flow that can be blocked).


Hitting any part of the map at any time isn't beneficial to defenders, only attackers. We had this in Tech Test and PS1-pre lattice. Both sucked greatly in never giving the defenders a moment's rest to concentrate on holding a frontline.

Zergs ruled supreme. Don't ever even suggest to go back to that.




Ghostcapping however, isn't an interesting mechanic to maintain. It's strategic, but not the type of gameplay you need in this game. This isn't Hearts of Iron III. Any ghosting should encourage defenders turning up and push them back. If you can ghost in any direction, they won't bother in sufficient quantities because it's more effort than reward.

http://www.paradoxplaza.com/sites/default/files/SemperFi_TheatreEdit.jpg

[Mietz]

Actually, I have both sports and work during weekends. No coffee breaks to type essays.


I was joking ;D

[Figment]

I was joking ;D

Me too, I don't drink coffee. ;D

[Stanis]

This isn't a mechanics problem, is a base design problem. Smaller outposts are simply rolled over because there are too many entry points at all times, making smaller outfits not be able to defend everything in a small outpost because people can pour through every direction, or shell indescriminately.


We can't forget that a choking system doesnt mean chokepoint at all, making defending objectives more about straight forward defense (which noone does because "it doesn't rewards good exp or is of no consequence) and less about unconventional defense strategies (like actually being able to hit ANY part of the map in less then a minute or adjecency contest), all of which are valid strategies and can be very fruitful, just need more willingful players to stop feeding the enemy and take their heads out of their asses.

Excelent Examples are SCUs in biolabs. They are the objectives that are missing a lot in PS2. If you lose it, you lose the base, that simple. That HARSH punishment makes players actually try to fight harder, making them try to stop the enemy from blowing the SCU and making them lose the base. When I say that punishment in this game ins't that harsh, this is a prime example (and direction) PS2 developers should look for. If I can actually lose a base because of one single generation (which has to be brought down after a generator), then I'll fucking fight over it, in order to repel the enemy attack. It is that simple.



I've said this in this thread already and I'll say it again.

Onatha Bio Lab.
Enemy has a single adjacent hex to the north.
We have the northern satellite defended, waiting for them.

The enemy ignore us.
They can take all the other satellites.
They can target the key objectives in the Biolab.

I find this extremely dull both strategically and tactically.

Firstly you say the design is appaling and it can't be defended because enemy can pour in every direction.

A choke system - a hard point for defence is exactly what this game lacks.
There is almost nowhere that you can say "we hold here guys - the enemy can't get past us".
Equally there is no location you can say "lets take out the gens at <small bsae> that'll cut of their intel/tech/benefits to the front line and make the front line fight easier at <bigbase>

Finally you use the SCU at the biolab. The big fight-over kill switch as an incentive to fight for it.
I was - I had defenders at squad strength in 3 seperate locations and yet discovered due to base design and more importantly the studpidity of the hex adjacency that my efforts at defence are meaningless.


Don't get me wrong - I am fighting my defensive battles in the skies and hills between hexes.
By the time a fight reaches a base I expect it a relief or counter-attack force to be required.


But that picture makes the game "attack v defence". Rather than the attack v. attack it is now (thanks whoeer said that)
It also makes the big bases far more valuable for their positions as major modes on the hex walls / links.
Finally the single most important change I see is the satellites becoming independent hexes.

We need a test server. This has potential.

It may not be the solution for every continent.
For example - better design on amerish already forces this game play to a much greater extent by better terrain.

But until we can get to a point where solid defence strategies are as equally viable as offensive - we aren't going to progress beyond fights being zerg on zerg.
Because a smaller, organised force must be able to hold off and halt a larger disorganised force.

And right now - that's not my experience of playing the game at all.


There are other mechanics to fix - resources, command, benefits.
There are other mechanics that could be introduced - intel, comms, generators.

This seems like a step in the right direction.

[MurderBunneh]

One thing I hate and seems like it would take minimal effort to change is making it so the cap does not advance if there is nobody on it.
At least then the guys going around ghost capping would have to actually cap the base and sit there instead of flipping it and flying to the next one.

[Sifer2]

So how many times did Higby, and Smedley say they were not going to drop the Hex system, and to get used to it? And now they do this lol. What's next surprise announcement of Sanctuaries, and Vehicle entry/exit animations coming back?

To be honest I don't like how the map looks though I know it's a prototype. I just kind of like how the color borders touched each other creating a frontline instead of colored snakes. I do understand the intent though of reducing connections, and making that easy to see what the connects are.

I think the result of the system will be less ghost cap, and more large fights which is good. Though I worry it might also make things even more repetitive if this doesn't include continent locking. Whole new Crown like places could form as a result of the change. Popular high traffic areas like a Biolab could be better than ever for farming.

I think it's a positive change for strategic game flow. Though I think that on the tactical level that things are still weighed far too heavily towards superior numbers. And this wont really help that just make the issue more obvious.

[Mietz]

Me too, I don't drink coffee. ;D

How do you people even survive...

[Mustakrakish]

I think it's a step in the right direction in terms of giving flow to strategic gameplay.

What I think will make or break this as a game mechanic, though, is how this will affect the capture times for bases and outposts. If the length of the borders between hexes is effectively reduced, how is the influence of one territory on another determined?

[Climhazzard]

I like the option of just bypassing a heavily-defended installation and weakening it by surrounding it.

This possibility exists with the current system. In fact, it seems to be one of things a number of people dislike about the current system.

It would be nice if every place on the map produced benefits or resources. The more you link together, the more benefit your faction gets.

Uhh... This is exactly how it currently works.

First off, ghost hacking should never be encouraged in the first place. Why? Because this is a game and ghosting is boring. Gaming is something you do to not get bored.

And yet people ghost cap.

Why? They're not doing it for the XP, because they don't hang around for the actual capture. People ghost cap because it creates a distraction. If the enemy completely ignores the region and the cap goes through, that's just gravy.

Ghost capping can be easily solved by requiring at least one person on point.

Not having options also devaluates strategy, but in PS1 you had more options than you seem to be able to admit. Never drained Pamba in a Cyssor threeway fight over Leza, or a Zotz drain in a Naum stalemate I see. Just as shortsighted as 90% of the playerbase was then that never considered a drain on continent as a valuable alternative and only zerged the nearest base open to attack, or perhaps that one far away, linked base.

This seems to be a complete non sequitur, as it requires features that don't currently exist and aren't suggested by the prototype being discussed.

No, you miss the point: bases like The Crown doesn't STOP a zerg even when it DOES prevent going through them because zergs simply go AROUND the defender under the current capture system.

This is true, but I don't see why it's a problem. If the current owners of The Crown wish to allow the other empires to get away with that, why is it the system's fault?

Even then, a large number of each empire gets sucked into that drain called The Crown.

[Sirisian]

After my quick initial comment I wanted to expand on some of the points I made earlier:
Part of me wishes if they go this route that they'd remove the roads and spread the bases out more so we can have fights between points with more cover. 16x16 km maps would really help this game especially with front lines. With the current setup of the map the front lines are basically just bases and roads. It's way too predictable.

I said predictable because Indar, and Amerish to an extent, are plagued with areas in the canyons and valleys that are essentially linear gameplay and take what is supposed to be sandbox tactics of assaulting an objective and turn it into a one-way march. To make this clear what we have now is 20 meter wide canyons with no cover on the path. What should be happening is taking the gameplay of a large open field with cover and pushing it into the paths between bases. I mentioned roads need to be removed, but this isn't the case necessarily if the map can be made larger. Imagine if for a moment when you look at the image that areas marked in red actually added to the gameplay and weren't void space:
http://i.imgur.com/r6hrpUS.jpg

Some ideas that would help would be widening the paths by 50 meters on either side. Then add paths along the sides of the mountains. Not thin paths. Like large 10 meter paths with rocks on them for cover. This could include metal staircases with catwalks to give more vertical choices within each path. Rocks that provide cover along the road. Not small ones. Like large 30m rocks providing cover and paths for players to climb up. I'm not an artist, but something like this (http://images.fineartamerica.com/images-medium/indian-canyon-rocks-dominic-piperata.jpg) on a bigger scale all along the canyon sides.

I think some others brought the predictable path problem up (including TheDrone a few times) with others:
Almost a bit too predictable though, but then, there's only so much to tell from a picture.
Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.
Would it be possible to put some paths that only infantry, even light assault could traverse to get access to? They could be mountain passes or caverns that vehicles can't fit through.
As a side note, Malorn since you have a programming background you might try persuading them to implement the transvoxel algorithm to add more clever paths into the canyons and mountain regions. Right now what the artists are doing with models seems kind of limited and that would solve it and give them a lot of choices. Adding small tunnels from the ground on a canyon for instance up to the top of the canyon. Even if normal models were used it would open up a lot of choice for player movements. (Allowing people to fully use the landscape).

That's what a lot of these issues are about. Giving players more choices within a path while still making the direction of an attack somewhat predictable. One goal I think should be moving fights outside of 20 meters from a base. There is only a few places where this happens and it's at bases and outposts which have a decent amount of cover around them like Crossroads and can't be shot down into easily so they're at an even level with the rest of the fight (while still having cover all around). This is where my suggestion of making the maps twice as large comes into play. Most of the bases and outposts are within a stone's throw of one another making defending and attacking extremely predictable. Roads are huge fault to this since it drives the zerg, but a big issue is that the road is often the best route. Try to think of ways that would make the main roads not the best route. Add paths and places outside 50m where sunderers would want to deploy and making deploying close to a base or outpost disadvantageous. Mines have helped a lot with this, but some of the bases are designed with walls of terrain around them like at many amp stations leading to very predictable assaults. In PS1 you never knew where an AMS would be. It could be in the woods behind some trees or under a catwalk. In PS2 fighting most bases the sunderer placements are all inside of, for the lack of a better phrase, the sphere of influence basically less than 10 meters from a base wall or outpost building. There is a serious lack of cover on the maps to add to fun infantry battles. Some of my most memorable battles in PS2 are now mostly in open fields since you get really interesting troop movements and a sandbox feel with squads as they move around.

I'm not sure if there's a performance reason for the lack of cover everywhere and the lack of huge amounts of trees on Amerish, but having cover like that around outposts with more flat battlegrounds would really help things. (Amerish is horrible for this. Most of the bases have exactly 2 way to attack them with very simple paths and one or two obvious AMS placements).

This isn't something Im actually expecting and WANTING to go live. This will actually streamline the fights and will make the strategic level of the game MUCH more poorer. And this WON'T fix the metagame, since it also involves rewards for continent locking which aren't present. Allow me to elaborate:
[...]
Not only that, actual flanking manouvers in a strategic level (NOT A TACTICAL LEVEL) won't exist anymore, since now you can't force your enemy to go after you to actually try and avoid you to lose adjecency. I remember we once saved Hvar just by pod dropping on NS Research Data Lab and resecuring it, giving us precious minutes to get in and resecure Hvar.
[...]
With the new system, you are bottlenecked to 4 options of paths, which can be predicted even by the most retarded of players (Which should be punished for being so retarded), and bring the zergs to one place, where once smaller, organized and smarter outfits could outmanouver and actually be of use. In this new system, smaller outfits will lose a lot of their purpouse.
I don't think you should view it as creating metagame. It's not doing that at all and I don't think that's the goal of it. It's just redesigning the current lattice system and the connections to be more obvious.

About flanking at the strategic level I think you bring up a really good point. Malorn you might want to consider dropping the hex system as a way to define connectivity. You're invariably going to run into issues where you want to connect two bases but in creating the path you touch another hex or overlap one which can't have a connection. Your image indicates this issue:
http://i.imgur.com/QUMzw1x.jpg
You have an obvious bridge yet you left the connection out. What happens if you want to add tunnels later through a mountain for infantry and define an adjacency. No matter how small you make the hexes you can't visually show overlapping regions.

There's been a few suggestions by myself and others to increase the game's vertical gameplay. Bridges to an extent do that in certain places. The other suggestion of large cave networks would conflict with the visualization of using hexes. I'd be very weary of limiting the level design and vertical gameplay just to preserve an idea of hexes in the lattice system. The hexes serve no real purpose aesthetically so don't be afraid to drop the visual style for something else.

[typhaon]

I'm skeptical. I watched that AT dev talk when this discussion came up and I completely felt those guys were barking up the wrong tree. Lack of lattice isn't the problem... it's the lack of rewards/motivation to capture/hold territory.

Continent locking will help. A reward system that generally follows the concept of... the more difficult a place is to defend, the better the reward for holding possession.... is the way to go.

Presently... people care almost nothing for the rewards - even the big bases - and the most eagerly defended places are just the ones that offer the best 'farm' potential.

I don't see battle flow on Indar as a problem, at all. I couldn't imagine a more predictable continent. Is this just a visual aid for new players?

[Roy Awesome]

So, I had the idea that to offset the linearity, add in towers or small bases (that have the same capture mechanic as the adjacent bases at facilities have) in the neutral zones. When a faction fully encircles the neutral territory with their lanes, the neutral territory becomes that faction's territory. When the neut territory is encircled, all the small bases in the middle of the territories become locked for the owning faction.

This would give some non-linearity to the design and encourage small groups to fight over these small bases with spawn points and vehicle terminals

[p0intman]

unexpected and most interesting. tentatively and very cautiously optimistic. now, where in this is the trap that must be there?

edit: to anybody who fears linear gameplay does not quite understand how this would work. i don't see that in this.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

Awesome! I'm 99,9% positive that this will improve battle flow.

[psijaka]

Like what I see, making the hex system take account of natural barriers to produce "supply lines" is a much better way forward than an artificial lattice.

Although in the example, the bridge running NE-SW is not taken into account; surely this is a valid supply line.

[PredatorFour]

This is really good exactly what me and countless others were thinking when we were postig about the 'simple' lattice coming back.

[Lord Mondando]

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived.
this is because in PS1, there were things small squads could do behind lines to effect game-play like sabotage generators in bases.

No such thing currently exists in PS2. If this was to accopany some sort of introduction of additional layers of strategy to the map above and beyond taking bases, would not be an issue. There's really no point pretending that what reducing 5-6 choices to 3-4 is is massively reduce the scope of play at the operational or strategic level. It also, at least from what's released completely takes flanking off the table.

Still worried, still think this will end up as 'join the zerg and submit your FPS to the flames or die'. Still don't think you've completely thought this one through.

[Lord Mondando]

Also a point that should be brought up here if has not allready.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/why-nay-sayers-to-the-prototype-hex-system-are-wrong.100415/page-14#post-1336867

poorly thought out what with all the combat taking place in areas not on the roads.

On Miller at least, a large (im not saying the majority, but a significant and fun minority) amount of outfit v outfit combat takes place outfit of the bases and travel lanes are limited to 3-4 per base. A large percentage of the map becomes irrelevant simply in virtue of people being heavily deincentivised not to go there.

Take the ground between North point and Silver watch on Esamir. If the teaser is anything to go by, thouse two bases might not be connected (being so close to the WG and separated by hilly terrain).

If so, that's an end to having largely infantry based fights on the small set of hills between the two.


I can appreciate this is being driven by market pressures, but I think game mechanics being more simplistic, indeed more zergy. Is not going to make the game more involving in the long run. I think introduce this, and in months people will be thinking.

-Hey remember when we should just fight anywhere, that was fun. Sure ghost capping and back capping was a pain, but being unable to predict what the enemy did next entirely forced you to think about what you were doing. Oh whats that ZERG MOVE FOWARD RARARARARA.

[Mietz]

Ghost capping can be easily solved by requiring at least one person on point.


Yeah that facilitates great gameplay and strategy:

We will have this epic fight, you stay here at this point and wait for someone that might or might not ghost-cap.

I'm sure most players are just positively burning with anticipation to login and wait around a facility or be yanked out of the large fight to lone resecure facilities.

[HiroshiChugi]

I like what I see, but sadly, some part of me still seems to say that this won't work and that people will find SOMETHING and if not, ANYTHING to complain about when this comes out...


Edit: Grammar.

[Twido]

I have a few reservations about this.
While I do think that it will make it easier to find a fight and make a more obvious front line, I fear that it will encourage a zergy style of game play and reduce strategic options.

Maybe in this case it would be better to start off with small changes that are a little less restrictive first, and then make further adjustments if necessary.

[KamikaZee]

I think people focus too much on the "only 4 lanes to go" thing. The tease is from right at the warpgate, but that's usually not the only territory you own.
So in that example, most of the time on indar Zurvan and Tawrich are capped by the SE gate owner. Both of these facilities will most likely spawn 3-4 routes themselves.
Which in itself is awesome, since then bis facilities gain more importance, not just because they give direct benefits but also because they open up a ton of territory to capture, acting as a staging area.

Also just because they create "lanes" doesn't mean that suddenly you can't go any other path anymore. Sure it directs the zerg to follow a path, but any organized Platoon doesn't need to do that. Hitting massive defensive forces in the "path" you took? Then send a few squads down one of the other possible routes and start capping so that the defender has to react.

[Lord Mondando]

I think people focus too much on the "only 4 lanes to go" thing. The tease is from right at the warpgate, but that's usually not the only territory you own.
So in that example, most of the time on indar Zurvan and Tawrich are capped by the SE gate owner. Both of these facilities will most likely spawn 3-4 routes themselves.
Which in itself is awesome, since then bis facilities gain more importance, not just because they give direct benefits but also because they open up a ton of territory to capture, acting as a staging area.

Also just because they create "lanes" doesn't mean that suddenly you can't go any other path anymore. Sure it directs the zerg to follow a path, but any organized Platoon doesn't need to do that. Hitting massive defensive forces in the "path" you took? Then send a few squads down one of the other possible routes and start capping so that the defender has to react.
Well, its hard to justify taking a squad, let alone a platoon to a base we cannot capture, and from which we cannot effect the strategic state of the map and (and this is the big one) we cannot provoke a reaction from the enemy by being at.

And, what this system means is less options available on a map that are 'live' in this sense.

And all of this, Is directly implied by what has been released about proposal so far.

The fact the reponse has so far been 'chill out, its fine, it was fine in ps1'. Makes me think they are aware of this, but are going with what they consider to be the majority for obvious reasons to do with market economics.

Thats fine and all, but I'm not going to pretend that making things more linear and predictable doesn't reduce the complexity of play at an operational and strategic level. Because it patently does.

If they want to introduce more to game than capping bases, then wowzers and my concerns do in a sense go away.

But that aint whats on the table here.

[Thunderhawk]

This is a move in the right direction but in order for lattices to work you need a method of neutralizing a facility implemented hand-in-hand with it.

I am one of the biggest advocates of Lattice-like systems as I think it would work well in the example above.

BUT....

Sitting on the fence here, I see the point a lot of people are making about Zerg vs zerg smacking into one another, and this albeit solving the randomness of fights, will not really benefit small Outfits unless choke point bases have a design to help implement that.

So yes, good idea, but like nerfing and buffing simultaneously is a bad idea, Introducing a lattice-like system and not introducing a neutralising method is a bad idea also.

------

What I mean by neutralising is having a base go from One faction to neutral due to a set of actions performed by the attacking team, these actions take a period of time to achieve.

Neutralising also means stopping the benefit provided, so for example, and will only use this as an example because none of the other benefits are worth worrying about - TECH PLANTS - stopping the enemy from Pulling MBTs. This can be achieved by a Gen in the base similar to the SCU , that controls everything (Make it separate to SCU and spawn room)Underground, under the main base, several levels underground.

[Figment]

How do you people even survive...

Imagine my essays on a cafeïne rush. Trust me, I'm doing the world a favour. :lol:

[Lord Mondando]

Sitting on the fence here, I see the point a lot of people are making about Zerg vs zerg smacking into one another, and this albeit solving the randomness of fights, will not really benefit small Outfits unless choke point bases have a design to help implement that.
Well its more than that. I think two issues to zerg v zerg, that also need being made explict due to their likeliness are.

1) It's going to make most fights pretty bad performance wise - this is a massive complaint about the game in general. Indeed, unless this comes hand in hand with some frankly outstanding optimizations this is a big issue. We are going to see a fair few upset people on this front I imagine.
2) Allmost everyone who champions the lattice, as working in ps1 and being a good idea - does so with the fact in mind that there was the possibility of 'behind the lines' action. Nothing to do with that is on the table, so its either action at the front or in effect nothing.

My opposition to 'lattice' here and elsewhere conceptually does not step from not giving people a better defined front line. Its from making that front line, a very linear affair and the totality of the game.

[Assist]

Well its more than that. I think two issues to zerg v zerg, that also need being made explict due to their likeliness are.

1) It's going to make most fights pretty bad performance wise - this is a massive complaint about the game in general. Indeed, unless this comes hand in hand with some frankly outstanding optimizations this is a big issue. We are going to see a fair few upset people on this front I imagine.
2) Allmost everyone who champions the lattice, as working in ps1 and being a good idea - does so with the fact in mind that there was the possibility of 'behind the lines' action. Nothing to do with that is on the table, so its either action at the front or in effect nothing.

My opposition to 'lattice' here and elsewhere conceptually does not step from not giving people a better defined front line. Its from making that front line, a very linear affair and the totality of the game.

With the amount of connections it's far from a linear progression. I think people are reading lattice and ignoring what Malorn is saying. As Malorn has described it, I think it won't play that differently from the current hex system. It's certainly going to change how people organize their attacks and which territory they want to go for, but I think the actual size of the fights will be very similar.
As far as performance of the game goes, I don't think that should be a concern. The Crown fights are as large as the game can get as far as battles go and I don't see them becoming any larger from changing to this system. The game runs functionally well for people with low end computers even in massively huge battles that have horrible infantry render distances. I think if anything the proposed system from Malorn will spread the fight out more, because smaller squads will see the ways to circumvent the zerg by moving around it. If the zerg spreads evenly out then the defenders have the option to choke point it up and push through. There's actual strategy involved in this system IMO, which doesn't exist in the current game's territory control.

[KamikaZee]

Well, its hard to justify taking a squad, let alone a platoon to a base we cannot capture, and from which we cannot effect the strategic state of the map and (and this is the big one) we cannot provoke a reaction from the enemy by being at.

You got me wrong. Mockup example (attached):
You're TR, You want Tawrich. NC Platoons are camping at the stronghold and you can't advance. Send guys to Arroyo Torre to either make the defenders split or open a new path to the techplant.

[Erendil]

Introducing a more PS1-style lattice/adjacency mechanic for conquering territories is a bad idea IMO. It unnecessarily limits player choice, herds empire assaults along a limited number of attack vectors, reduces the number of strategic avenues available to an empire, and takes one more step towards repetitive gameplay.

Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits already direct a lot of the flow of battle. We don't need more artificial rules in place to do our tactical thinking for us and force the fight down even fewer avenues than we have now.

If you want more predictable battle flow, watch the map. Pay attention to what the enemy is doing. If you watch enemy movements for more than 5 minutes and keep track of more than just the last territory that got capped it becomes pretty easy to predict where the enemy will go next. And, if there are multiple options, send scouts out to each one.

There are many things missing from PS2 that should have been ported over from PS1. The lattice is not one of them.

[Lord Mondando]

With the amount of connections it's far from a linear progression.
I'm sorry but its by definition a linear progression as lateral movement is basically ruled out. Linear doesn't mean it can't or does not branch. Indeed, the branching is linear.

What the hex system at least tries to capture at the moment, is some space for lateral movement. that is to say, attacking a flank.

I think people are reading lattice and ignoring what Malorn is saying. As Malorn has described it, I think it won't play that differently from the current hex system. It's certainly going to change how people organize their attacks and which territory they want to go for, but I think the actual size of the fights will be very similar.
I'm sorry but I think I am, what he has said is quite clear on certain things being ruled out, namely that movements will be made
1) More predictable.
2) Less in terms of options from base to base.

Furthermore, what he does say on addressing concerns is quite frankly very vague, moreover as I've noted. Makes reference to PS1 game mechanics which currently PS2 does not have at all.


As far as performance of the game goes, I don't think that should be a concern. The Crown fights are as large as the game can get as far as battles go and I don't see them becoming any larger from changing to this system. The game runs functionally well for people with low end computers even in massively huge battles that have horrible infantry render distances. I think if anything the proposed system from Malorn will spread the fight out more, because smaller squads will see the ways to circumvent the zerg by moving around it. If the zerg spreads evenly out then the defenders have the option to choke point it up and push through. There's actual strategy involved in this system IMO, which doesn't exist in the current game's territory control
Ok, I think firstly, you've been very, very lucky with your experience of PS2 if performance has not been a major issue.

though you raise a fair point, the crown has large battles. yet two things here.
A) the crown doesn't always have great performance. Indeed if its heavily populated performance there can be pretty iffy in my experience. I'm hardly scraping the bottom of the barrel with my fx 8350 @ 4.5 and my GTX 650 at 1.2.
B) Performance for a comparable (or indeed greater) number of people can absolutely tank in many of the major bases when they are heavily populated.

Now, this hinges on 'are all fights going to be larger.

I think the answer is: well as a function fo the time of day, yes. At prime time, your going to see given the population of a map can be as high as 600-700 each side, about 50-100 people at each possible conflict point on the map. Even a 50 v 50 engagement can be pretty taxing. A 100 v 100 is almost always taxing.

I also think, due to ruling out the options to quite a large degree, this will largely be what happens. If you going to limit the players total options for movement, your going to get more people in a smaller number of areas, which as a whole is going to effect performance.

Also this.
The game runs functionally well for people with low end computers even in massively huge battles that have horrible infantry render distances.
I just contest sorry, it really doesn't I also cannot imagine what lead you to think this. A few i3 users luck out and have it magically work well, below that everyone not in possession of a fairly recent high end CPU and somewhat half descent graphics card has been having problems from the get-go.

Given this game is F2p, accessibility is allways key and so frankly. SoE needs to keep performance at the top of their minds.

[Lord Mondando]

You got me wrong. Mockup example (attached):
You're TR, You want Tawrich. NC Platoons are camping at the stronghold and you can't advance. Send guys to Arroyo Torre to either make the defenders split or open a new path to the techplant.

Well as per your mock up, there are in effect only two choices, attack through arroyo, or attack through blackshard. trying to attack tawich via skydock or red ridge is now off the table (i've done this a few times and attacking down cliffs is cool). As it is impossible to take tawich without taking either arroyo or blackshard first.

[Figment]

Introducing a more PS1-style lattice/adjacency mechanic for conquering territories is a bad idea IMO. It unnecessarily limits player choice, herds empire assaults along a limited number of attack vectors, reduces the number of strategic avenues available to an empire, and takes one more step towards repetitive gameplay.

You mean the repetitive gameplay where whenever you leave a base you just captured, you can go back because it's just been recaptured by the enemy while you were taking a base further along?

THAT ISN'T REPETITIVE IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE SAME BASES TIME AFTER TIME AND CAN'T MOVE ON BECAUSE THE ENEMY KEEPS IGNORING YOUR FRONTLINE?

>__>

Unlike you, we'd like to move on to another part of the map now and then, instead of being stuck in your own terrain continuously (day in day out) due to fending of the sheer amount of incursions. The only time we can do that now is when we completely IGNORE defense and usualy end up ghostcapping our way somewhere.

Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits already direct a lot of the flow of battle. We don't need more artificial rules in place to do our tactical thinking for us and force the fight down even fewer avenues than we have now.

They don't direct the flow of battle at all. Not sure about you, but we ignore logical progression completely.

If you want more predictable battle flow, watch the map. Pay attention to what the enemy is doing. If you watch enemy movements for more than 5 minutes and keep track of more than just the last territory that got capped it becomes pretty easy to predict where the enemy will go next. And, if there are multiple options, send scouts out to each one.

Sorry, don't have 40 people available to send out as scouts to each potential capture and defense location.

There are many things missing from PS2 that should have been ported over from PS1. The lattice is not one of them.

1. This isn't the PS1 lattice.
2. Restrictions including adjecency have so far done nothing but improve gameplay.

If you recall, we went from pure chaos and frustration in tech test to a bit calmer, but still annoyingly repetitive game. Linearity allows for more progression and therefore much better "moving the map" as we called it in PS1. You want some closure so you can move on. The worst thing that could occur to us was being stuck on the same map the entire time because an enemy would continuously come back.


Do you remember the Dagda song? You know, the song that wasn't over till someone went and captured Andvari? That is PS2 right now, only spread over a similar sized region, with a few more territories and that you can hardly put a plug on it (there's no "Andvari" to protect the continent behind it). Each impossible to defend (certainly impossible to defend ALL) and therefore utterly frustrating to play ping pong between these bases.

[moosepoop]

This is awesome

do want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hamma]

Excellent mostly constructive discussion in this thread! :D

I think we can all agree we need a test server yesterday. ;)

[Blynd]

Excellent mostly constructive discussion in this thread! :D

I think we can all agree we need a test server yesterday. ;)

Amen to that brother

[Figment]

I still find it weird they didn't continue a beta server for that. >.>

[Lord Mondando]

Unlike you, we'd like to move on to another part of the map now and then, instead of being stuck in your own terrain continuously (day in day out) due to fending of the sheer amount of incursions. The only time we can do that now is when we completely IGNORE defense and usualy end up ghostcapping our way somewhere.
though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

[ChipMHazard]

I still find it weird they didn't continue a beta server for that. >.>

Indeed.

[Mietz]

Imagine my essays on a cafeïne rush. Trust me, I'm doing the world a favour. :lol:

I blame my dependency on that one event where I drank coffee i made that was chemically saturated with caffeine during my pharmacy studies.

Its like with Obelix who fell into the magic potion cauldron when he was a kid and gained superpowers. Except i gained an addiction and didn't become super strong.

[Frozenland]

The video that explains the idea

Announcing the Community Design Meeting and adding Metagame to Planetside 2! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-yOT5EgYvU)

No this video is about a different idea. It is a good idea but I think the old lattice system even better.

[Babyfark McGeez]

though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

It's about getting some structure and direction into the battle flow. Imo, the maps are way too "fluid", which results in nobdoy giving a shit because you cannot deal with each ghost hack anyway.
The proposed new system would help there, plus visually outlining what's at stake for even the most oblivious player (Hi my TR mates on Miller). :p

I gotta disagree with Fig on one thing though (shocking, i know): Imo the terrain is currently the only contributing factor to directing battle flow (Check the SE area of indar around Tawrich for example, or the whole of Amerish).

EDIT: That being said, now that we are about to get some structure into the maps, we only (still) need some incentives to motivate people to defend territories (once more, base benefits minus Tech Plant are laughable, and resources barely matter).

[Figment]

though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

"More static" isn't per definition worse as "too dynamic" also exists.

Static (left) vs Dynamic (right):
World of Tanks -- BF Rush map ---- PlanetSide 1 capital lattice ----- PlanetSide 1 ------------------------------------ PlanetSide 2 proposed ---------------- PlanetSide 2 current -------------------- PlanetSide 2 Tech Test



Flow is how a battle moves. It can be guided, unguided, restricted or unrestricted. Unrestricted flow leads to chaos and people avoiding combat, not finding combat and generally not having a good time. There can be such a thing as too much unrestricted flow. Consider that what we'll get is a rivermouth, with maybe a few branch-offs, where we had a swampy delta. Both flow to sea, but one can potentially be controlled by plugging a branch, the other cannot as it has too many branches. This then is about flow control by the players.



Too much chaos is bad. Very bad. It means you can't ever have a decent session where you feel you contributed to a fight, because literally 10 seconds later the entire frontline can be reduced to sanctuary.

That's not very satisfying to a whole lot of players.


"Static" as you describe it is simply more staged fighting and progression, with fall back options that still allow you to stall and defend, without being completely overwhelmed. Stalling allows you to set up a meaningful campaign where you can plan fights for a few hours ahead. And that doesn't mean those hours are spend at the same point, it means you can steer the fight in your favour and any tactical and strategic moves made by the opposition and allies have far greater impact on the course of battle in the long term. And that gives much greater satisfaction than "flanking" and having your "flanking" move undone as soon as you try to move on.


I'm not sure why anyone would think having over 80 options with just three continents is a good thing (and we have that right now - just stop for a second each evening and count the options on ALL CONTINENTS: which are ALL BORDER REGIONS, friendly AND enemy). There are too few players and too high concentrations of players to have a fight at half or more of them. That's why there's so much ghosting.

Too fluid a map is just going to mean that you're going to be ignored half the time as it's too much choice and too much effort to deal with it: there's just no time to respond so most people don't even bother showing up. This is a PvP game. There should be some PvP somewhere. Look, some ghosting will always happen, but if 60% of your time is ghosting or pointless defense, then people will just go to The Crown and ignore the conquest and defense in favour of at least having some targets to shoot at.


Note that I never said this new system would make the game "more fluid". In fact, making things more fluid would reduce the game closer to the early tech test status. That was so turbulent, there was no breathing space, no time to plan anything, no time to defend, respond or even time to get away from the location you were defending, because you couldn't stop people coming back there.

What I said was better flow and easier to comprehend and respond to for the average player. Not more flow (more fluid).



Look, that I'm able to read the map and SirAlydon is able to read the map, doesn't mean that Zergling X, Y and Z (and xXZergerZXx) is going to be able to read the map. But even SirAlydon will have to admit Dark is not capable of responding to all the threats at once and that coordinating people to defend all those regions is not just a pain in the arse, it's virtually impossible. It's simply too chaotic for command to deal with. :/


Now and then I hear or see people use voice command or leader and I hear what they're saying and while they're discussing moving somewhere, I'm watching the map and that has already obsoleted their entire discussion.

The current system is impossible to plan for at all. And yes, of course plans have to be adapted constantly, but to have such a fluid state where a plan has been obsoleted before it has been conceived, let alone prepared or executed is just plain daft. A bit more static frontlines allow time for plans to hatch, be executed and make a noticable impact. Meanwhile, players who just want to play don't have to continuously find a new fight since those fights won't be gone by the time they get there and they can have an hour or two of leisurely fighting without the effort of constantly relocating. That's after all one of the underlying reasons why The Crown is very popular.


And no, the new lattice won't automatically balance populations fighting one another. It may very well disperse population in a more controlled manner. If that's the case, it should make commanding more relevant. Of course, that still requires the base designs to be suitable for defense. If small teams get good defensive positions, they'll gladly take on zergs to stall them for reinforcements. And the less pressure on a lane, the more likely it will be used for flanking.

Speaking of flanking, looks like they intend there to be more feasible assistance-flanking around bases, what with the main bases having their own linked regions around it. That could well make holding and taking minor outposts more interesting and important for smaller groups as well.

[Bocheezu]

I haven't read the entire thread, and I'm not going to read some random dude's manifesto about how lattice is wrong, but the people that complain that this will reduce small-squad viability or reduce the number of "maps" just don't understand what's going on.

Small squads will become MORE viable because they won't be ghost-capping some useless shit outpost that no one cares about. In this scenario, small squads can do the same thing they did in PS1: the PS2 equivalent of the CC hold. Big Zerg is hitting Feldspar Canyon, you drop behind them inside the Stronghold (which has an interior cap point) and you do a CC hold. They should make it so that just contending the Stronghold cap point breaks the link and prevents the ability for the big zerg to hack Feldspar; you shouldn't have to take the base. Now your small squad, which has an extreme defensive advantage inside that building if they play smartly with MAX/medics/engies, can try to hold off multiple squads from resecuring. The big zerg is trapped at Feldspar doing jack shit now and just got fucked in the ass by your small squad. That's what Planetside is about.

Some things need to change to make this viable for all bases, however. All cap points need to be indoors and window-free. Tanks/planes should not be able to clear out the small squad trying the CC hold. Infantry should be the only way to clear the people out in there.

As far as this reducing the number of maps -- exactly how many maps do we play on now? Five, maybe six?

Allatum
TI Alloys
Crown
Crossroads
Hvar
Quartz Ridge

That's it folks, there's your current maps. Everything else is pretty much a ghost cap, or at best a mild skirmish that lasts 15 minutes. Those are not Planetside battles. This system could have a huge battle over Red Ridge Communications or some other ridiculous place that no one's ever fought at before. The map is being opened up, not shrunk down.

Will there be issues? Sure. I can forsee a lot of never-fought-over-before bases becoming complete logjams. We will bitch about these bases. But at least we'll analyze the base itself (why is this a logjam?) and devise strategies (what do we do about it?) instead of just nonchalantly passing through it on the way to something else. It will give the bases some character and importance.

[Frozenland]

OMG the lattice system was really great and I really like that they are going to re-implement it in PS2. This will make the gameplay and flow much better!

[ChipMHazard]

OMG the lattice system was really great and I really like that they are going to re-implement it in PS2. This will make the gameplay and flow much better!

Well not the lattice, but something similar:p

[Timealude]

It all ending on a red section does kinda feel like a number of dead ends. This might be down to how Indar is designed (currently) with the canyons all ending at the gate itself. Of course, if you can pass through the warpgates at some point or it becomes neutral or capturable, then that "dead end, must hold end point against all odds cause we can't move on" is going to feel different (but as long as the gate has fixed allegiance, those territories will probably be seen as too hard to control near the ends). So I wonder if having "split-plugs" there could work or even one major base just outside the gate to control the adjecent territory ("end-plug", like any base in such a line would be a "plug" or choke point that could slow down advances by good defense).


For some reason the end of this paragraph made me think of the board game sorry. :lol:

Anyways in my opinion and speculation, it seems that this system would also help set up the addition to the home continents later on down the line(whenever that is...) Even though its not the traditional lattice system, It does look to help improve the flow of battle just a bit more rather then having the zerg roam around mindlessly like they currently do. ;)

[Qwan]

I liked the video that noble posted, the idea for neutral hex system would improve battles across all three continents. The gal drop might start getting popular again, instead of just being used on Amerish. I remember the developers saying they wanted to do it this way to create bigger and better battles, but with the front line being so spread out battles are small and short lived. Well unless you’re at the crown. I think by making these bottle necks, battles will be more epic, and like he said in the video, leaders will see strategic attacks points and opp’s will actually start to mean something again. I mean granted it’s not a gen bust or a base drain, but hey it’s a start. As a outfit commander (when I’m not changing diapers or making bottles) a lot of the newer guys don’t want to lead opps because there really isn’t a lot to lead to, we can hack side bases outside the zergs influence but that means less fighting and more standing around watching Moogy pop smoke grenades :rolleyes: I really hope they consider this system and if not at least come up with something similar. And I promise I want say anything about PS1 mechanics, and how they worked in the first place, I promise :rolleyes:

[Thunderhawk]

Guys please don't confuse the video posted with what Malorn is testing.

Similar but I didn't think its the same thing

[Calisai]

Like what I see, making the hex system take account of natural barriers to produce "supply lines" is a much better way forward than an artificial lattice.

The question I have is.... can we cut the supply lines? If the adjacency rules still apply... why bother having the supply lines? I understand being able to cut off Tawrich by capping the outer points of it, but what about being able to cut it off by capping stronghold, etc.

I think if they do the following, they need to implement generators, or supply depots or something that indicates being able to cut off the supply line inside a base. Give something for spec ops to be able to drop or infiltrators, etc.

I'm not saying to allow you to cap the backline base... but to just disable the supply route. With the multiple supply lines to the front lines in the example, it would require organized spec ops with multiple groups in order to complete it.... but it would definitely be something for the smaller outfits to work towards and organize for.

Example: in the screenshot provided:

Squad A: disables Valley storage Yard
Squad B: disables Old Auraxium Mines

This cuts off the northern front from being provided resources and would require a squad or two to go resecure. There needs to be a good indication that supply lines have been cut... maybe grey them out like the Tawrich area.

[bpostal]

One thing I hate and seems like it would take minimal effort to change is making it so the cap does not advance if there is nobody on it.
At least then the guys going around ghost capping would have to actually cap the base and sit there instead of flipping it and flying to the next one.

They had that in beta, it didn't really solve the problem of ghost capping and felt artificial as hell.
IMO ghost capping should never be encouraged. What I view as a 'big brother' version of ghost capping, the drain, would be a great addition to the game. Mainly in that it took longer than a simple hack/llu run and made the base available to all three empires.
It'll be a while until things like NTU, Gens and drains to be put in but I think lattice 2.0 with accompining mechanics such as continental conquest will be a great benefit.

[Haro]

I do like the idea of adding more flow and predictability onto the map, but I think this current iteration may go a little too far. Granted, I obviously haven't played it and its not yet finished, I think this may bottleneck people a little too much and I think that there are other ways we can influence flow and improve the arrangement of battles without resorting to the same level of simplicity of the lattice system from Planetside 1.

I think neutral hexes and "rush ways" could certainly be a role, and this is a rather extraordinary case in that the image was taken of a congested area near a warpgate. I hope bases and outposts in more open, contested areas are more connected and web-like, rather than spot his more simplistic series of linear paths.

I doubt I need to inform Malorn et al about how other factors will need to be implemented. I like the idea of resource attrition that the one YouTube video someone posted, though it may be less feasible in that iteration with how this new hex system works out. I just shudder at the thought of some areas like the Crown or Quartz Ridge on Indar choking off a whole route with no attrition factoring in. An ANT system could work well here.

I think we would also need to improve incentives for smaller outposts so that their fights are more meaningful, and adding ways that the incentives provided by owned bases could be disabled by an opposing force, even behind enemy lines. And also, fix the galaxy. I don't know about you guys, but I've been in a galaxy maybe 5 or 6 times since beta, when we had the overpowered spawn gal. It really needs a buff so that it will bring back that special mobility element that, for me, really helped define Planetside. We'd need that if we want to make this lattice system work without constraining flow too much.

[Malorn]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

[Lord Mondando]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

Its not just that mate, without an extra layer of strategy which gives small units something to do, bar be a tentacle of the zerg. You have to admit there are serious grounds for concern. I'm sure there's magical stuff going on behind the curtain and all, but I can only go on what I've seen. What I've seen, screams "zergfest or go home" to me. For large outfits and causal players, that's great. Kills the game if you fancy doing something a bit more strategic as my lot kinda do.

Resource revamp

Basic idea and its not entirely my own. We all stand the on shoulders of giants etc. Call it the DL Plan if it must be called anything.

All bases to some extent generate 'Raw' resources, which go towards warpgate (or whatever) in raw format, through pipelines, several points these come above the ground (there are several all ready so makes the job easier in terms of mapping) that can be destroyed/repaired depending on who you are (i.e in your own territory, you can't destroy them, too open to abuse), every tick so many resources go through them. Importantly there should be several 'nodes' throughout the map where these converge, getting more convergent and thus more important the closer you get to WG, thus taking one out deeper in enemy territory = greater effect. Hell why not have existing AMP stations as convergence points.

What comes out of WG (or have a refinery at the WG, whatever) - comes out 'ready to use' nannite format, as the raw material for all vehicles and importantly, player spawns. Have to be transported in something like ANTs (player or AI controlled), to bases in order for them to be able to actively spawn vehicles and units. Make these a single resource or split them up into player, vehicle and air. Undecided.

It also works if you switch them around, raw resources only by trucks, nannites by pipeline. Whatever. But it makes it more dynamic if you in some sense have to engage with both. Gotta defend the pipelines and defend/drive the trucks. A second level of stuff to attack/defend across the entire map. A logistic network. And the more effort and better defended your side manages to keep your logistics network, measurably easier to play the normal pew-pew take the point part of the game. Likewise, the better you attack your enemies, the weaker they get on the battlefield.

Especially if fights for bases are going to reduce to zergs whamming into each other, little subtle changes as a result of smaller battles behind the lines, will effect these battles.

Also for all those pilots complaining, hunt/defend the trucks and bomb/fly CAP around the logistics nodes, becomes the new fun thing to do away from all that nasty AA.

Very small stock trickle in both directions as default. Successfully defending pipelines and nannite transport vehicles to and from bases, drastically more efficient.

Furthermore incentivise this with plenty of certs/murdercash/learninpoints and you'll find people happily guarding nodes and driving/defending the trucks.

Tada. Metagame.

More to come, but that's the barebones of it.

[Archonzero]

While I commend the devs to finally putting something in the test bed that may help localize the zergs into larger fights an minimalize ghosthacking.

I'd like to hopefully suggest, that with the more constrained (LAttice) approach to hex capturing. That the devs may consider a few options.

A) Addition of more capture points, possibly 2 spawn barracks as well terminals (vehicle/equipment) per Hex territory. Make the capture points significantly distanced from one another, ie 200m-300m apart. To help foster a more flowing ground battle for the territory, instead of a single clump of forces around the capture points (ie vehicle camp)


B) Break up the existing hex territories adding more territories for capture.


C) Territory Zones. Each TZ would be a pocket of 4-6 territories utilizing the current adjacency system formula. These TZs would act as gateway to major facilities, full capture of a TZ opens the doorway to attacking a Major Facility? As well they act as defensive points to protecting Major Facilities.


D) Add a linking territory that can allow a lateral attack between the linear routes?

[Thunderhawk]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

Could you ask the bigwigs if you could post a full map of Indar using this new Lattice-like connection system ?

It would be really good to see a larger picture in order to think of metagame additions once we can see the entire map and see how it would play out ?

At the moment all we see is the South east corner.

Let us help you guys by discussing the pros and cons, as you can see from this thread, it's not a bandwagon, but rather people discussing everything maturely so would be a good place to start looking at this.

I want to talk about resource revamp being incorporated into this, but I need to see how the rest of the map looks (to see how all other bases are connected, hence my request.

[Babyfark McGeez]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

I think for a start a global resource system would encourage people to visit different continents more. Maybe even tie the territory control into the +XP% modifier in a way.

Also (though currently minor would be more prevalent with changed resources):
i don't like being "forced" to fight at certain locations because i prefer some resources over others. So how about to split resource gain into all three types per hex? Emphasis could still be put on one of them, but it wouldn't be "worthless" to fight there for some (Might even think about just merging all three resource types into one actually).

[Thunderhawk]

I think for a start a global resource system would encourage people to visit different continents more. Maybe even tie the territory control into the +XP% modifier in a way.

Also (though currently minor would be more prevalent with changed resources):
i don't like being "forced" to fight at certain locations because i prefer some resources over others. So how about to split resource gain into all three types per hex? Emphasis could still be put on one of them, but it wouldn't be "worthless" to fight there for some (Might even think about just merging all three resource types into one actually).

No no no I like your idea of having each "Base" give all 3 resources, so that people stop favouring certain bases over others due to the resources they provide, but I dont agree we should band them all together into one resource because right now its good to know what you can do with each.

Although, Having them all as one resource means if you say pull Loads of MBTs, you can't turn around and jump into an ESF when you run out of Mechanical resources, but do you want to restrict players like that ?

[o Solei o]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

I'll admit, I was skeptical of lattice, but this looks quite promising! (Added bonus, makes navigating on the ground a ton easier.)

Very much looking forward to seeing this in live.

[DviddLeff]

Going to ponder the resource issue and get back to you Malorn, but I definitely think that the lattice system by restricting targets more than the hex system is the way forward to focus fights and make them last longer.

Now what do we want from the resource system?

1. Be a straightforward system.
2. Provide alternative goals for players.
3. Restrict the amount of tanks/aircraft/MAXs a player can use.
4. Not make it impossible for an empire with 0 territory to fight.

At the moment the system succeeds in 1, 3 and 4 but has minimal impact on strategic goals that players make which is a shame.

I would also like to see it impact on cut off territories more, making it impossible to carry on a defence without some sort of resupply, either through being reconnected or player brought (eg by the old ANT).

Personally I feel I have too many resources - I rarely fly and usually keep my ground vehicles for 15+ minutes so those resources never impact me, and the only reason infantry ones do is because I insist on keeping my character fully stocked on C4, grenades and both AI and AV mines and even then I rarely pull MAX armour.

I really like the idea of using the pipelines as a part of the resource system, potentially with sabotage being a part of it. I also wonder about getting the players to set up resource generators in certain locations, which again can be destroyed/disabled. However with any of this behind the lines stuff the risk is it becomes as annoying as back hacking and gen holds of the original game.

[Tatwi]

I am not excited about this. I think that defining resources would funnel action just as effectively if not better and bring more meta game elements than just funneled territory control.

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

The primary failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is the piss poor communication and community building systems the game shipped with. The secondary failure of conquest in Plqnetside 2 is player will, they simply refuse to or don't care enough to coordinate a proper conquest, because "defending outposts is boring". And the final failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is low population coupled with a lack of regional population caps. Players want to fight epic battles, but the population only supports two or three of these at most. Add to that the fact that people can just keep piling in together, the population shortage compounds the conquest problem and makes it logistically impossible for one side to lock Indarside.

Fix those issues and the hex system will function as intended. Communication, community building, and population control can be fixed by SOE, but it is entirely up to the players to play the game properly. If players can't be bothered to do so, then the concept of a free form MMOFPS is simply a flight of fancy and we may as well go back to round based fps games, because At least they perform better and are easier to balance.

[basti]

Its not just that mate, without an extra layer of strategy which gives small units something to do, bar be a tentacle of the zerg. You have to admit there are serious grounds for concern. I'm sure there's magical stuff going on behind the curtain and all, but I can only go on what I've seen. What I've seen, screams "zergfest or go home" to me. For large outfits and causal players, that's great. Kills the game if you fancy doing something a bit more strategic as my lot kinda do.

Resource revamp

Basic idea and its not entirely my own. We all stand the on shoulders of giants etc. Call it the DL Plan if it must be called anything.

All bases to some extent generate 'Raw' resources, which go towards warpgate (or whatever) in raw format, through pipelines, several points these come above the ground (there are several all ready so makes the job easier in terms of mapping) that can be destroyed/repaired depending on who you are (i.e in your own territory, you can't destroy them, too open to abuse), every tick so many resources go through them. Importantly there should be several 'nodes' throughout the map where these converge, getting more convergent and thus more important the closer you get to WG, thus taking one out deeper in enemy territory = greater effect. Hell why not have existing AMP stations as convergence points.

What comes out of WG (or have a refinery at the WG, whatever) - comes out 'ready to use' nannite format, as the raw material for all vehicles and importantly, player spawns. Have to be transported in something like ANTs (player or AI controlled), to bases in order for them to be able to actively spawn vehicles and units. Make these a single resource or split them up into player, vehicle and air. Undecided.

It also works if you switch them around, raw resources only by trucks, nannites by pipeline. Whatever. But it makes it more dynamic if you in some sense have to engage with both. Gotta defend the pipelines and defend/drive the trucks. A second level of stuff to attack/defend across the entire map. A logistic network. And the more effort and better defended your side manages to keep your logistics network, measurably easier to play the normal pew-pew take the point part of the game. Likewise, the better you attack your enemies, the weaker they get on the battlefield.

Especially if fights for bases are going to reduce to zergs whamming into each other, little subtle changes as a result of smaller battles behind the lines, will effect these battles.

Also for all those pilots complaining, hunt/defend the trucks and bomb/fly CAP around the logistics nodes, becomes the new fun thing to do away from all that nasty AA.

Very small stock trickle in both directions as default. Successfully defending pipelines and nannite transport vehicles to and from bases, drastically more efficient.

Furthermore incentivise this with plenty of certs/murdercash/learninpoints and you'll find people happily guarding nodes and driving/defending the trucks.

Tada. Metagame.

More to come, but that's the barebones of it.


Congratz

You triggered my brain.


The ANT! YAY!


Thats one of the many aspects of PS1 that is missing. Stuff to do that is useful and could really decide a battle, but isnt extremly annoying to do and not nessecary to do 24/7.

I really like your basic idea of connecting ressources and the ant together, especially the pipe stuff, as they give small squads somethign else to do that would impact the battle at the frontlines.


But it shouldnt become annoying or absolutly mandatory that someone does this stuff.



Anyway, my stuff:

As you already posted, raw resources would be generated, and pumped to the warpgate via pipelines. Cut a pipeline connection (by taking out a pipe node / destroying a generator), and bang whatever resources that would have to go through that node would just not come through, means less resources for the enemy. You could propably add some kind of cooldown, means after a node is down for some time, the resources try to find another way to get back to he warpgate. If there isnt any then they are lost for sure. But if there is one, well then they take that route.

At the warpgate, resources would be refined into useable stuff. Then ANTS would need to pick the refined stuff up and bring it forward to bases.

Thats pretty much in line with your ideas. Heres what i think should be rather different:

There would be still Aero, Mecha and Infantary resources, BUT only Infantary resources remain to be something a player themself has. Aero and Mecha would become resources a base/Outpost has! In addition to that, a new resource: Nanites. Nanites are auto generated at the gate, there is always enough of them so the gate could never run out.

Whenever someone spawns a vehicle at a base, he uses nanites and the resource needed for that vehicle (ground = mecha, air = aero, usual stuff, nothing new here). But said resources would come from the pool of resources that the base has. That means in order to allow your faction to spawn enough tanks and air at a certain base, people would have to drive ants from the gate to that base, to fill up that base and keep the supply high. If a base runs out of a certain resource, you wouldnt be able to spawn vehicles of that type at that base.

If a base runs out of nanites alltogether, then the base would power down, means no spawning of players or vehicles at that base at all. After a certain time, the base would become neutral, allowing whoever wants to grab that base. This is pretty much the same way power worked in PS1.

[Phantomdestiny]

how does the nanite get transported then using ANTs too or by a grid of bases connected using the new lattice? so if a base get cut off it slowly looses nanites? maybe make it so ANT can also fill nanites ?

[unAimed]

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!

[Tatwi]

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!
These changes arent going to magically change the way people play. We're still going to see 40 tanks, 3libs, and 10 ESFs slamming away at outpost spawn rooms. In fact the proposed system will most likely just make this problem much worse.

The problem is not the system, it's the players intense desire to take the easy way out at all times. Feel free to quote me on that a few years from now.

As an example, two of us were defending Regent Rock last night when a squad of about 5 VS tried to take it. After handing their asses to them a couple of times, what did they do? They pulled MAXes and a Magrider lol... We heald them off for another couple minutes when our six or so helpers arrived. Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why? Was too hard for them I guess, which sums up a lot of how people are choosing to play this game.

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?
Replying here in the interest of not cluttering the thread with useless nit picking.

We killed them in the base, we killed them coming back from their sunderer, we blew up their sunderer. I waited 15 minutes, alone after no more than 3 minutes, and they never came back. They had 15 or so minutes to pull up another sundy while we were fighting and another 15 minutes after to come back in some form, but instead I guess they just went somewhere else, because fighting a few random people was too hard.

The point being: No matter what the exact scenario is, folks in PS2 always seem to take the cheesy/easy way to "win", which is almost always the exact opposite of creating a fun and hard fought battle, and no amount of changes to the Hex System will "fix" this human behavior.

[Redshift]

The resource system is entirely flawed, put vehicle and infantry resources onto a uniform charge time, so that they just limit availablitiy without actually influencing anything major.

Make the bases have useful benefits with defendable generators that control the benefits, then maybe we'll see gen holds from smaller outfits.

Personally i'd put some of the generators deeper inside the bases and move them back to require damage to pop, so we actually have secondary targets for smaller outfits

[basti]

how does the nanite get transported then using ANTs too or by a grid of bases connected using the new lattice? so if a base get cut off it slowly looses nanites? maybe make it so ANT can also fill nanites ?

To put it simple:

Raw resources via pipelines from bases to warpgate.

Refined resources / Nanites via ANTs from Warpgate to bases.


The idea is that small squads have two new options:

They can cut the pipeline at some point, to lower the resource income for the enemy faction, and have some effect in the future. They may not completly deny the enemy of a certain vehicle type right now, but they may lower the maximum amout of vehicles the enemy could spawn at EVERY point on the continent, depending how they supply stuff to their bases.

On the other hand, Small squads could roam within enemy territory, seaching and destroying enemy ants that would bring refined resources / nanites to bases that need them, directly affecting the combat at the frontlines. Kill a vital ANT that is bringing mecha ressources to a base that is almost out of them, and bang the enemy wont spawn any tanks at that base because they just used all of their supply.


In both cases, you would trigger a counter reaction. If your pipeline is being sabotaged, you need to secure it to get more raw resources and more potential supply that could be transported to the frontline.

If your ants get killed on the way to the frontlines, you need to protect them. You could go different routes here, for example trying to protect a single ant with Skyguards, Air and Tanks. Or you could just get all of your folks into Ants, driving one big convoy, hoping that some of you manage to make it through. Or you grab other squads and outfits to get one big convoy with defence going.




The very basic idea behind this is to trigger something Aion, Guild wars and other MMOs have, but Planetside 2 currently lacks: the need to work together not just with your friends/Squad/outfit, but with your entire faction.
Planetside had that need. Planetside 2 needs it to be interresting in the long term.

[Kail]

Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why?

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?

Edit: In regards to ANTs

Anything ANT-like would need to be used actively, like a Sunderer; Needing to drive an ANT-type vehicle back and forth to areas where this is no fighting going on would be no different than ghost capping was when there was no adjacency rules. Which is why I don't think tying it to resources or "maintenance" of based really makes sense - something more along the lines of bringing an ANT to base's ANT-Pad instantly repairs all generators / SCUs, etc; things that have immediate effects on active fights.

Personally I'm inclined to just have more support vehicles / modules instead of a ANTs - Like a "turret" for a Lightning that projects an umbrella-like shield in an area around itself (as in hard-shields, no letting friendly fire through either), or a similar one for an arcing frontal shield. Something that allows players to set up mini bases, change how an enemy has to attack somewhere, etc.

But anyway, that's just about the ANT vehicle / truck concept itself; no comment about raw / refined resources at the moment :)

[Mordelicius]

I also disagree with this, if you add more path ways again we could basically just keep the current hex system. Real testing should determine how it works out in the end.

.sent via phone. I'm not suggesting multiple branches. In this map, one could add a single branch and it will make a whole world of difference.

My criticism is not much of the predictability but more of the nature of repetitiveness of these paths. It's one thing to be predictable. It's another to be predictable AND repetitive. It's the difference between chess and tic-tac-toe.

In chess, possible movements can still be predicted and each game is not repetitive. In tic-tac-toe, anyone can figure out all the possible combinations in several minutes. So much so that each match will end up in a draw every single time.

Looking at this portion of the map. They could add a segment between The Stronghold and Arroyo tower ( I understand there could be mountains there picturing it from memory; so jumppads?). Instead of just:

Copper - Arroyo - Red Ridge
Feldspar - Stronghold - Blackshard

a single line segment can alleviate the repetitiveness of the pathways by making these new combinations exist:

Feldspar - Stronghold - Arroyo
Blackshard - Stronghold - Arroyo
Stronghold - Arroyo - Redridge
Stronghold - Arroyo - Copper

In this small portion of the map, that's all that's really needed. One single extra branch. That will add much needed variety to strategic meta of these new paths. They could apply the same principle to the rest of the map. The enemy movements can still be predicted. There would still be major chokepoints but it won't be the same old, same old combinations every single time in between.

[Palerion]

I didn't play PS1, but rest assured, this looks much more entertaining than our current system.

I don't like having to either constantly search for good combat or waltz into a meat grinder. Having these defined lines of attack seems like it could allow for more frequent, and even smaller (which I would kind of appreciate) engagements that don't turn out to be meat grinders, but brief battles along certain roads and bases. I really like it.

[Mietz]

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

[p0intman]

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

little tidbit of info: most of the strategic 'greats' from ps1 didn't think of the game like an fps. many of us looked at it from an RTS strategy standpoint. Flanks, chokepoints, fortifications, armor columns, fast response, defense of key points, holding of vital points from our enemies... it all played a role.

ps1 strategy can infact be modeled with rts thinking.

[artifice]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

Why not have the outposts feed the nearest facility with raw resources if they are connected and the facilities outputs refined resources to the parts of the continent they are connected to? Then let the warpgate send the refined resources it collects from all the facilities to all three continents. If the warpgate gets cut off from the facilities, the other two continents are cut off from the resources provided from the facilities.

[Tatwi]

Why not have the outposts feed the nearest facility with raw resources if they are connected and the facilities outputs refined resources to the parts of the continent they are connected to? Then let the warpgate send the refined resources it collects from all the facilities to all three continents. If the warpgate gets cut off from the facilities, the other two continents are cut off from the resources provided from the facilities.

Honestly, SOE should do this,

1. This game needs a "crafting system", because it "gives people something to do" that is personal, yet community driven, thus creating a significant amount of enjoyable emergent game play.

IT'S NOT WHAT YOU THINK.... :)

2. Give each outpost (not facility, just outposts) a unique type of "resource" that can only be acquired by owning the outposts. No matter where a player is when when she is online, so long as her empire holds the outpost, she will gain X amount every X minutes. Players would get a bonus of X amount of a specific resource for capturing or defending the associated outpost.

3. Much like Guild Wars 2's automatic crafting component inventory system (http://goo.gl/RVjxY), the "resources" (which could actually be called parts or components or whatever they like) would automatically accumulate in the players inventory over time.

4. Every cert and weapon unlock could alternately be obtained by using combinations of the various "resources". Players would know what resources they need to acquire simply by mousing over the cert/item. Each combination would use 4 to 16 different resources, requiring various quantities of each (SOE could make all these using an automated script, which would only take a few minutes of "developer time"). A player can hold up to X amount of each resource in his inventory (with members perhaps getting a bonus).

5. Vehicles and infantry consumables no longer use resources - a lock out timer for each is sufficient to accomplish the same result.

6. Facilities will continue to grant other benefits.


This "resource system" gives people the "meta game" of each outpost in the world having potential meaning to them, depending on the items they wish to unlock. Sure people could use Station Cash or Cert Points to unlock these things, but they could also play the resource game to get these "bonus unlocks", so to speak. Furthermore, because each outpost in the game would supply a unique resource, some of which would be common in many really good certs/unlocks, not having access to some of these resources may well be incentive for people to fight over gaining (and maintaining) access to them.

This concept also has the bonus of being both dead simple to understand, while also complex enough to have a lot of replay value. Players will simply look at their certs/unlocks, see what resources they need with a mouse over, and with a simple click a pop up will tell them where on Auraxis they will need to capture and hold in order to acquire these resources.

Why muddy the system with convoluted delivery routes that don't accomplish anything that can't be accomplished by simply capturing and holding land? "Complex, not complicated" is good game design.

Note: I suggested this months ago and in doing so I am standing on the backs of the giants who designed the Chu Gon Dar Cube / Reverse Engineering / Collections / Beast Master / and other systems of Star Wars Galaxies. Credit where credit is due.

[Babyfark McGeez]

So, why isn't PS2s strategic element modeled after an RTS?

Even if you want to say, PS1 bad, PS2 good, new game, no solution from PS1, ugh ugh aaa aaa!

I mean if you wanted strategy to play any role, shouldn't a look at the most popular RTS games to figure out how they do it?
BF3 or CoD will not show you any solutions for strategy. If you want, use them to build your FPS shooty mechanics and your pew pew balancing, w/e i don't care, use actual RTS games as a model for your strategic side.

I'm not a fan of Starcraft but at least it has some solutions that seem to be relatively universal for strategy games. You know this whole resource shit and stuff with the numbers and the units and the bleepety blop.

Call me crazy but thats what I would do.

Anyone?

You wrote exactly what i have been thinking since i played the beta for the first time.

I may add taking a long good look at "Savage" (a fps/rts hybrid and one of the most underrated fps games ever - right after planetside 1) could bring in some fresh and right ideas;

Savage:Battle for newerth review - YouTube

Tbh i was (and still am to a degree) kinda bummed that PS2 didn't turn out to be more of a RTS/FPS mix - or MMO for that matter.

I mean they got the shooter part right, but the whole rts part (and the mmo part) is so absolutely absent that you get the feeling some new age shooter kids saw planetside and decided "oh cool, i'm going to make something like that".
Thank god they have PSU where to learn about the good stuff. :p /highhorse

[SwiftRanger]

If RTS-influences can spice up the metagame then be sure to take the right cues from the right games:

* StarCraft;
Good for PS2 => very different and balanced factions, every unit has its use
Bad for PS2 => emphasis on competitive play, limited resources, handling interface deficiencies is being interpreted as "skill", barely any true simulation or projectile physics (it's still a 2D game in disguise), small and symmetrical maps

* Total Annihilation/SupCom;
Good for PS2 => very big map scale and strategic play with really big armies, all-out-war (land, sea and air), true 3D simulated unit models and weapon physics, crazy-ass experimental units which are hard to get/aren't overpowered, infinite resources
Bad for PS2 => not a lot of difference between factions, too many clutter/filler units, symmetrical maps

* Company of Heroes/Dawn of War 2;
Good for PS2 => varied factions, gritty/visceral urban combat with blood, asymmetrical maps, brilliant Army Painter, wonderful Warhammer 40k-like designs!
Bad for PS2 => small maps

[capiqu]

FPSMMO/RPS? I would also like to see a 10 year quest, provided this game last that long and I think it will.
Lets say that we find out from the ancient Vanu that the Arauxian sun will become unstable in 10 years time. This causes all 3 factions into a race against time. A race for full understanding of Vanu writing and Technology. The search will be not only to find out how to reopen the wormholes and find a way back to earth, but also a race for which faction will return back to Earth to reign in full glory.
The TR feel they should return to Earth Victorious having finally united everyone and bringing all this technology home for the glory of the republic.
The NC will bring freedom to Earth and this new technology will be the tool. They imagine the tens of billions of people on Earth all wanting or needing Vanu technology. This will undoubtedly give them the resources they will need to bring change to Earth.
The VS see this as an opportunity to bring mankind into a next level of Superior Evolution. Imagine the Millions of scientist and engineers back on Earth working on all this new technology. What leaps and bounds will humanity make. We will become Godlike.
So I imagine one discovery a month per faction. All pieces to a puzzle. You need all the pieces to crack the Vanu code. So we will not only be fighting for land and resources but also for knowledge. If the Vs make a discovery then the Tr can attack them and take this item away. The Vs can later counter attack and take it back. Since a new item will be discovered every month no one will have all the pieces until the last one is discovered years down the line.
Who knows I may not be playing planetside then but I'd probably look in to see which faction was victorious

[Erendil]

{Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits} don't direct the flow of battle at all. Not sure about you, but we ignore logical progression completely.

They do for most people, esp ground forces that don't want to leave a pulled vehicle behind. For most people, the aforementioned mechanics/restrictions already direct the flow of battle across most of the maps we have, the exceptions being the north half of Indar and parts of Esamir. And adjacency affects anyone who wants to go on the offensive.

Sorry, don't have 40 people available to send out as scouts to each potential capture and defense location.

We don't either. But a single ESF with Scout Radar can scout your entire cont's front line in about 4 minutes. Less than that if they only scout bases that actually show an enemy presence. Doing the Redeploy Shuffle to hop between bases works too. Not sure why it takes you 40 people. :p

1. This isn't the PS1 lattice.
2. Restrictions including adjecency have so far done nothing but improve gameplay.

If you recall, we went from pure chaos and frustration in tech test to a bit calmer, but still annoyingly repetitive game. Linearity allows for more progression and therefore much better "moving the map" as we called it in PS1. You want some closure so you can move on. The worst thing that could occur to us was being stuck on the same map the entire time because an enemy would continuously come back.

I like the adjacency restrictions because it makes logical sense and in turn causes the flow of battle to also make sense. In the tweeted pic, not being allowed to go from Spec Ops Training and cap Arroyo Tore does not make sense. I know it's just a concept pic but I don't want restrictions in the game that are arbitrary and illogical like that. If they can tweak the "lattice" to avoid such arbitrary hard restrictions then I'd be more open to it. I do like the Neutral Hex ides though, if it's mainly used just in the more open areas.

And yes, stopping continuos backhacks is annoying. But IMO they should be discouraged by doing things like :


making backhacks visible on the cont map without having to mouseover the territory
making facilities more defensible and thus harder to backhack/easier to resecure
including the ability to see Ally Activity for the whole cont (we already get Enemy), or better yet, a tactical overlay like PS1
letting us see gen status (EDIT: and cap point status) for every friendly territory on the cont map, not just the one you're in.
letting the chat window stay visible on the screen so you don't accidentally miss important intel relayed via text (yes, some of us use it for something other than trolling the other factions :D )
letting anyone with Command Chat cert use /Orders, not just SLs


Such tools give players the ability to make faster and smarter choices, letting them better deploy troops for offenses, resecures, etc, but still leaving said choices ultimately up to the players.

Do you remember the Dagda song? You know, the song that wasn't over till someone went and captured Andvari? That is PS2 right now, only spread over a similar sized region, with a few more territories and that you can hardly put a plug on it (there's no "Andvari" to protect the continent behind it). Each impossible to defend (certainly impossible to defend ALL) and therefore utterly frustrating to play ping pong between these bases.

The whack-a-mole syndrome is caused by lack of strategic intel, proper command and communication tools at our disposal, and the piss-poor defensibility of most facilities against a vehicle assault. See my list above.

Flow is how a battle moves. It can be guided, unguided, restricted or unrestricted. Unrestricted flow leads to chaos and people avoiding combat, not finding combat and generally not having a good time. There can be such a thing as too much unrestricted flow. Consider that what we'll get is a rivermouth, with maybe a few branch-offs, where we had a swampy delta. Both flow to sea, but one can potentially be controlled by plugging a branch, the other cannot as it has too many branches. This then is about flow control by the players.

Too much chaos is bad. Very bad. It means you can't ever have a decent session where you feel you contributed to a fight, because literally 10 seconds later the entire frontline can be reduced to sanctuary.

Yep I agree, we don't want a free-for-all. But too much restricted flow is also bad. See PS1's Amerish, where the only 2 possible attack routes to take the cont were either a super-long link with an ultra-defenable Interlink on each end (Qumu and Cetan), or the long march through every single outer base on the cont, one at a time, with no deviation possible for 3/4 of the map.

Or almost as bad, trying to kick an enemy out of the Wele/Aja/Bomazi corridor on Cysoor due to the impenetrable Bomazi fortress and an insanely long LLU run being the only other link (Aja -> Chuku).

I'm not saying that PS2's "lattice" implementation will be like that, but there does need to be a middle ground. I fear a "lattice" ps1-style or not, might be too restrictive.


"Static" as you describe it is simply more staged fighting and progression, with fall back options that still allow you to stall and defend, without being completely overwhelmed. Stalling allows you to set up a meaningful campaign where you can plan fights for a few hours ahead. And that doesn't mean those hours are spend at the same point, it means you can steer the fight in your favour and any tactical and strategic moves made by the opposition and allies have far greater impact on the course of battle in the long term. And that gives much greater satisfaction than "flanking" and having your "flanking" move undone as soon as you try to move on.

Again, agreed. Make facilities more defensible and give us better communication tools and strategic intel and you'll get more stalling while still keeping the current hex-adjacency flanking freedom. I.E. - better game flow.

I'm not sure why anyone would think having over 80 options with just three continents is a good thing (and we have that right now - just stop for a second each evening and count the options on ALL CONTINENTS: which are ALL BORDER REGIONS, friendly AND enemy). There are too few players and too high concentrations of players to have a fight at half or more of them. That's why there's so much ghosting.

Too fluid a map is just going to mean that you're going to be ignored half the time as it's too much choice and too much effort to deal with it: there's just no time to respond so most people don't even bother showing up. This is a PvP game. There should be some PvP somewhere. Look, some ghosting will always happen, but if 60% of your time is ghosting or pointless defense, then people will just go to The Crown and ignore the conquest and defense in favour of at least having some targets to shoot at.

There is too much ghosting now, I agree. But it's not because of the hex system. There's so much ghosting because there's very little incentive to actually defend anything. You get no XP for defense, most facilities have craptastic defenses and so will get rolled once the defending aircraft and tanks get wiped out (which you can't even pull at most facilities), it's difficult to relay to people not in your platoon or outfit that a facility is even under attack, and if you're not in the actual base being attacked you can't tell if there's 2 defenders there or 200 so people are reluctant to spend time having to go there and check it out only to find the base is either perfectly safe or being rolled. In either case it's a wasted trip.

Look, that I'm able to read the map and SirAlydon is able to read the map, doesn't mean that Zergling X, Y and Z (and xXZergerZXx) is going to be able to read the map. But even SirAlydon will have to admit Dark is not capable of responding to all the threats at once and that coordinating people to defend all those regions is not just a pain in the arse, it's virtually impossible. It's simply too chaotic for command to deal with. :/

Yep, that's why we need better strategic tools to make reading the map easier and more informative, better communication tools to relay this intel to others, and better incentives to actually defend facilities in the first place. What we don't need is more arbitrary restrictions that force us to go in certain directions. It's much better to give us the tools we need to make better choices but still keep the choice in our hands.

Now and then I hear or see people use voice command or leader and I hear what they're saying and while they're discussing moving somewhere, I'm watching the map and that has already obsoleted their entire discussion.

The current system is impossible to plan for at all. And yes, of course plans have to be adapted constantly, but to have such a fluid state where a plan has been obsoleted before it has been conceived, let alone prepared or executed is just plain daft. A bit more static frontlines allow time for plans to hatch, be executed and make a noticable impact. Meanwhile, players who just want to play don't have to continuously find a new fight since those fights won't be gone by the time they get there and they can have an hour or two of leisurely fighting without the effort of constantly relocating. That's after all one of the underlying reasons why The Crown is very popular.

Again, better tools, better communication, better incentives for defense. That'll give you more static lines without introducing arbitrary restrictions.

And no, the new lattice won't automatically balance populations fighting one another. It may very well disperse population in a more controlled manner. If that's the case, it should make commanding more relevant. Of course, that still requires the base designs to be suitable for defense. If small teams get good defensive positions, they'll gladly take on zergs to stall them for reinforcements. And the less pressure on a lane, the more likely it will be used for flanking.

Yep. more defensibility will lead to more enemy stalling. But you don't need a "lattice" for that. Although I do like the idea of an "NTU lattice" for resource flow as mentioned by people in this thread..

[Tatwi]

Great post, Erendil.

[Figment]

They do for most people, esp ground forces that don't want to leave a pulled vehicle behind. For most people, the aforementioned mechanics/restrictions already direct the flow of battle across most of the maps we have, the exceptions being the north half of Indar and parts of Esamir. And adjacency affects anyone who wants to go on the offensive.

'Affect' is the right word, 'direct' and 'guide' are not. Affect because it limits your choices to any frontline target on either end of the random hex line. It doesn't steer battle however, it's still completely random. Many other effects (like for instance the rts "I like nice borders syndrom") dominate your choice. Intel on enemy positions hardly influences choices, because the intel becomes obsolete too fast and is unreliable.

We don't either. But a single ESF with Scout Radar can scout your entire cont's front line in about 4 minutes. Less than that if they only scout bases that actually show an enemy presence. Doing the Redeploy Shuffle to hop between bases works too. Not sure why it takes you 40 people. :p

Because every 2 seconds the frontline changes, you want up to date info, you need scouts everywhere. ;p ESF scout radar is a waste of time tbh, only gathers 2 min later obsolete data as per the above. I'm not going to tell any of my squad to waste their time like that. Besides, we can't spare the manpower and we're not willing to expand to put people on chores.

I like the adjacency restrictions because it makes logical sense and in turn causes the flow of battle to also make sense. In the tweeted pic, not being allowed to go from Spec Ops Training and cap Arroyo Tore does not make sense. I know it's just a concept pic but I don't want restrictions in the game that are arbitrary and illogical like that. If they can tweak the "lattice" to avoid such arbitrary hard restrictions then I'd be more open to it. I do like the Neutral Hex ides though, if it's mainly used just in the more open areas.

I understand what you're saying but adjecency is equally random. By the same line of argumentation, I could take it one step further state "I'm here, thus I should be able to hack this right now and create my own enclave". (Whack-a-mole enthusiasts like that though and I don't think either of us like that).

The example you give though is rather arbitrary. Just because there's a road doesn't mean there should be a link. With complete free roaming as we have now, as you state particularly in the north of Indar, players keep missing each other and no field battles form, nor can you fall back. That's the goal of this mission. Those roads can also allow for reinforcements, flank and support attacks and simply different vectors of attack. Just because it's there but has no link doesn't mean you won't make use of it. :)

And yes, stopping continuos backhacks is annoying. But IMO they should be discouraged by doing things like :


making backhacks visible on the cont map without having to mouseover the territory
making facilities more defensible and thus harder to backhack/easier to resecure
including the ability to see Ally Activity for the whole cont (we already get Enemy), or better yet, a tactical overlay like PS1
letting us see gen status for every friendly territory on the cont map, not just the one you're in.
letting the chat window stay visible on the screen so you don't accidentally miss important intel relayed via text (yes, some of us use it for something other than trolling the other factions :D )
letting anyone with Command Chat cert use /Orders, not just SLs


Such tools give players the ability to make faster and smarter choices, letting them better deploy troops for offenses, resecures, etc, but still leaving said choices ultimately up to the players.


Agreed.
Agreed - should include instant resecure if the base is still owned by you, tbh. That primarily helps smaller groups fight larger groups (larger groups would otherwise win anyway).
Reveal Friendlies ever 15 minutes was quite useful, though somewhat under used in PS1. Most people used it to check for ANTs. :p We kinda have this on the main map already, but a similar coloured region system for friendlies should be possible. Note that I do believe we should have fog of war. It's annoying to get so much intel on VS/TR fights.
That includes outpost ownership (those next to bases). In fact, we need a status window pop up like in PS1 after double clicking on the base.
Agreed. And ffs have /re fixed! (And make it /b :p)
At the very least increase the amount of orders. Once every 5 minutes? I needed 3 messages in PS1 to explain the plan, provide info updates and motivate people. I also agree it should be available to more than the squad leader. Possibly allow the squad leader to assign a couple /c positions.


The whack-a-mole syndrome is caused by lack of strategic intel, proper command and communication tools at our disposal, and the piss-poor defensibility of most facilities against a vehicle assault. See my list above.

That and the capture system and rules. Clearly with the same base layout, lack of intel and communication tools, even worse defensibility and all that. Whack-a-mole was much worse with multiple random enemy pop up and capture points to hold per base (still see it in Bio Labs and some towers) and before the adjecency rule was instated. We came across people who just sent their squad to take 12 points at once with one guy each prior to adjecency. We still regularly make three points turn at once with three people in squad. Adjecency is just a bit too unrestricted. I'd have prefered the hex to provide the influence factor, with a lattice (2-4 links per region) that follows the roads and terrain.

And for rules, that includes the current lack of one-sided link-locking. Remember when you'd hack an enemy base to block them from hacking yours in PS1? Pre-emptive strikes on Andvari would block all access to Dagda and would get you the initiative on an enemy home continent. That sort of thing is missing here: taking control of the initiative and forcing a response. Currently nothing is forced, making it easy to avoid all responsibilities.

Yep I agree, we don't want a free-for-all. But too much restricted flow is also bad. See PS1's Hossin, where the only 2 possible attack routes to take the cont were either a super-long interlink hack (Qumu) or LLu run (Cetan), or the long march through every single outer base on the cont, one at a time, with no deviation possible for 3/4 of the map.

I'm not saying that PS2's "lattice" implementation will be like that, but there does need to be a middle ground. I fear a "lattice" ps1-style or not, might be too restrictive.

That's PS1 Amerish. ;) But I've always said the capitals were a horrible idea and forced too much (counter-)clockwise duo-route capturing, with one route being next to non-viable. I've hardly seen any fights over Verica since the Capital Shields were introduced. :/ Hossin had the same thing with Naum-Acan and Bitol-Naum due to Voltan though. Then again, the Naum holds were epic fights that would leave players wanting for years. But without Voltan being such an obstruction, the fights for Naum would have been a lot more fair and fun for those coming from the west.

That's why I've continuously said, more restricted, but not too. Certainly not with three, four times the numbers per continent. However, 12x as many links per continent is way too unrestricted. IMO, the most you should have is around 10-13, total (defense + offense targets). More becomes too incomprehensible for too many players and allows too much ghosting.

Or just as bad, trying to kick an enemy out of the Wele/Aja/Bomazi corridor on Cysoor due to the impenetrable Bomazi fortress.

Tbh, Bomazi was easy to take. :x Just needed some good strategies. Double/Triple Sundy drop on backdoor or front door (not Gals, you see those coming too early near Bomazi), Routers and of course if you still had to come over the bridgehead: amphibious flanking with Thunderers.

Bridges are for nubs, after all. :) A little bit of creativity went a long way in PS1 and with Mightymouser (pretty much my style of PS1 play) you shouldn't ever have any problems with Bomazi or other interlinks. Just don't first push them back inside. Make a decisive strike before they're all huddled up inside. And if that's the case, nothing a good routerpad wouldn't fix.

There is too much ghosting now, I agree. [...] In either case it's a wasted trip.

Agreed with all, with the notion that the hex lattice system's openness amplifies or is amplified by these issues. None of them are entirely standalone and fixing one of these won't magically fix the lot, which I'm sure you can agree with.

What we don't need is more arbitrary restrictions that force us to go in certain directions.

Pretty much agree with the rest, just one point of critique: I don't think these are arbitrary restrictions, but necessary ones. The trick will be to design the maps such that they flow right. What I fear will happen is that with maps that have already been designed without any such flow in mind, an illogical (even if necessary) flow is imposed.

They should have created continents with this in mind from the start. But Malorn was the first to work on it from what I gather. Makes sense, otherwise they had never started with the whack-a-mole gameplay in tech test. :/

[Noxxia]

Without trying to sound like a jerk, I honestly do not have the time of day to read everything posted, so if these points were made or argued, I apologize, and I'll go look for them. There are some problems I see off the bat.

This screenshot is taken from the best and easiest part of the world to implement a new system. Battle basically flows through those canyons as it is, so I find it hard to see how it's much different. So how does this solution plan to take effect in the more open terrain such as northern Indar and Esamir?

From my experience battle flows significantly better on Esamir and Amerish when it happens there. I think a big part of this is the terrain, combined with the number of bases. Esamir has more open terrain, but to to balance that out there are fewer bases. Amerish, while having more bases, has more natural choke points. Indar has open terrain in the northern areas, with massive amounts of small "meaningless" bases. This is where the problem comes. I honestly think the devs understand and have embraced this for future maps, as demonstrated by the Amerish design. What I hope though, is that rather than implementing a Lattice or Lattice-like system, SOE first tries to solve the problem with fixing maps.

While Esamir and Amerish aren't perfect, they're significantly better than Indar in terms of combat flow. But all the action occurs on Indar, so very few players actually know this. Because the map design alone creates better flow, I believe an Indar revamp needs to go into effect before SOE implements a lattice system that players who don't even play on Esamir or Amerish are crying out for, when they don't understand how much map design effects the flow.

The problem I have with Lattice based gameplay is it is not dynamic at all. Certain paths become will become more meaningful than other paths and what players will end up finding is that fights will be easier to find, not because the map pushes in a predictable way, but that they're always in the same locations, as you'll see massive forces making no significant progress against each other. In a very microcosmic sense, it'll be like Metro in BF3 for anyone who's experienced that. Everyone fights over the B point, and rarely does it push beyond that. Rather than one Crown, there will be 3 or 4. This is how PS1 was from what I remember and I think people are living in the world of nostalgia when they want a Lattice or Lattice-like system similar to PS1. Even now, if I want to join the fray and fight big battles, very little progress is made. The only time I really see new parts of the continents and have small battles elsewhere are when going off on side operations to smaller, less populated portions of the world.

I think it's in their best interest to redo Indar before implementing a Lattice system. I don't think anyone would disagree that Indar could use some work, as it was SOE's first map and a learning experience. Not only would this make Indar more fun, but it could naturally push towards better flow of battle, and hopefully make players realize how unnecessary a Lattice system is. This could reduce the work SOE needs to do due to player demand.

When utilizing world design the game allows for freedom and battle can still flow quite nicely. The Southeast portion of Indar is a good example of this. The canyons force players down various routes, but give them the ability to choose where to go. The difference here is that currently, a large force can split and take two bases, while all coming from one. Sure, this makes it harder to defend, but if you get swarmed by a zerg at one base, without at least coming close to matching the size of that force, defense isn't going to be much better at the next base in a lattice system. This is because numbers clearly win out in Planetside.

This also doesn't solve the potential of a Galaxy dropping people onto an empty base. I cannot disagree that a Lattice system would solve this potential problem that would still exist after map redesign, especially on a continent with so many bases. The idea behind revamping game play via map redesign, lattice, or any other ideas out there, though, shouldn't be preventing ghost capping, but solving the flow of battle.

All that being said, I do believe something should be done to help flow, but a Lattice system and trapping people in a Rush style of gameplay is not the answer, yet. I would like to see some map redesign done in problematic areas and maybe some smaller non-lattice changes go into effect before completely redoing how battle flows.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Man, whenever someone tells me fps player are dull and just want to shoot stuff in their game i will point them to this thread.

And since i don't have anything more to add here at this time i will just say let's see how the changes will affect the game. I mean that's what a beta is for, right? RIGHT?

:J

[Fenrys]

The prototype we are working on does not include any resource changes. Resource revamp is on the roadmap though, currently listed in the May timeframe.

Feedback is welcome, so if you have thoughts on how best to integrate a meaningful resource system into this design feel free to share.

You could fill neutral areas with structures that spawn strategic caches one every so many minutes/hours. The caches could be captured king of the hill style, and provide some temporary bonus to whoever is nearby when the cache is captured.

Things a cache might contain:

-Resource extraction deployment patch. Infantry with the right certs can deploy a nanomagicwand that will create a destructible resource extractor. Each friendly extractor in the area contributes to the size of the resource tick coming to each empire from that area, as well as giving xp to the characters who deployed the extractors. There might be extractors from multiple empires in the same area at the same time. Each area has a maximum number of extractors that may be deployed at once.

-For 60 seconds after the capture, the ability to spawn a supply truck that you can drive to a friendly base/outpost that will increase the resources given per tick from the base/outpost delivered to for the next hour.

-One or more customizable Heavy Battle Tanks, common pool 3 seat tanks. Let bidding for them begin when the capture finishes, a 60 second window when the terminals are active and players can set a maximum they are willing to pay to get a tank. The actual price of a tank increases as more people announce they want tanks also. A large enough force would end up paying 750 for their basic heavy tanks (but everybody can still get a tank), while a smaller one could maybe save a few hundred resources on each basic frame and apply that savings toward getting their tanks equipped with better armor/engines/treds/brakes/2ndary weapon upgrades like AA or AV specific.

[MrBloodworth]

We should be Hauling Resources back to the warp gate, in unarmed, escort required Vehicles, for dissemination.

Hows that for Strategic value to bases and logistics?

[unAimed]

We should be Hauling Resources back to the warp gate, in unarmed, escort required Vehicles, for dissemination.

Hows that for Strategic value to bases and logistics?

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

[bpostal]

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

Meh, ANT runs were a kind of break. Hit autorun(drive) and you could do it one handed. Plus it could net a couple thousand free XP.
Grab a buddy with a loady and you can top off half a dozen bases in 5 min.

The real fun from requiring ANTs and NTU is it's ability to stop day(s) long fights, or conversely, keep them going with last minute drop offs into a hot CY.

[Figment]

@bpostal: but autodrive let you watch pr0n back then while typing and ramming trees. :(

[bpostal]

@bpostal: but autodrive let you watch pr0n back then while typing and ramming trees. :(

Allow me to stress: one-handed ;)

[Figment]

Allow me to stress: one-handed ;)

You still had a hand on the keyboard? :huh:






Oh never mind, on the joystick.

[bpostal]

http://youtu.be/obKLdou0LH0

And with that, I think we've said about all that needs to be. At least until we can get our hands on it.

[basti]

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

You are correct.


But Planetside 1 showed pretty clearly that there are some of us, including me, who enjoy such stuff.

I LOVE driving my ant!

[Silent Thunder]

You'd think nobody would want to do it, but at the same time if you look online, you'd see games such as Euro Truck Simulator sell quite well. The fact is that a lot of people do find some enjoyment from something relaxing punctuated by short moments of sheer terror, and I think bringing ANT runs to PS2 could fill this niche as well.

[basti]

Aye


Planetside kept us hooked for plenty of years because there was a good mix of downtime and action, and it especially gave you the choice between action and downtime.

Give those options to PS2 and ppeople will play more. We absolutly need the ANT.

[Justaman]

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

Your implying NOBODY want's to do these things.

PS1 did this best. Bases had resource pools built into them, meaning a base that's been cut off from supply lines can be defeated through sheer attrition (starve them out, if you can't beat em).

But! If ONE SINGLE Ant got to the base safely and refueled it, the defenders would hold out for significantly longer.

The XP bonus for doing this was a large incentive.<---

It only takes 000.3% (or less depending on time of day) of a servers population to man all ANT's needed at any given time.

This means that "the minority of people who enjoy doing this are more than enough to keep it being done, so that no-one else(like you) has to".





The only things I would change from the PS1 system, is to make the ANT faster (because draw distance is much bigger in PS2) and have a personal shield just like infantry, so you can take some damage and not have to get out every 30 seconds to fix it. Also, load-out options to increase armor against aircraft.

edit: also, huge xp bonus for killing someone who damaged the ANT on top of passive xp gain over time for simply driving/walking next to an ANT every time it enters a new hex. The passive will give a smaller xp gain than kill bonus, but still a bonus. not big enough to bother driving all over the map to find "new" hexes for the bonus. This way, escorts feel rewarded as well.

double edit: Aye


Planetside kept us hooked for plenty of years because there was a good mix of downtime and action, and it especially gave you the choice between action and downtime.

Give those options to PS2 and ppeople will play more. We absolutly need the ANT.

This^

It's just like music. If the song is NOTHING but UP! UP! UP! HIGHER! HARDER! FASTER! LOUDER! the entire time, then those things don't feel special or significant. UP! becomes the normal/plain.

Contrast, its what makes things feel different from each other.

Take dubstep as an example. The "drop" is always contrasted by less prominent sounds that lead up to it. Some times even a short silence right before it. Then BAM!

Moderation is key. If you try to feed us nothing but pure adrenaline, we will eventually adapt to that feeling and get bored of it.

[Thunderhawk]

I have lived to see the day when an ANT run has been equated to Dubstep :)

Trust me this is not criticism, I am genuinely impressed, and it makes sense also.

Some form of Base resource is required to facilitate the Lattice-like system they are discussing here as you need to have special circumstances to circumvent it (neutralise a base through starving) and I see no better solution then the Dubstep ANT !!!!!

[MrMak]

For the ANT i had a similiar idea in a diferent thread. You dont even need the vehicle itself, just make it a Sunderer utility that replaces the pasanger seats with the capacity to transfer resources.

And to amke the attrition more significant id say make all spawn timers except spawn beacons significantly longer but allow players to spawn faster by spending infantry resources (and increase the resource cap should that happen).

That way bases liek the crown simply would not be able to indefiantly sit in the middle of enamy territory.

[MrBloodworth]

Sounds great on paper - in reality 90%+ of these runs will be uneventful, so they become chores. Personally I don't play games to do chores - if I want to do chores I'll clean my appartement or something like that...

I think you may be incorrect. Things like the LLU, Rabbit and ant runs were hardly uneventful.

You dont even need the vehicle itself, just make it a Sunderer utility that

No dammit, we do not need more things packed on the sunderer. It stomps on enough roles.

[Realmofdarkness]

How would you cut off the connection to the warpgate for someone when you can only attack from one front?

[MrMak]

How would you cut off the connection to the warpgate for someone when you can only attack from one front?

The lanes would obviously interconnect in various points. You would push alonga diferent, less defended lane untill you rech the point where the 2 connect. You know, planing.