[Suggestion] Global Lattice with the addition of Hossin.

[basti]

Hello again Folks.

So, take a look at this image. Keep it open, you gonna need it while you read the rest.

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

Now, lets explain this:

Planetside 2 will change quite a bit with the addition of the lattice currently on the test server. From the playtests I participated in yet, and from expirience with Planetside 1, I know quite well what is going to happen: Its going to be awesome, really really awesome.

But even the Hex Lattice isnt going to fix the fundamental problem Planetside 2 has: There is no real goal. There isnt really anything to archive, and there wont ever be, because its a game. So during the days of Planetside 1 and also in Planetside 2, we made our own goals. We made plenty, all the way from “capturing that base” up to “capturing that continent”. And while those goals provide a reason to fight for your squad or Platoon, they arent enough reason to get your entire faction working together. And having the entire VS working together on Werner and later on Gemini are some of the most fun memorys I made in Planetside 1. So I obviously want that back. Lots of other people want that as well, and because we lack that in Planetside 2, lots of folks arent playing as much as they usually would, or dont play at all because they just wait.

To get that back, and to get all those players back, we need a Global lattice. Devs said in the past that this is going to happen but that 3 continents arent enough to make it happen, and I agree there.

With hossin, we have 4, and that is enough.

So, picture: 3 of the Continents, lets say Amerish, Indar and Esamir, get one of the footholds removed. That means on those 3 continents, only 2 factions have a foothold. On those 3 continents, there would mostly just be a 2 way fight, as opposed to the usual 3 way we have on all 3 continents.

The leftover warp gate that is now empty becomes a actual warpgate. And that warpgate leads to the last continent, in this case Hossin.

In other words: In order to get to Hossin, a faction needs to have a connection from one of its footholds to the warp gate that leads to Hossin. Bang, Global Lattice, quick and simple.

As for the why, because I know a lot of people will be asking this:

Planetside 2 cannot support a 4th continent in the same setup we have right now. Population would be spreaded even thinner, means pop imbalances on continents would happen more often, means proper fights would happen less often. Nobody wants that.
The situation gets even more problematic when Searhus comes along. So before that happens, a solution should already be in place. Global lattice is the solution.
Another important reason for this is the removal of constant, forced 3 way fights. Planetside played quite different in a 2 way fight than it did in a 3 way, and Planetside 2 will also be quite different in a two way. Right now we never got a real 2 way fight unless one faction completely left a continent. With this idea here, we always have the choice between fighting a two way fight or hopping onto Hossin to have a 3 way going. That means a lot more diversity in strategy than we have right now.

Im sure there are some other reasons why this should happen with the addition of Hossin, but I cant think of anything more right now.

I just hope this here reaches the devs and happens. It doesnt matter if the lattice gets set up like I suggest, or gets set up some other way, its only important that we get the global lattice. I want that epic global strategy again that made me play Planetside 1 for years. :)

Basti

[bpostal]

Mmm...global lattice.

[J Baley]

I think you're absolutely correct about this Basti. If we don't get a global lattice, I don't see myself playing this game nearly as long as I played the original Planetside.

[Artimus]

Not a bad idea, I would imagine if more conts. get added they will raise the server limits so more people can be on at one time; if more people start playing that is.

[basti]

Not a bad idea, I would imagine if more conts. get added they will raise the server limits so more people can be on at one time; if more people start playing that is.

Server has no real limit. But you would need to get the people first, and thats the real problem. Especially to get equal pop on all servers again. We had merges for that reason.

[Whiteagle]

http://i77.photobucket.com/albums/j65/Whiteagle/ContinentDiagram.png
Ah yes, a Modified Figure 5, should work...

[maradine]

I don't think adding more lettuce is going to solve anything.

Wait, what?

[Brusi]

I would prefer that there were no permanent footholds. I think this would add a level of automatic balancing to the game. (Is that what Fig.3 is depicting?)

Explaination: Right now everyone complains when their empire is in control of a particularly un-loved warpgate on Indar. If all warpgates were dynamic and you could lose all warpgates owned by your empire, except the very last one on the very last continent, then i think purposely moving the flow of battle so that your empire owns the community preffered warpgates would be an awesome strategic addition to the game. Basically another win condition.

Simply make it that if you are warpgated by a single empire on one continent, that warpgate is then flipped and will now be owned by the attacking empire. the Defending empire is then not only ejected from the continent they are warpgated on, but also loses the linked warpgate.

If they do not own another pair of warpgates somewhere on Auraxis, then they simply cannot be ejected and instead of their warpgate flipping, they simply get humiliated in some fashion instead.

Be it the payouts that will ensue on the forums, factionwide weaponlock for 15 seconds (a la TF2 losing team) or replace all avatars of the faction with skinny naked/underpants/payjama versions ;p

[basti]

That doesnt work because of the population.

The reason why each faction has 2 Footholds with my idea is because they need to be able to have a save spawn point for two full pop locks. That is absolutly needed.



Sanctuarys would be a better solution for this, but those take extra time to be created, and i rather have a global lattice sooner rather than later. ;)

[Whiteagle]

I would prefer that there were no permanent footholds. I think this would add a level of automatic balancing to the game. (Is that what Fig.3 is depicting?)
No, that's actually what we have now, 3 Continents each with a Factional foothold.

What Basti is suggesting is similar to my Figure 5, where each faction shares two Continents apiece, but my idea had Sanctuaries in addition to the "foothold" Warpgate.

....replace all avatars of the faction with skinny naked/underpants/payjama versions ;p
...Like we wouldn't pay for such a Cosmetic anyways?

[bpostal]

I can only hope that someday we'll get Sancs back. IMO their benefits outweighed any disadvantage.

What's needed more than Sancs is to take these skirmishes and circle jerks that we've been doing and give it some meaning. One continuous campaign to zero base the NC.
We need this shit. Make it happen Basti!

[Whiteagle]

I can only hope that someday we'll get Sancs back. IMO their benefits outweighed any disadvantage.
Honestly the way they whipped up VR so fast, it makes one wonder how hard Sanctuary would be...
Need to get the Warpgates working proper for that to happen though...

[Snydenthur]

I don't really get how this would be better with the population problems. Instead of having bigger 3-way fights, it would be reduced to 2-way fights on 3 continents. Then everybody would play on the hossin, since it would have the biggest battles so it would also have most of the players. So, this system would make indarside to hossinside. Right?

You have to remember that whatever worked in ps1, will not work that well on ps2. That's why sequels are very different to the originals nowadays. Cod generation at it's "best".

[Brusi]

That doesnt work because of the population.

The reason why each faction has 2 Footholds with my idea is because they need to be able to have a save spawn point for two full pop locks. That is absolutly needed.

If the gates are linked statically, then every faction will always have access to two continents via the pair of linked gates that are uncapturable.

I think the gate connections should be static and everything else dynamic ;p

http://i.imgur.com/p77VvzC.jpg?1

4 Continents means 6 distinct Warpgate Pairs. One Empire can own multiple Pairs of Warpgates, but no empire can ever own less than 1 pair.

[fierce deity]

I would prefer that there were no permanent footholds. I think this would add a level of automatic balancing to the game. (Is that what Fig.3 is depicting?)

Explaination: Right now everyone complains when their empire is in control of a particularly un-loved warpgate on Indar. If all warpgates were dynamic and you could lose all warpgates owned by your empire, except the very last one on the very last continent, then i think purposely moving the flow of battle so that your empire owns the community preffered warpgates would be an awesome strategic addition to the game. Basically another win condition.

Simply make it that if you are warpgated by a single empire on one continent, that warpgate is then flipped and will now be owned by the attacking empire. the Defending empire is then not only ejected from the continent they are warpgated on, but also loses the linked warpgate.

If they do not own another pair of warpgates somewhere on Auraxis, then they simply cannot be ejected and instead of their warpgate flipping, they simply get humiliated in some fashion instead.
Agreed. And sanctuaries need to make a return.

Be it the payouts that will ensue on the forums, factionwide weaponlock for 15 seconds (a la TF2 losing team) or replace all avatars of the faction with skinny naked/underpants/payjama versions ;p
We already have a pajama wearing faction. It's called Vanu Sovreignty. :lol:

[Sledgecrushr]

I agree with you Basti. A global lattice is sorely needed for macro meta gameplay to evolve. But when the global lattice is installed we have to get rid of the alert system. In my opinion these two entities are not compatible with each other.

[basti]

I agree with you Basti. A global lattice is sorely needed for macro meta gameplay to evolve. But when the global lattice is installed we have to get rid of the alert system. In my opinion these two entities are not compatible with each other.

Depens how you set the alert system up.


It is ment to be the new kind of event thing that we used to have in PS1, means rabbit etc. Its just right now that they use it for "capture continent" stuff.

[Brusi]

I'm assuming that the Alert System will be replaced with the mission system, once it is fleshed out.

I think a good replacement of the Alert system would be a version of the "Capture the Drop Pod" game-type of Crysis 2.

Drop a few pods (or reveal a few alien artifacts) around the continent/planet that act as Dynamic capture points. Whoever holds/captures the most in a specific time, gets a blow job.

[Carbon Copied]

I did ask Higby on Twitter whether the current incarnation of the alert system will remain or be adjusted post continent/global lattice introduction and didn't get a response; however I can't see it being something that will be needed when effectively the front line is on one of several fronts (empty continents only becoming populated when the line shifts back/forth). I think the alert system definitely has a place in PS2 pre and post global lattice; it just won't be in the same form we see it now as it's there for an entirely different issue with the current system.

Personally I think the most viable way is a sanctuary redux as it gives you the regroup and re-breakout option; where as if you're (however unlikely) pushed back to your "starting gate" you could effectively be camped into eternity waiting on another faction to shift the attention elsewhere. As mentioned the population caps are likely to be a factor here as well.

From an attacking point of view I think permenant footholds would kind of detract as still the most you could do is no different than it is currently; you wouldn't be able to go for that "global domination" factor as they would still be on-world effectivley and not have to get back that foot hold. Quite how they will handle an en-masse column of vehicles and troops coming through a warp gate without tele-fragging is anyone's guess but thats a separate issue.

I did a thread on my take of Sanctuary Redux and apart from the obvious gameplay dynamics I think the sanctuaries have a unique oppurtunity to develop the faction and game lore as much as being a mechanic in their own right. To begin with they can be placeholders they don't need to be anything more than that at the start - but eventually I'd like to see the sanctuaries as somewhere where you can organise, have down time from the battle with a community and social side as much as anything.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/showthread.php?t=53667

[basti]

The Altert system is the Event system.

Its just that right now the only event they have is "capture this continent". That event could go away, others could come along.

[wasdie]

I don't think we'll see a global lattice until we have 6 continents. 4 seems pretty thin.

I've seen multiple concepts with a 4 cont lattice system but all of them have seemed thin. When you get to the 6+ cont concepts it's much more robust and seems like less problems arise.

Personally I want 13 zones. 10 neutral continents and 3 sanctuaries. Personally I want the sanctuaries to be floating space stations that can hold 2000 people each and float over 2 continents (your "home" conts). Then they can also work in space battles with captured asteroids and a lot of fun stuff.

I think that would be really neat instead of just some boring home continent.

[Sturmhardt]

If they put that in, I might play again.

.sent via phone.