Good riddance Hex! Hello lattice!

[kidriot]

Thoughts on Higby's recent picture on Twitter and why I believe it's a step in the right direction:

http://themittani.com/features/planetside-2-latest-lattice-changes

[Canaris]

Thoughts on Higby's recent picture on Twitter and why I believe it's a step in the right direction:

http://themittani.com/features/planetside-2-latest-lattice-changes

:ofn2:

[Snydenthur]

I didn't see anything that indicated why you think lattice system is good.

[Ghoest9]

Is it just me or does the OP seem to not understand the significance of the lattice?

[ringring]

Is it just me or does the OP seem to not understand the significance of the lattice?
Why so?

I quite like the new display. But then again I never thought the look of the hex map was a good one.

[Baneblade]

Shameless self promotion for the win.

[Ghoest9]

Why so?

I quite like the new display. But then again I never thought the look of the hex map was a good one.



Because he never even talks about how it will change game play and how its supposed to change game play?
He just gives a confusing explanation of the mechanics for the instance we see.


And I agree a good lattice is much better than a hex system - I just dont think he understands the significance.

[Ghoest9]

Shameless self promotion for the win.

Well hes working for Mittanni on a site Mittanni actually named after himself. Would you expect any less?

[p0intman]

Well hes working for Mittanni on a site Mittanni actually named after himself. Would you expect any less?
and that self promotion is a bad thing how?

Also nicely put Kidriot.

[kidriot]

Is it just me or does the OP seem to not understand the significance of the lattice?

How do you figure? I've played in a lattice system before in Planetside 1.

[Ghoest9]

How do you figure? I've played in a lattice system before in Planetside 1.

Then please tell the significance - because you didnt in your article.

[kidriot]

Then please tell the significance - because you didnt in your article.

Lattice means every fight is a push towards the enemy warpgate. If not directly then in some way, fightings towards the warpgate while in Hex you can bounce around the map in so many ways it can diffuse a push while in Lattice pushes stay focused by nature of the map design.

When/if they introduce continental locking you'll immediately see the significance of lattice as it introduces the push/pull type of fighting that is a signature of memorable fights. Staunch defenses and blitzkrieg pushes were characteristic in Planetside 1 and you had last minute base cap saves that would stop entire zergs in their tracks. This will all be possible w/the lattice system where 15-25 coordinated people can make a difference vs huge numbers.

[Ghoest9]

It does encourge a direction fight towards enemy gates.

It does not have anything to do with small units fighting large units more than currently exists.

But the main things it does are
-discourage tendency of the zergs to wonder around with out colliding
-add value to winning specific fights because they are now links in a chain as opposed to simply goals themselves

[Lonehunter]

Reverting to the lattice line system gives much needed flexibility to the lattice system, as it will show people vulnerable bases and not necessarily which direction from which to attack. There are 11 attacking possibilites shown on the map
Other then explaining the obvious details of how lattice works, these seem to be your most significant opinions

Using the lattice gives flexibility to the lattice
Is shows people vulnerable bases
There are currently 11 attacking possibilities

A whole blog post on just that? As someone who has really enjoyed your previous posts, this one shows very little work or even commentary.

[ringring]

It would be nice to have an article that also relates the lattice to other mechanics.

In PS1 it wasn't the lattice alone that gave us the 'metagame'. We also had:

- More continents
- Warpgates rather than footholds where one warpgate linked to another on a different continent
- A coherent command structure that enabled the empire as a whole to strategise both within a single continent and across all continents

[Snydenthur]

When/if they introduce continental locking you'll immediately see the significance of lattice as it introduces the push/pull type of fighting that is a signature of memorable fights. Staunch defenses and blitzkrieg pushes were characteristic in Planetside 1 and you had last minute base cap saves that would stop entire zergs in their tracks. This will all be possible w/the lattice system where 15-25 coordinated people can make a difference vs huge numbers.

What? With hex system you can make last minute saves agains base caps as well as with lattice system. And lattice system makes small forces very insignificant. Lattice system is all about large numbers vs large numbers.

[Baneblade]

What? With hex system you can make last minute saves agains base caps as well as with lattice system. And lattice system makes small forces very insignificant. Lattice system is all about large numbers vs large numbers.

Tell that to all the specialized small force outfits in PS1 (hint: there were more of them than zergfits). Many of whom haven't been able to play the way they want in PS2 because it does nothing for their playstyle. The lattices offers much more than just zerg control.

[Shogun]

Tell that to all the specialized small force outfits in PS1 (hint: there were more of them than zergfits). Many of whom haven't been able to play the way they want in PS2 because it does nothing for their playstyle. The lattices offers much more than just zerg control.

but the lattice was not the main feature that allowed us to do this kind of stuff.
the lattice is only one thing we need. far more important are reasonable basedesigns with reasonable objectives. things like genholds or converting a base to a giant minefield trap is just impossible. even a simple organised basedefence is impossible because of the crappy design, nobody would use for military buildings. whose idea was it, to put the most sensitive areas of a base in the most vulnerable places?

also, without real engineers and cloakers, the most fun and innovative playstyles are missing from ps2. it only caters to arena deathmatch players and doesn´t deliver to anyone who doesn´t like to zerg.

[Ghoest9]

Tell that to all the specialized small force outfits in PS1 (hint: there were more of them than zergfits). Many of whom haven't been able to play the way they want in PS2 because it does nothing for their playstyle. The lattices offers much more than just zerg control.

The lattice itself doesnt help small outfits.

In essence all the lattice does is reduce the number of worthwhile objective at any given time. This tends to encourage the meeting of significant forces.

But just as now there will still be plenty of opportunities for small units to be important if they play smarter and react faster than the zerg.

[psijaka]

There really appears to be very little functional difference between the proposed lattice and the modified "rush lane" hex system currently in test; the difference is really one of aesthetics only.

The effectiveness of either all depends upon how they are implemented; too many lattice links and we are back to square one.

[Shogun]

There really appears to be very little functional difference between the proposed lattice and the modified "rush lane" hex system currently in test; the difference is really one of aesthetics only.

The effectiveness of either all depends upon how they are implemented; too many lattice links and we are back to square one.

that´s what i think as well.
the system seems to be the same as on the pst right now, but the wip is much cleaner. you can get the link information on first sight. the map on the pst looks aweful and overloaded. the hex system isn´t good on live, but on pst with all the gaps, it looks even worse.

next step should be the change to spheres of influence around the bases and a clear visualisation of them. clean up the map some more.
oh, and the "you are here" arrow needs to always stay on top. on live it often gets covered by other symbols like ammoboxes. i consider this a bug and not a feature.
nice to see, that the map is being worked on to clean it up.
and even some non ps1 players like the designs from ps1. the map may have been confusing when you looked at it for the first time, but it was easy and fast to use after you got the concept. the actual ps2 map is just confusing... always.

[Ghoest9]

There really appears to be very little functional difference between the proposed lattice and the modified "rush lane" hex system currently in test; the difference is really one of aesthetics only.

The effectiveness of either all depends upon how they are implemented; too many lattice links and we are back to square one.



this

[Ait'al]

I don't want lattice. I want free flowing strategic combat over the continent and full-scale potential strategy. I want all combat!

Variety! I want variety! Variety is the spice of life!



I hate anything simplifying the potential of a strategic game. The weapon, and actions, and weapons, and other aspects of terrain, population, base layout, and other natural things should govern battle. Including people learning and needing to learn to play the game. Strategy is no fun when it's controlled. Where is the strategy when you control continental movements. It's pre drawn.

Don't let people play stupidly. It only leads to stupid people and simple boreing play. Even smart people can't learn then and everything goes bad. Continental levels of combat and strategy should not be pre determined and guided. That ruins the most fun part of the game. And a huge part(The vast majority) of the strategy and thought that could/should be needed to play the game. The current system is bad enough.

The current system, and lattice even more, kills the potential dynamics of the game. It utterly crushes it. get rid of the grief system too. Same issue!

[Crator]

It would be nice to have an article that also relates the lattice to other mechanics.

In PS1 it wasn't the lattice alone that gave us the 'metagame'. We also had:

- More continents
- Warpgates rather than footholds where one warpgate linked to another on a different continent
- A coherent command structure that enabled the empire as a whole to strategise both within a single continent and across all continents

^ This. But I'm thinking it's the reason they HAD TO put in a lattice like system. Because we needed clearer looking objectives, not only to direct combatants to make larger fights but also to link to warpgates from other continents. I assume your 2nd point meant also having single empire home continents.

[Ghoest9]

I don't want lattice. I want free flowing strategic combat over the continent and full-scale potential strategy. I want all combat!

Variety! I want variety! Variety is the spice of life!



I hate anything simplifying the potential of a strategic game. The weapon, and actions, and weapons, and other aspects of terrain, population, base layout, and other natural things should govern battle. Including people learning and needing to learn to play the game. Strategy is no fun when it's controlled. Where is the strategy when you control continental movements. It's pre drawn.

Don't let people play stupidly. It only leads to stupid people and simple boreing play. Even smart people can't learn then and everything goes bad. Continental levels of combat and strategy should not be pre determined and guided. That ruins the most fun part of the game. And a huge part(The vast majority) of the strategy and thought that could/should be needed to play the game. The current system is bad enough.

The current system, and lattice even more, kills the potential dynamics of the game. It utterly crushes it. get rid of the grief system too. Same issue!

1 The current system actually lends its self less variety than a lattice. The majority of the fights occur in a few place and most of the map is either barely contested caps or bases that simply are rarely capped.

2 players arent stupid. For the most part they are playing the current game rationally.



3 You talk better than you think.

[Rahabib]

This isn't meta game. Its battle flow. Until rewards, penalties, etc. Are meaningful (eg. Resources) the game will still lack deep meaningful strategy.

[Ait'al]

...no what you guys are describing is what I already refered to as stupid players and stupid gameplay. Following a line is a lot simpler than understanding the strategic use and consequences of terrain and deciding how to take down a map. And learn how to hold terrain, etc, etc. You are mistaken where you stand in my argument.

I'm sorry players are very stupid. They do not know how to do more than run in groups take stuff and then loose it and take it again for xp runs... Taht is it. They are very stupid. And, though you don't know this, This map is made to partly be held. Except you always have a side for the inlet of other forces on the other side. But nobody even does that. It's a three way circle with one facing direction that is strategic and another that is open to attack. Both terrain and base defence lend itself to this in the simplest way. it should be designed for complex strategy and make the terrain matter! ALOT! then they will have guns for different situations. Outside, Inside, medium. They would even have more room for more guns for more fights and more variations and people potentially being able to buy stuff to their preferred type of battlefield. if they did it intelligently and to something remotely qausi-realistic as far as strategic play went.

And it should be changed more to realistic hold and cap so you have base defenses that aren't mindless circular motions. Which the lattice system will just be laying on top of. It should be logic driven. And not symmetrical or similar. It should be complex terrain and be redesigned for more complex play. the continents would have to be bigger universally for this more than likely. Or the terrain made more realistically for differening designs. Not that you can't use the extrematies but they should be extremes. Not the norm. Or one cont. There should be variety. The more complex the terrain strategy derived the more complex the game also. You would start designing stuff for far wider reasons and make far more interesting game items up with more uses for one place or another.

The current map is just a circular RTS simple map design in disguise. They are all the same. It's basic three way with one direction to take and one direction to be taken. Nothing else more profound. There is a lot naturally to design. It should be lots of fun making. And should be very diverse. The continent should be a work of art with differing strategies every step you take. But it's very simple and bland. The cont makes the game! That is where they should learn to focus and let it drive the game appropriately. Not sure how much they know how to design on that level or how much anyone has math skills or creativity for that any more. They would have a far more interesting game for it if they learned to achieve that. Same with all FPS/RTS/Strategy games actually. This game should not be simple math based. Or there is no point to massive multi player and open terrain combined with strategy...

Taking a base becuase it has one or two shiny things to take is not complex or even strategic. it's a carrot on a stick and stupid. And it ensures the game is played as thus. That is not how you design massive multi player games logically to get any ammount of complexity out of it..(as a game developer you are in control of what the player base can do becuase you design the only things, AKA the limits of what they can do. You only restrict what it possible in one sense. You have to make the things to allow complex play or what is wanted and it's range.) But nobody has every gone past simple designs in MMOs. They always neglect too much depending on the type of game and design. EQ had a lot to expand on like game of it's time but everything has stopped with that era of games development because it was easy. the harder stuff takes applying a little more knowledge and some work to make. Those types of things vary. And FPS, even on strategic maps is easer than what you would do with RPGs. Unless you only did economy which is just large terrain and limited transport for a realistic economy, etc, etc. Nobody knows what governs what logically goes on ina game anymore. The more creative people jumped shipped over a decade ago. And it's not hard to think out. It's the same thing as real life but you are doing it in a simpler manner in one way or another. You have to make sure not to simplify the part you don't want affecting the game. To get the gameplay you want. You've gone from the age of game design that is drawing on a piece of paper to chilling a rock person out... Not sure if that is even a good analogy but I'm too tired to think any more out.

I thought people liked the first game because it's continent level has a semblance of a war campaign logic where you had to take and hold terrain and think of where and how to defend and where the enemy would hit. It used to play like that when I first played. We used to think out defence and when to hold and sat till they came being ready. That is where the large fights came from. That was the entire fun! That being simplified makes the game stupid and the player based even more so. The carrot on a stick design is anathema to a complex strategic war game with al the trappings naturally underneath!

[Ghoest9]

...no what you guys are describing is what I already refered to as stupid players and stupid gameplay. Following a line is a lot simpler than understanding the strategic use and consequences of terrain and deciding how to take down a map. And learn how to hold terrain, etc, etc. You are mistaken where you stand in my argument.

So in other words you dont actually play PS2?


There is almost no strategy being using. Zergs head towards the closest undefended large base - and then towards the next one. They just wander around the map.

Organized outfits trying to take a map send people to every adjacent territory and try to cap it then coalesce on which ever one has a defensive stand(ussually a large base or tower that a zerg wondered into.)

Players arent stupid - they are making the best choices for themselves in a a nearly pointless conquest driven by group dynamics.

[Ait'al]

The point should be entirely in trying to hold things in the end(NOT taking it, though that should be fun in the proccess and required at different times). But the map has to be complex enough to make that worthwhile. AKA it has to be fun enough to do over and over again and not get tireing. Hence the needed complexity.

That spreads out the value of the resources in the game and makes what seems little go a long way! It's all in the terrain and then gun designs. But it must be complex enough and done well enough. Which takes more work than what they or any game company puts into terrain design or anything like it now! but it's definitely possible to do! Think of the entire reality of terrain affecting real combat through history and let them all be used and in play. Then just don't oops on the gun design and let them void it in any way. You can probably do that enough to even void the problem naturally with insta supplies and insta spawning and endless reinforcements. Which by the way make character in the end to the play.

AKA game companies have been neglecting the parts of games that can do the most for their games. Probably because they hit it and go, "Oh god, I sense work!" At least relatively to what they do now.

And think of the stupidity intelligent comment as a dynamic. The "smarter" ones simply have experience in the logic potentially from other things in life and will adapt faster. The "stupid" ones do not and need it to develop and become "smart" ones. That can be any level of need. But that points to the game reality. You need a complex game with something to learn. Something complex and natural, and have to have dynamics so people can learn and that makes then learn. That is only ever the more complex environment and gaining proficiency from experience. You can never simplify and "dangle a carrot" anything and expect someone to learn something. Learning always comes from the other way Something that needs to be learned over relatively simple. Simplicity is the enemy of learning or complexity. Whenever you simplify something you take away what has to be and what can be learned. Hence producing a stagnant environment. It's like a stinky river. That is how the real world works. Game design is always reproducing reality or mimicking it. It's governed by the same rules and principles. It is in the real world!

You reap what you sow! What you put in is what you produce! What you make is what you get! And you need to do it in abundance over what you want! Probably the most true real world application in life! AKA always do as much as you can! Think work ethic! What ever you do do it the the fullest you can do it! That is a qoute from the bible. So very old wisdom! Foundation of work ethic in this country orginally.

That gives me a funny idea. Only use info and ideas from books that are near or around 2000k years old or more! That includes principles on design. That is the Bible, Euclids elements, Most old religious mythologies pre christian and their writings. 8p Taht is a good foundation. Is there anything really new since the common use of tanks in strategy. I'm betting it just mimics older war logic. It usually does. Range and speed are not new. This is pretty much where all stuff for games comes from anyway... But it could be fun to refocus! Lots of info on the specifics of warfare and it's logic to design from!

[Snydenthur]

There is almost no strategy being using. Zergs head towards the closest undefended large base - and then towards the next one. They just wander around the map.

Organized outfits trying to take a map send people to every adjacent territory and try to cap it then coalesce on which ever one has a defensive stand(ussually a large base or tower that a zerg wondered into.)

Players arent stupid - they are making the best choices for themselves in a a nearly pointless conquest driven by group dynamics.

How do you see that lattice changes zerging? Instead of going from base to base, they go from base to base on a predefined route. Not like it is hard to know the next place in the current system anyway.

Isn't that a good strategy for outfits? With lattice system, they can't do that.

Players are actually very stupid. Most of them don't care about defending, they only want to run around in the main attack force. The lattice system is good for them. For people that want strategic gameplay, lattice system is bad.

[Qwan]

It does encourge a direction fight towards enemy gates.

It does not have anything to do with small units fighting large units more than currently exists.

But the main things it does are
-discourage tendency of the zergs to wonder around with out colliding
-add value to winning specific fights because they are now links in a chain as opposed to simply goals themselves

I dont know Ghoest, in the current hex system, if a small group is holding a position and doing it well, there is no gratification because, even though your team it doing its job, it actually isnt, which is stopping the enemy's advancement. For instance, in the hex, if your fighting hard and keeping the base the enemy (zerg) can just go around you and continue there blind march toward the north, south, east, west were ever they want. There is nothing there to break there momentum. But with the lattice system, you become a force that has to be reconed with, if they want that next base to get that XP, then they have to take out you and your team. I think that the lattice will become a catalist in the development of better coordinated team work instead of the almighty steam rolling zerg.

I will be honest with you, as of right now, sometimes in my outfit I just roll with the zerg, going from base to base, collecting XP, maybe spawn camp the enemy box for a little more xp, and just sit back and relaxe. But sometimes well run into a good outfit of guys doing there thing, thats when the joking and smoking stops and orders start coming over the TS. I welcome the good fight, but the zerg doesnt stop for that fight, it just moves on to the next hex, to collect the next XP payout. But with the lattice there will be no more "these guys are good, O well lets go to the next hex to the left, well cap that". With the lattice those days will be over, a large disiplined outfit can crush a zerg or at least delay it long enough for rienforcements anyday and thats a proven fact. I can remember Searhus, Sina dropship center, MAP against the zerg, we held that piece of shit drop center for 2 hrs (RT) till back up arrived, just so the damn TR couldnt pull drop ships to drop on Iva, (which was being defended by AT I think) to the north, we were about 28 guys. I can remember this fight well because it was the first real fight I was in that made the difference. So I think the lattice system will definantly make a big difference in game play.

[Babyfark McGeez]

The benefit from this "new" system is that (in theory) you have a better chance of mounting a defense before the enemy actually hits a base because you know where they are coming from and they cannot just easily bypass your defense by taking the undefended hex around the corner and move on.
And this is unrelated to any other improvements that undoubtedly are very needed to elevate this whole game above the level of lobby shooters where it still sits.

[Whiteagle]

The benefit from this "new" system is that (in theory) you have a better chance of mounting a defense before the enemy actually hits a base because you know where they are coming from and they cannot just easily bypass your defense by taking the undefended hex around the corner and move on.
And this is unrelated to any other improvements that undoubtedly are very needed to elevate this whole game above the level of lobby shooters where it still sits.
Indeed, the Lattice makes Defense MATTER!
This along with the long standard Capture Times (the shorten ones we have on Public Test right now are a bit TOO short in my opinion) have greatly improved the game for me...

I think I figured out why all these so called 'Strategist' are whining...

Most claim that it is because it "limits freedom of choice" on how to move across a Continent, but a big part of true Stratagem is figuring out you and your opponents limitations and how you can work around them to your advantage.
Critical thinking requires such restraints, because otherwise there wouldn't be any challenge in it.

Thing is, there's a Leadership skill that is VERY broken right now that will have its overwhelming effectiveness reduced by a Lattice that these people are mistaking for a Strategy; Efficient use of Available Forces.

With Hexes, you are able to stretch a Platoon's worth of players much thinner when on the offensive, because if you are able to coordinate them well enough you can exploit nearly EVERY option presented to you.
It doesn't matter if the six men you sent to Base A can't take it, because you still have six men taking Base B, six men taking Base C, six men taking Base D, while having two squads spread out over Bases E, F, G, and H waiting in reserve to start their own Captures.

You don't have that kind of Flexibility of Force defensively, because your same Platoon also has to watch for attacks on Bases I, J, K, and L on your other front.
The defensive Strategies is inherently unable to match his offensive counterparts man for man because he has to take into account far more opposition coming at him from various angles, while an Attacker just has to worry about the Defender.
Coupled with the exploitability of Hex Adjacency, where taking one base allows you access to at least 2 to 3 more, is it any wonder why no one bothers to defend?

[Ghoest9]

How do you see that lattice changes zerging? Instead of going from base to base, they go from base to base on a predefined route. Not like it is hard to know the next place in the current system anyway.

Isn't that a good strategy for outfits? With lattice system, they can't do that.

Players are actually very stupid. Most of them don't care about defending, they only want to run around in the main attack force. The lattice system is good for them. For people that want strategic gameplay, lattice system is bad.


The lattice doesnt stop zerging- thats not the goal.
Its stops the wondering zerg of inanity that does nothing but get caps only to move on and lose them 20 minutes later.

[Snydenthur]

Indeed, the Lattice makes Defense MATTER!


So is there something, that actually makes people defend more? If your lane is attacked by a greater force than you have on the lane, why wouldn't people change to the winning lane?

Winning is more fun than losing and since this game isn't RTS, you can't count on getting any help on the losing lane.

Defense matters on hex too, even more than on lattice, but we've all seen how it goes.

[Figment]

So is there something, that actually makes people defend more? If your lane is attacked by a greater force than you have on the lane, why wouldn't people change to the winning lane?

Winning is more fun than losing and since this game isn't RTS, you can't count on getting any help on the losing lane.

The Crown. Vanu Archives. Bio Labs. ie. defensible areas. The amount of numbers shouldn't matter if you can mitigate the numbers of attackers (by good play) with a good defense using the defensible terrain given to you by the game. The game currently doesn't do this everywhere.

If something is hard to take, this attracts people from all sides like moths to a flame. Why? Target rich environment and defensible, thus farmable. Satisfaction from breaking a siege, satisfaction with overcoming a siege.

Why would people want to go through the effort of moving to an empty lane if they can find places of a lot of action? You got this the wrong way around.


People currently move because there's nothing to do and they get free experience for ghosting terrain. But in doing so, they can't and don't defend what they just gained. The area is not defensible enough and the strategic benefit of having it is diminished because the enemy can ghost every other empty territory of yours next to it to bypass you and make your defense insiginificant.

Greater numbers currently win by default. Why play defense at all if you're not given a chance to defend?

Defense matters on hex too, even more than on lattice, but we've all seen how it goes.

Defense matters equally.

Problem is, there's currently no defense possible, because there's too much to defend at once. So it's irrelevant: you're better off ghosting enemy territory than defending terrain you have.

The current system rewards mindless attack and most the time doesn't reward defense at all. The attacker has it far too easy in this game to the extend defenders do not exist.

But a good tower or Bio Lab defense does attract defenders. Just because it's possible to fight back (or incase of the Bio Lab, at least hold and farm choke points), even with smaller numbers.

We need more control over backland and there needs to be more tactical value to sabotage in the backland. Currently, you just take the backland and then let a zerg or individual take it back after you left.

[Ait'al]

I think people don't understand real world defense strategy. It does not invovle holding whole chunks of terrain. It's dynamic and fluid. The point is acting to that fluencing, hence the fun!

Think the history of england. There was a show going over how a certain king took it over. he did it by having key positoins. A castle fortress near whales. The enemy could take stuff around him all they wanted. But in the end he took it back. The other things were merely used as needed and retaken etc for other reasons overall. Like widling down the enemy potentially. Or retaken after winning overall on the cont. Contentantal warfar is different than what people are used to now. It's a thinking game and it's alot of fun.But you have to get into it and leran what governs it.

If you hold the right place you should be able to take larger enemy potentially. It's about understanding your environment and your options. And acting a manner to win. if your enemy thinks it out better he wins! In the end familiarity and knowledge win the war! That can involve endless variation and strategies depending on how you are attacked etc. Taht is where you get diversity of a war game. The bases would be that in a microcosm, though other consideration can come into play like reinforcements etc or other things that can affect the combat or fight. depend on the game/environment/circumstances. But it all take thought and knowledge and hence experience. BTW that is when being CR means something. And makes then gain experience to do it. It also makes knowledgeable player ignore them to make them get experience to follow them! Destroying experience makes people eventually all follow stupid command and stupifies the entire game untill it can't be played and is a wasteland of a game. Which PS1 became for those reasons!

This should be a thinking game not a blind shootemup! People are currently only fighting battles. They are not fighting a war. The grief and lattice system need to be removed so we can play both again!

[Ghoest9]

I think people don't understand real world defense strategy. It does not invovle holding whole chunks of terrain. It's dynamic and fluid. The point is acting to that fluencing, hence the fun!

Think the history of england. There was a show going over how a certain king took it over. he did it by having key positoins. A castle fortress near whales. The enemy could take stuff around him all they wanted. But in the end he took it back. The other things were merely used as needed and retaken etc for other reasons overall. Like widling down the enemy potentially. Or retaken after winning overall on the cont. Contentantal warfar is different than what people are used to now. It's a thinking game and it's alot of fun.But you have to get into it and leran what governs it.

If you hold the right place you should be able to take larger enemy potentially. It's about understanding your environment and your options. And acting a manner to win. if your enemy thinks it out better he wins! In the end familiarity and knowledge win the war! That can involve endless variation and strategies depending on how you are attacked etc. Taht is where you get diversity of a war game. The bases would be that in a microcosm, though other consideration can come into play like reinforcements etc or other things that can affect the combat or fight. depend on the game/environment/circumstances. But it all take thought and knowledge and hence experience. BTW that is when being CR means something. And makes then gain experience to do it. It also makes knowledgeable player ignore them to make them get experience to follow them! Destroying experience makes people eventually all follow stupid command and stupifies the entire game untill it can't be played and is a wasteland of a game. Which PS1 became for those reasons!

This should be a thinking game not a blind shootemup! People are currently only fighting battles. They are not fighting a war. The grief and lattice system need to be removed so we can play both again!

seriously just go away

You are literally speaking nonsense but in a serious well constructed paragraphs.

troll else where

[Ait'al]

So in other words you dont actually play PS2?


There is almost no strategy being using. Zergs head towards the closest undefended large base - and then towards the next one. They just wander around the map.

Organized outfits trying to take a map send people to every adjacent territory and try to cap it then coalesce on which ever one has a defensive stand(ussually a large base or tower that a zerg wondered into.)

Players arent stupid - they are making the best choices for themselves in a a nearly pointless conquest driven by group dynamics.


Explain to me how lattic would fix the lack of strategy. By your or someone elses own admitance the only thing the lattice does it stop the "zerg" from taking side bases. Taht means they then take the main base. Meaning the zerg is still gong but in one direction all the time and it is one constant zerg...

BTW those zerg in other game designs could be called auxiliary forces. Or other groups doing other things in the game. Those could be reinforcments or taking other bases seperate or to help your base fight. You don't want one thing happening all the time. It's aweful!

[Whiteagle]

So is there something, that actually makes people defend more? If your lane is attacked by a greater force than you have on the lane, why wouldn't people change to the winning lane?
Because then the empty lane is pushed behind the winning lane until they see a chance to cut them off.

In fact this is why the Lattice spreads the population around; you can't just tear around a continent and expect to be reconnected with your Warpgate because any exposed flank is a HUGE weakness to be exploited.
You have to push the whole FRONT LINE, not leave a trail of captured bases in your platoons wake, since that will leave you cut off and easy to out maneuvered simply through spawning options!