Breaking Lattice

[EVILPIG]

Lattice is a love or hate mechanic. What if we had the best of both? How would you all feel about events where the Lattice drops and conts become purely adjacency?

An immediate example would be changing Territory alerts to adjacency. Thoughts or ideas?

[PredatorFour]

I am a fan of lattice on indar, esamir. However, i quite like amerish as it is. I think in time it would be nice to introduce new conts, some with different capping strategy involved so we have more uniqueness to the conts.

As for the events, i really hate the events more and more i play. They're just a filler once global cont capping comes in and when people start arguing over where an empire should attack during an alert it just gets on my tits lol they're worthless.

[capiqu]

Nah, I think the lattice links need a bit more work but I like it better than adjacency.

[ringring]

Nah, I think the lattice links need a bit more work but I like it better than adjacency.
/agree

[Illtempered]

Agreed....though I've never been a fan of the lettuce so I already had a dog in the fight. It just seems very stale at the moment. Same fights....same bases...as predicted.

I preferred the old hex-system, the one that made sense to me, with influence, and keeping people on point. The more influence you had, the more people you had on point, the faster the cap. If you weren't covering these avenues you were likely to get farmed by defenders if they were skilled. Seemed to make perfect sense to me, but whatever. We're stuck with what we have, and I still have fun, but I would love to see some dynamics to the lettuce. Some of the links, or lack-of, just make no sense.

At least we had a warp-gate rotation to freshen it up a bit.

[ShadoViper]

Lattice is a love or hate mechanic. What if we had the best of both? How would you all feel about events where the Lattice drops and conts become purely adjacency?

An immediate example would be changing Territory alerts to adjacency. Thoughts or ideas?

Last time on..

http://i.imgur.com/d9WCrgS.jpg

[maradine]

Approve.

[snafus]

Anything that can promote breaking up the zerg fights I can get behind.

[Rolfski]

On a strategic/world level, I prefer adjacency/hexes. My ideal Auraxis would be a globe full of territories (who are now called continents) that you fight over and can invade but have consequences in the way you invade them. Sea, airborne or behind enemy front invasions should be possible but are risky and have severe logistic/resource consequences, just like D-Day landings.

On a tactical/territory level however, so once you invade/fight ingame, I prefer a system that ensures great battle flow and lattice is probably best for that.

[Livefire]

I think they should combine both and have a hybrid which would be a clear improvement from the old PS1 version we have now. Let you cap anything via adjacency but not get resources unless you are connected to the lattice. And resources should be made way more important and actually be the purpose of the war as the devs are currently working on.

[PredatorFour]

I think they should combine both and have a hybrid which would be a clear improvement from the old PS1 version we have now. Let you cap anything via adjacency but not get resources unless you are connected to the lattice. And resources should be made way more important and actually be the purpose of the war as the devs are currently working on.

That sounds cool. Then you would be able to 'backhack' round their resource lanes (lattice) and cut them off, me likes:)

[Obstruction]

no way. you guys stomped and screamed for it, now suck it up and enjoy your stale zerg fest.

[EVILPIG]

no way. you guys stomped and screamed for it, now suck it up and enjoy your stale zerg fest.

You shouldn't hem everyone into such a generalization. I certainly didn't support Lattice, as I anticipated the current state of the game.

[camycamera]

i saw someone mention this before, but someone said that there should be something in which you can switch lattice link lanes like a train wanting to go to the left side instead of the right. that could shake things up a bit.

[Sledgecrushr]

I love the idea of the lattice but in practice it does need more work. Like said above but with a twist backhacking should provide resource denial but backhacking shouldnt cut territories off of the lattice. Even if you get back capped you should continue to push forward you just wouldnt get any resources while you are cut off from your warpgate.

Amerish the way it is should stay this way. Amerish doesnt need lattice and it gives a different style of play there that is fun.

Alerts should be done away with for the most part when we have continental conquest. You should never have an alert when that system is in place and the pops are up.

[NoXousX]

I personally believe the lattice should only kick in when populations on the continent dip below a certain number in order to help concentrate the fight. The fights are too big with the lattice system on pop-locked continents. The servers can't handle the load, and neither can our clients.

Either that or lower population caps...

[NoXousX]

I think they should combine both and have a hybrid which would be a clear improvement from the old PS1 version we have now. Let you cap anything via adjacency but not get resources unless you are connected to the lattice. And resources should be made way more important and actually be the purpose of the war as the devs are currently working on.

Not bad.

[NewSith]

I think they should combine both and have a hybrid which would be a clear improvement from the old PS1 version we have now.

Will people ever stop mistaking PS1 lattice for the lattice we have now?'

EDIT:
Elaboration:
PS1 Lattice:

No uncapturable footholds
Substantial benefits provided by every facility
Bases turned neutral by an incredible amount of effort and luck (Continent Map NTU Percentage Indicators informed the owning empire if the base was being drained for further hack, though it's didn't do the modern dumbed down "Arrow Here! You Are Getting Drained! RESPOND!" mechanic)
A Generator responsible for providing power to a facility (terminals, spawns, turrets), destroying it is an alternative way to win the fight
Generators destructable on any base
Generator destruction used to deny benefits for any link extensions (Continental Map Indication was the danger again)
Defensible bases (like walls that can't be ignored, spawns designed to give quick access to critical locations, scale reducers aka chockepoints)


PS2 Lattice:

Uncapturable footholds
No substantial benefits (even Tech Plants don't mean anything, because ^that)
Bases cannot be turned neutral
Generators existing for each separate installation and neither of them is "I win" button
Generators are only destructable on adjacent bases
Generators don't have any strategical value
Bases designed to "prevent farms", with solutions benefiting attacking side


So in short, the "value of resources (benefits)" is just one of seven components making a proper PS1 lattice. Although, my personal opinion, - no matter how hartd you try you'll never make resources count unless it cots 100% of your resource pool to pull a vehicle. But that typically ends with whine (reasonable, I should point out) on the community's side.

[CidHighwind]

How about this long term idea.

Interlink Facilities are brought back. When ANY empire captures an interlink facility, it changes where the lattice lines run. It needn't be a complete rework, just a simple strategic shift. If an empire plays its cards right and caps an interlink facility at the right time, they can lock a tech plant (or any facility?) 4 caps away (arbitrary number)from the enemy instead of 1. Some might call it frustrating and needlessly confusing, but I call tactical, and I call it a strategy meta-game.

Heck, maybe make there be ONE interlink per continent, and have it be similar to the capitals in PS1?

Thoughts?

[Rumblepit]

Lets promote less fighting and more backcapping.... Just like the good old days.

I am very happy the days of back capping are over. I was sick and tired of chasing down scrub outfits that did nothing but back cap. People would avoid each other altogether just to backcap. Platoons passing each other in the field moving to the next base.3x Platoons vs 1 squad on every single fight. Yea lets give each faction 15 to 20 links each and see how it goes.This was garbage game play. Its in the past,and it wont be coming back. move on,adapt,and try to use tactics to take defended bases.

Also your all forgetting that when they add continental lattice these will be 2 way fights with alot more options. It wont be a 3 way on every continent.Let them finish the lattice system before you ask for it to be changed.

[Baneblade]

What if there were a way to create lattice links temporarily?

[MrBloodworth]

Anything that can promote breaking up the zerg fights I can get behind.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that in a game about large battles, large battles are disliked.

Also, the lattice is great. But I would love to see a way to create temporary links that can also be broken.

[EVILPIG]

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea that in a game about large battles, large battles are disliked.

Also, the lattice is great. But I would love to see a way to create temporary links that can also be broken.

It isn't that large battles are disliked, quite to the contrary. My biggest problem with Lattice is that it completely dumbed down strategy. You're on a lane and once a territory is complete, you usually are just moving to the next. It creates artificial bottlenecks and ignores the terrain that used to be followed. There's little flanking or truncation of territory.

[Sledgecrushr]

It isn't that large battles are disliked, quite to the contrary. My biggest problem with Lattice is that it completely dumbed down strategy. You're on a lane and once a territory is complete, you usually are just moving to the next. It creates artificial bottlenecks and ignores the terrain that used to be followed. There's little flanking or truncation of territory.

I understand your point there boss. Grand movement strategy has been mostly broken by the lattice. But i have to say that our grand movement strategy mostly consisted of avoiding contact with the enemy. So instead of movement strategy we now have battlefield tactics. And personally I am much happier with this new setup than the old ghost capping we used to do.

[EVILPIG]

I understand your point there boss. Grand movement strategy has been mostly broken by the lattice. But i have to say that our grand movement strategy mostly consisted of avoiding contact with the enemy. So instead of movement strategy we now have battlefield tactics. And personally I am much happier with this new setup than the old ghost capping we used to do.

We never avoided conflict. We spread our forces across the front and swept. When part front became heavily engaged, we flanked and converged. It's funny to me that so many complained about how we operated. We'd have 300 soldiers across 10 territories. So unlike most any other outfit, which would have all 300 moshing 20 enemy on territory at a time.

[AuntLou]

Lattice is a love or hate mechanic. What if we had the best of both? How would you all feel about events where the Lattice drops and conts become purely adjacency?

An immediate example would be changing Territory alerts to adjacency. Thoughts or ideas?

I'm on board with this idea. Having variety in the game in anyway is a positive. I would keep it rare though, maybe put it on the list along w/ the alerts.

[Wahooo]

There are too many sub-bases and towers/outposts. The lattice as a concept isn't the issue it is the number of places tied to them. And as was pointed out the constant forced 3-way.

Hopefully the resource overhaul will also change a lot. I'm waiting on this. It is such a hard thing to balance, they end up being so important that a losing side just gets roflstomped with no way to recover or they are irrelevant. VERY hard to find the middle ground.

But I also have to agree that in a game that is supposed to be about large fights people complain about large fights. And limited tactics? As if the hex system had any sort of tactics to it. just run to an empty base and cap it, and move on... in an organized fashion... yeah we are a leet commando squad!. There are actually more tactics with this lattice than there were with the hexes, but yeah it has a LOT of room for improvement.

[GeoGnome]

I've always been of the opinion that the lattice's issues of limiting movement are easily resolved: A system by which you can add and subtract lattice links. You have the permanent links tied to gens or something that can be destroyed, you have temp links that can be set up with some kind of router like teleporter device. Issue solved, now you have mobility and lattice.

Conversely, the way to solve the issues with the hex involved fixing the community... preferably with a hammer. Even if people didn't INTEND to avoid fights, that is the way it shook out most of the time.

The best example I have, is one time I recall vividly on Amerish. The TR had pop, they were pushing north, there were enough people to form a full front... it looked good, and then the VS took a territory that had on line of the bottom most hex adjacent to One territory decidedly behind enemy lines, and most of the TR Missed it. 45 VS poured into an undefended base and spread out, so while the real intense fighting was happening at the front, 45 people from a distinguished outfit captured a base from me and 2 other people. When this happened, the TR had 4 territories that were undefended instantly start flashing. Every fight collapsed, because people had to fall back to deal with the issues happening behind the line now, because the VS were taking all the undefended territory. This isn't "Winning the battle", it was exploiting a link that most people missed in the VERY CENTER OF THE LINE. It's like that famous time in gettysburg where Robert E Lee noticed that there was a train track on which he could ferry his men directly to Washington DC and blow it up, even though it went straight through the heaviest fighting of the battle... oh wait, that never happened. That was more frustrating to me, than any meatgrinder I've had on the lattice.

The only time a defense was viable was when you were the last territory on the map, and when that is the case, your likely going to be outnumbered 10-1, so it doesn't matter, your boned. The hex only really worked to provide good fights right at prime time, whereas I can go home, hop on the lattice, and have a decent fight Right now, 9 hours off primetime for my server. It doesn't limit tactics, infact I see people trying to be More tactical now, and you still have to scout and figure out how to use your people...

[Sirisian]

I've mentioned this before, but the only issue I have with the lattice is not all current objective designs aren't built for it. That is there should be subobjectives around every objective. This gives players choices on what they can defend and what they can take. Currently some objectives are very linear which for the zerg means thoughtless tactics and strategy.

That being said I think the developers understand that already.

[fierce deity]

What if when a faction gets cut off from the warpgate the cut off territory reverts to using the hex system?

[EVILPIG]

What if when a faction gets cut off from the warpgate the cut off territory reverts to using the hex system?

That's an excellent suggestion.

[Varsam]

If the game were optimized a little better to afford more fps during large fights, most people would have no problem with lattice.

I think they should combine both and have a hybrid which would be a clear improvement from the old PS1 version we have now. Let you cap anything via adjacency but not get resources unless you are connected to the lattice. And resources should be made way more important and actually be the purpose of the war as the devs are currently working on.

Twitter spam this to Higgles immediately, please. While you're at it, ask him for a job.

[Rumblepit]

I dont get it. I have heard people cry that lattice system will make it hard for smaller units to be effective.Now im hearing people cry that it restricts large outfits and creates bottle necks ,and limits tactics.

With the current state of the lattice system both small units and large units can be effective across the map. People are saying that this is not a good thing, and it should be reverted or removed.

Tell me this. What tactics are you guys planing to use on all these empty bases?Dont tell me your planning on attacking defended bases when you have the option to just go around.Because if people actually attacked defended bases while the hex system was implemented we would not have lattice system today.

There are so many ways for outfits and squads of all sizes to be tactically effective with the current lattice system.It creates large and small fights 24 hrs a day.They gave us the chance to make the hex system work,7 months...
People did nothing but backcap and avoid fights.Thats all,there was nothing, the most action you would see was driving past a enemy platoon on your way to the next backcap.

What makes any of you think this will change now?And why in gods name would you want to spend your days chasing down backcappers and ghost hacks?


I think you guys need to go back to the drawing board, come up with some new tactics,and enjoy the great fights we have everyday all day.

Lattice has done more for this game than any other update we have had to date.

[Kerrec]

As pointless as this is probably going to be, I'll give a shot at explaining why I don't like Lattice so much. However, before I begin, let me point out some fallacies:

Backcpas and Ghostcaps: At launch, this was impossible with Hex. We had a dynamic capture timer that was a function of quantity of adjacent friendly territories and quantity of allies in proximity of capture points. This dynamic was vilified by PS1 veterans because they wanted PS2 to be like PS1, which meant looking at a map and knowing EXACTLY how much time a base would take before it was lost.

I guess these people wanted to time their attacks to defend a base at the last possible second to get that epic "just in time" feeling. As far as I was concerned, if a base was being attacked, getting there ASAP was the order of the day, not waiting until the last minute.

That being said, the PS1 mechanic demands won out and 2 things happened: The friendly territory adjacency effect was removed and the requirement to have allies near capture points were removed. That broke Hex badly, introducing "ghostcaps", IE: flipping a point and leaving, letting the base flip on its own. BAD.

It also encouraged back-capping because every base type captures at the same speed. Have 48 people flip a base at the same time as ONE enemy flipped a base behind you, and both bases get captured in the same amount of time meaning 1 lone wolf = an infinitely large force one hex over. In other words, you could cap one base with 12 people or cap 12 bases with 12 people in the same amount of time. Well, duh? What are you going to do? Breaking Hex this way was DUMB.

With the original Hex with adjacency effect, an enemy backcapping would have very little adjacency and flipping a base would take a LONG TIME. So it was possible to push the front line forwards with superior forces and once all adjacency was removed, then go back, flip the attempted backcap which took way too long to be successful, and voila! Your front line moved forward and the attempted backcapping base was no longer in danger.

So don't come to these forums and say that we had 6 months of Hex fixes to try and get it working because we did NOT. We got 6 months of Hex wrecking and no fixes that made any sense.

That being said, Lattice fixed Ghostcapping and Backcapping? NOPE. So overall, saying that is a stupid argument. You can still flip a point and walk away, letting a base continue to flip on its own. IE: ghostcapping. You can also backcap just fine. In fact, in Lattice, it is WORSE. You absolutely MUST have someone sit on the base while everyone else goes and attacks the next base in the line. Otherwise, some lonewolf will flip the point behind your force and prevent you from flipping any points at the next base. With large zergs, this is not so much an issue as there will always be someone spawning at the base left behind. For smaller "squad vs. squad" fights, having to travel all the way back to the base you already secured to flip a ghostcap so you can then return to the next base in the line and hope to flip it before some retard cloaker or lone wolf flips the base behind you again is nothing but aggravation. At least with hex, if someone was backcapping, you could keep your forward momentum and actually flip a point.


Anyway, I've already written too much and have still to get to what I really want to say. Which is,

With Lattice, numbers rule, period. If you are facing 2:1 odds (66% enemy) or worse, it's a matter of time before you start being pushed back. Nothing will stop their momentum other than gaining reinforcement to even things out. Once you start to get near 2:1 odds (55%+) then things will change in your favor. And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can do.

With the original Hex, you could force a superior force to split up by attacking adjacent hexes. If they refused to budge, you just went around them, which is what tended to happen. Not the fault of the numericaly inferior attacking force. Completely the fault of the numerically superior defending force that didn't want to do anything other than sit on some particularly defensible position. A numericaly superior defending force that spread out didn't have problems losing territory. And the closer they came to warpgating their enemies, the larger the battles became.

Now that is gone. I look at the map. If we are facing 1:2 odds or worse, I know there's no point defending a base. I look for places to farm and retreat. If I am with my outfit, we make our fun by seeing how long we can last where we choose to stand. But that is poor gameplay at a metagame scale.

PS2 gameplay with Lattice = 1.5:1 odds or better, you make progress. 1:1.5 odds or worse, you lose progress.

There's just nothing more than that to PS2 lattice.

[EVILPIG]

Well said Kerrec. Difficult to get anything through to those who are simply here to whine. Hell, some don't even know the difference between strategy and tactics. I was an opponent of Lattice primarily because of the effect on smaller units. Now they are drowning in the mix or have to choose an empty continent just to make progress. Too few will even get what you said about larger forces letting smaller forces ghost around them. Most larger units in the game choose to clump together and move as one mass, even if they are 10:1 against the enemy. We have an entire division that was dedicated to chasing down the backcaps to keep the frontline secure and focused.

[Rumblepit]

Well said Kerrec. Difficult to get anything through to those who are simply here to whine. Hell, some don't even know the difference between strategy and tactics. I was an opponent of Lattice primarily because of the effect on smaller units. Now they are drowning in the mix or have to choose an empty continent just to make progress. Too few will even get what you said about larger forces letting smaller forces ghost around them. Most larger units in the game choose to clump together and move as one mass, even if they are 10:1 against the enemy. We have an entire division that was dedicated to chasing down the backcaps to keep the frontline secure and focused.

???? lol What do you know about smaller units and how they work? You dont even play the game.I am in a smaller outfit.We dont run around with 300 guys,we run with 2 maybe 3 squads on op nights. We get shiit done ,and enjoy doing it. If you played the game more often then you would get to see first hand what a smaller unit like ours dose to a zergfit like yours.

You should stick to what you know, and its not smaller outfits.Do you think outfits like Mercs,OP4,TXR,FC,TPLR,BAID,Recusion,82nd, see a zergfit like yours and think we better look for a smaller fight???? We enjoy taking bases away from outfits like yours. We you use tactics , timing ,and skill to break a larger force.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMEEbIAi6w

These outfits do shittt like this on a daily bases now ,and its because of the lattice system.Before you would hardly ever to find any fights likes this.

[EVILPIG]

???? lol What do you know about smaller units and how they work? You dont even play the game.I am in a smaller outfit.We dont run around with 300 guys,we run with 2 maybe 3 squads on op nights. We get shiit done ,and enjoy doing it. If you played the game more often then you would get to see first hand what a smaller unit like ours dose to a zergfit like yours.

You should stick to what you know, and its not smaller outfits.Do you think outfits like Mercs,OP4,TXR,FC,TPLR,BAID,Recusion,82nd, see a zergfit like yours and think we better look for a smaller fight???? We enjoy taking bases away from outfits like yours. We you use tactics , timing ,and skill to break a larger force.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMEEbIAi6w

These outfits do shittt like this on a daily bases now ,and its because of the lattice system.Before you would hardly ever to find any fights likes this.

As sad as it is, your ignorance is amusing. You should really stop making generalized assumptions about players. I've seen far too many "everyone believes this" type of posts from you. As for me, you know nothing of me, as you've proven time and again. Since PS1 I have played many characters across servers and factions and continue to do so to this day. I am in 4 of the outfits you mention, amongst my 9 active characters, and have much experience playing with outfits of all sizes. My opinions of the game have always been from the perspective of what is best for the playerbase in general, and that is usually contrary to what may be best for a large outfit. Speaking of which, you are equally ignorant of how the 666 operates, so I encourage you to join or watch some of the numerous videos online that will show you. I have to ask your age, because I can only imagine you're an angry 12 year old from your posts. If we hurt you, I apologize, on a human level, but our intention is to win, not step on your soul.

[Wahooo]

What a distorted view of the original hex system.

What PS1 vets wanted was to know if it was worth responding to in numbers or just a few people. What we had with the original hex was a bunch of 'shits on fire' notifications while we were in a good fight. leaving the good fight and no knowing if we were responding to a couple newbs or a platoon. More often than not it was just a few people. All this did was keep us from being able to have actual fights and IF you wanted to be a responder you felt like all you were doing was playing whack-a-mole. So what happened? Apathy to respond to anything and ghost capping took over.

The HEX system got revisions for 6 months because it was broken and not working. Whether you think the changes broke it more or not is irrelevant because it simply didn't work right from the start.

[Rumblepit]

As sad as it is, your ignorance is amusing. You should really stop making generalized assumptions about players. I've seen far too many "everyone believes this" type of posts from you. As for me, you know nothing of me, as you've proven time and again. Since PS1 I have played many characters across servers and factions and continue to do so to this day. I am in 4 of the outfits you mention, amongst my 9 active characters, and have much experience playing with outfits of all sizes. My opinions of the game have always been from the perspective of what is best for the playerbase in general, and that is usually contrary to what may be best for a large outfit. Speaking of which, you are equally ignorant of how the 666 operates, so I encourage you to join or watch some of the numerous videos online that will show you. I have to ask your age, because I can only imagine you're an angry 12 year old from your posts. If we hurt you, I apologize, on a human level, but our intention is to win, not step on your soul.

Your in 4 of the outfits mentioned? And you think that bringing back a system that we tested extensively for 7 months is in the best interest of the player base?Hex system failed to provide anything good for this game. You dont speak for me on this one.

You should give the lattice time to work ,and be fully implement before you decide that its in the best interest of everyone to change it.Like I mentioned before, when they implement continental lattice, and home continents most of the fights we see will be 2 way fights. This means each faction will have 17% more options when it comes to lanes and lattice.

We dont know how ,or if this system will be viable for combat until its fully implemented ,and tested.We need to wait for continental lattice before we can pass judgment. And even if the lattice system dosnt pan out I would never suggest going back to the hex system.

[Baneblade]

What I want to know is, why are you following the lattice in such a way that it turns you from being Robert E Lee and instead makes you Ulysses S Grant?

I mostly ignore the lattice, but then capturing bases is not my first priority, stopping the enemy from capturing bases is.

[Kerrec]

You should stick to what you know, and its not smaller outfits.Do you think outfits like Mercs,OP4,TXR,FC,TPLR,BAID,Recusion,82nd, see a zergfit like yours and think we better look for a smaller fight???? We enjoy taking bases away from outfits like yours. We you use tactics , timing ,and skill to break a larger force.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NeMEEbIAi6w.

I realize this is some kind of personal vendetta you have that I am not a part of, but I find it really sad that you linked that video and made those claims.

I play with a small outfit that runs 2-3 squads on op nights as well. When we roll against pubbies, we'll do very well, often holding back or breaking 2:1 odds. However, we know full well that is simply because they are unorganized. When we fight equally good or better outfits, the golden rule holds: 55%+ population grants you momentum and 45%- population means you are constantly falling back.

As for the video: A tech plant alert will generate that kind of fight on Hex or Lattice. People have a REASON to go there. That video means absolutely nothing in terms of the argument of Hex vs. Lattice.

Anyway, in your video, you didn't break a superior force. You broke an equal one. That made a lot of tactical mistakes, IMO.

[Rumblepit]

I realize this is some kind of personal vendetta you have that I am not a part of, but I find it really sad that you linked that video and made those claims.

I play with a small outfit that runs 2-3 squads on op nights as well. When we roll against pubbies, we'll do very well, often holding back or breaking 2:1 odds. However, we know full well that is simply because they are unorganized. When we fight equally good or better outfits, the golden rule holds: 55%+ population grants you momentum and 45%- population means you are constantly falling back.

As for the video: A tech plant alert will generate that kind of fight on Hex or Lattice. People have a REASON to go there. That video means absolutely nothing in terms of the argument of Hex vs. Lattice.

Anyway, in your video, you didn't break a superior force. You broke an equal one. That made a lot of tactical mistakes, IMO.


LOL I guess you didnt see the tags on the guys rushing that point when there was 30 secs left. There was even pop in that hex yes your right, we had armor and air,and ALL THE VS WERE INSIDE THAT BUILDING,and we pushed in with 3 squads, 36 guys and had a few pubs following after it was broke.That base was taken with low numbers.

You should try to make a account on connery and tell me its easy to take a base away from any of theses outfits. THIS AINT WATERSON KIDO. Some of the best outfits in this game are on this server.

It was a very rare thing to have a fights like that during the hex system.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQ7zSBVGox4

We roll like this during every op.You want to criticize our outfit?Watch the video ,and if you want to learn how to play this game feel free to make a account on connery and we will show you how its done.

[Sunrock]

The hex system was a very good idea. However the server population could not sustain a high enough population, especially during off hours, for it to be an optimal game experience. That is way the lattice system needs to be implemented every where even though the hex system in theory was better.

[Rolfski]

The original hex allowed for superior strategic play where you could literally out-maneuver zergs and play the influence system smart to get a faster cap on bigger bases.
It also broke the battle flow, promoted game play that completely avoided the enemy, demanded baby sitting near the capture point (still not fixed) and made PL a very demanding job where you were basically looking at the map all the time and hardly got involved in the real battle.

For sure we need more strategy back into this game that was lost with the lattice system but I rather have that added at a metagame level and not screw up the battle flow.

To summarize: Auraxis needs to be a hex map, not Indar.

[Illtempered]

Lmao at this guy Rumblepit's constant raging, and apparent belief that he's God's gift to the battlefield.

[Illtempered]

....Other than that, lot's of good ideas in this thread.

Let's point at Rumblepit and laugh one more time though.

[Taramafor]

The problem wit lattice is that you can NEVER surround an enemy zerg.

You can't allow the zerg to advance while taking over the territory at the sides of them and then finally behind them and tighten a noose 'round its neck. Which is pretty much the only real defense against an enemy zerg unless you have your own large zerg. The lattice prevents us from making large scale flank attacks from bases as there are no bases on the sides sharing the lattice close by.

Overall I feel lattice has taken too much away form tactics and strategy. Ghost capping might have been a hassle but at least that had a chance of splitting up the zerg. 'Till it wasn't "ghost" capping and instead it turns out the enemy surrounded you instead and what you thought was only a few people is a full blown outfit which is now destroying your suns and engaging your tanks.

Unfortunately not many people have the brains to do that and so we're stuck with this. Blah.

[PredatorFour]

The problem wit lattice is that you can NEVER surround an enemy zerg.

You can't allow the zerg to advance while taking over the territory at the sides of them and then finally behind them and tighten a noose 'round its neck. Which is pretty much the only real defense against an enemy zerg unless you have your own large zerg. The lattice prevents us from making large scale flank attacks from bases as there are no bases on the sides sharing the lattice close by.

Overall I feel lattice has taken too much away form tactics and strategy. Ghost capping might have been a hassle but at least that had a chance of splitting up the zerg. 'Till it wasn't "ghost" capping and instead it turns out the enemy surrounded you instead and what you thought was only a few people is a full blown outfit which is now destroying your suns and engaging your tanks.

Unfortunately not many people have the brains to do that and so we're stuck with this. Blah.

Thing is, once we get more conts then we will have links where we can backhack with the lattice system.

We Need More Continents!
We Need More Continents!
We Need More Continents!
Incoming MAX Units!

[KesTro]

There are too many sub-bases and towers/outposts. The lattice as a concept isn't the issue it is the number of places tied to them.

He's got the right idea. What if the lattice was broken down to something like 8 links and each link would link to a cluster of hexes. Once you've captured every hex in that lattice cluster you unlock the next lattice link or something akin to that. This way we can get the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

[fierce deity]

He's got the right idea. What if the lattice was broken down to something like 8 links and each link would link to a cluster of hexes. Once you've captured every hex in that lattice cluster you unlock the next lattice link or something akin to that. This way we can get the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

Interesting idea.

[Taramafor]

He's got the right idea. What if the lattice was broken down to something like 8 links and each link would link to a cluster of hexes. Once you've captured every hex in that lattice cluster you unlock the next lattice link or something akin to that. This way we can get the best of both worlds. Thoughts?

But then you can't move on to the next base 'till every hex in the lattice is taken over and people might get bored and move on to other fights. Perhaps if you control just over half of the hexes before being able to take over the next lattice hex grid. That I can see working. That way you move to the next grid only when you have the advantage.

Would also encourage the zergs to spread out a bit more. I'm on board either way.

[Rumblepit]

The problem with the hex system is this. It dose not force a fight, meaning the players have to choose weather or not they will engage a defended location or go around.We all know how this played out.The players choose not to engage and would around every defended base.

Lattice created front lines, and gave the game the much needed battle flow that it was missing.Front line battles are a must in a game like this, it creates large and small fights all over the map. It also allows players who play support to be more effective. It creates the need for supply lines, ammo, repairs, AA and AV offence and defense, it also creates the opportunity for small op squads and outfits to be effective in many aspects of the game.

Why do you think that reinstating the hex system would create better gameplay than what we have now?It was by far the worst aspect of this game to date, it failed to produce anything worthy of remembering .

We did have a few good fights with the hex system, the players made that happen. But with the lattice system, there are epic fing fights everyday.

And why are you guys crying so hard about not being able to go around a defended base? You should not be allowed to go around a defended location ever.......How dose that even go down???"they have a good defense here guys, we better go around and hack that empty base"... L2P

[Rumblepit]

The problem wit lattice is that you can NEVER surround an enemy zerg.

You can't allow the zerg to advance while taking over the territory at the sides of them and then finally behind them and tighten a noose 'round its neck. Which is pretty much the only real defense against an enemy zerg unless you have your own large zerg. The lattice prevents us from making large scale flank attacks from bases as there are no bases on the sides sharing the lattice close by.

Overall I feel lattice has taken too much away form tactics and strategy. Ghost capping might have been a hassle but at least that had a chance of splitting up the zerg. 'Till it wasn't "ghost" capping and instead it turns out the enemy surrounded you instead and what you thought was only a few people is a full blown outfit which is now destroying your suns and engaging your tanks.

Unfortunately not many people have the brains to do that and so we're stuck with this. Blah.


Your right there, it took tactics and strategy to go around the enemy. The only base that we need to defend with the hex system was the warp gate.Because if you setup a defense anywhere on the map the enemy would go right around and continue to head for the warp gate.....We should bring this back, wtf was i thinking,,, im all for it:rolleyes:

You have to look at it this way.
How will this effect battle flow?
How will this effect small and large fights?
How will this effect small and large outfits?
How will this effect solo players?
How will this effect support players?
How will this effect resources?
How will this effect combat during on and off hours?
How will this create a better quality of game play for the player base?

I could go on and on. Hex system failed across the board, we tested it for long enough to know it wont work in a game like this.

[Taramafor]

And why are you guys crying so hard about not being able to go around a defended base? You should not be allowed to go around a defended location ever.......How dose that even go down???"they have a good defense here guys, we better go around and hack that empty base"... L2P

Because, believe it or not, some of us actually prefer using smaller numbers to surround the enemy while bigger numbers keep them busy. The problem with the oh so mighty lattice is that more often then not there's only ONE choice. The ONLY choice. We don't get to decide how to fight at all. It's into the meat grinder or nothing.

And it's called flanking. Do you storm that turret on the road or go around before engaging? What Kesto is suggesting is a way to put in choice with the forced march that lattice is making us do. As players, we should have some choice of where to fight in an area.

Right now it's lattice and points A, B and C which while epic at times is always the same formula. Always the same path. Always one of only two outcomes. Push them back or be pushed back on that route and no other unless you move to another base. Which will of course result in losing the base you got pushed back too. No surrounding. No flanking (which is a battlefield tactic). A hex grid in a lattice system would be a good compromise for everyone I think. Provided you control 51% of the grid to have the lattice move forward. If you need to control the whole grid a single hacker would ruin the whole system.

[BlaxicanX]

Because, believe it or not, some of us actually prefer using smaller numbers to surround the enemy while bigger numbers keep them busy.

And unfortunately, that's something that people are just going to have to live with, because ghost capping by any other name is still ghost-capping. Avoiding the larger fight in favor of surrounding its flanks and cutting it off so that it has to scatter is just ghost-capping for a tactical reason rather than the generic ghost-capping out of cowardice.

Anyway, I've spent about 5 hours today and another 5 Friday playing on Amerish, and I've yet to see any of the "tacticool" bullshit Evilpig and others have been talking about in here going on at Amerish. Amerish, lacking the lattice, is generally 30 bases simultaneously being capped/decapped around the continent while any squad or platoon with more than a dozen guys in it effortlessly crushes every base because there is no concentration of forces anywhere. Problems the lattice tries to fix.

[Wahooo]

And it's called flanking.

You can flank without controlling the territory. But what you are talking about with the hexes wasn't flanking... because flanking infers going around to the back side to attack your enemy. What "flanking" is in the Hex system, is just changing the color of territory for no reason or with no impact whatsoever.... oh winning.

I am waiting for the resource overhaul. I have some slight ideas about changes to the lattice, but long and short the resource overhaul, as well as if a continental lattice could do away with the forced 3-way then there would be much more tactics able to be used in the lattice.

[Rumblepit]

Just to elaborate on what Whaooo said.

Just because you cant cap or own a base dose not mean you cant use it to your tactical advantage.If you think about it, its the best place to setup shop.Hack terms, setup a FOB,most of the time it will be behind enemy lines so you will be in a good place to flank.
Im not gonna hold your hand ,and tell you how to play game, but think outside the box,and use your imagination.You will find there are unlimited options when it come to tactics and lattice.


You guys flank from bases you already own???Flank from the bases they own ,and you will get to see a very surprised enemy.

[EVILPIG]

Since this spiraled into a whinefest and some apparently can't read English, I'll remind you that this thread is not about reverting to Adjacency, it's about adding Adjacency events, that would mix it up and give you Lattice and non-Lattice play. Anyone oppose variety? Please attempt to intelligently state why.

[Obstruction]

The problem with the hex system is this. It dose not force a fight, meaning the players have to choose weather or not they will engage a defended location or go around.We all know how this played out.The players choose not to engage and would around every defended base.

you can talk all you want, but this is because defending basically sucks and is a losing endeavor, due to base design. most of the problems you mention that have "been fixed" by lattice have actually been addressed by fixes after lattice that were never tried in hex. the reason some say amerish works as-is, is because mostly, it does. due to many of the changes made separate from the lattice system.

the devs on map level strategy elements are like the 3 blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is.

what really gets me is that they ruined good back and forth facility and crown fights, claiming that they didn't want all or nothing struggles that required a whole faction to break. then they turned right around and created exactly that at nearly every tower base on the lattice.

the first thing i saw when they put it in was a 12 hour fight at Regent Rock.

12 hours

they need to make ONE change at a time, see how it plays on live, evaluate, tweak, then make another change. you don't just take a system this complex and try any old thing based on what you think people will do with it.

[Taramafor]

You guys flank from bases you already own???Flank from the bases they own ,and you will get to see a very surprised enemy.

Except that moving a sun into enemy lines is most likely to get noticed. That's why you need the friendly bases, to have somewhere to get support from.

Defend. Attack. Support. Defend. Attack. Support. Break the link and it all falls apart.

The only problem with this is that people will be in the spawn room under the illusion that they can actually hold out when the guns are pounding on the doors. Some people will take advantage of the nearby safe havens to strike the enemy from another direction though and with luck some of the zerg will follow that lead. It's happened once or twice and should happen more.

[Rumblepit]

you can talk all you want, but this is because defending basically sucks and is a losing endeavor, due to base design. most of the problems you mention that have "been fixed" by lattice have actually been addressed by fixes after lattice that were never tried in hex. the reason some say amerish works as-is, is because mostly, it does. due to many of the changes made separate from the lattice system.

the devs on map level strategy elements are like the 3 blind men trying to figure out what an elephant is.

what really gets me is that they ruined good back and forth facility and crown fights, claiming that they didn't want all or nothing struggles that required a whole faction to break. then they turned right around and created exactly that at nearly every tower base on the lattice.

the first thing i saw when they put it in was a 12 hour fight at Regent Rock.

12 hours

they need to make ONE change at a time, see how it plays on live, evaluate, tweak, then make another change. you don't just take a system this complex and try any old thing based on what you think people will do with it.

lol we held eisa for 72 hrs straight during a xp weekend when esamir was launched."hex system" That happened because we made it happen.The hex systems lets the players decide where the fights take place. This was not always a good thing.

I can say I have my dislikes when it comes to the lattice. I think they tried to hard, and over complicated a simple thing. At major bases there is know reason to have the satellites attached to the lattice,but a attacker should not be allowed to progress until that major base is capped.Just small things like that.Im sure we will see more tweaks to the system in weeks to come.

[Obstruction]

lol we held eisa for 72 hrs straight during a xp weekend when esamir was launched."hex system" That happened because we made it happen.The hex systems lets the players decide where the fights take place. This was not always a good thing.

ok what i mean to say is you don't understand what i said, based on the reply here.

[Rumblepit]

reading comprehension is a life skill. might want to invest some time in that.



Did you want me to comment on the rest?
Well these all or nothing fights you speak about ,I dont get to see those.A good group effort will break a fight np,and the same goes for a defense.But if you cant get it done with even numbers, and good tactics then your going to have to wait until your numbers go up.This can take time,and be very painful as im sure you already ready know.This is like the handicap for new players with a low skill cap.Numbers will force the hand if you cant.

There are some cases when bases become more defensible due to outside influence. I like to call it a perfect storm effect. Take allatum or eisa for example, if you can get both faction to attack you there you can hold the base with very little numbers for days. This is because no matter how many numbers they bring they will continue to engage each other while we hold the defensive position.This same scenario can play out in many other ways to allow the defenders to have that much more of a advantage.

And Amerish working as is???lol Its a never ending mess of backcapps that goes on 24 hrs a day.

You should try to join a good active outfit and you will see first hand these fights are not the impossible stalemates you make them out to be.

There have been many long fights with the hex system as well.Long fights are not a product of hex or lattice.
That is all I was trying say before.

[Kerrec]

The problem with the hex system is this. It dose not force a fight, meaning the players have to choose weather or not they will engage a defended location or go around.We all know how this played out.The players choose not to engage and would around every defended base.

So your throught process was:

1) Why is Hex broken?

Because people choose not to attack defended locations.

2)...

You didn't go further than that. Looks to me like you just wanted ANY rationalization to have Lattice.

Let me finish what you started:

2) Why don't people attack defended locations?
Because there's no reason to attack one base over an other.

*** As an aside, this is STILL a problem with Lattice. When you get to a fork in the Lattice, what makes you choose to go one way over an other? There's NO decision process that leads to "we'll go this way to gain this advantage or to deny that advantage to our enemy". There's no overriding reason to go either way. ***

3) Why don't people want to fight in a PVP video game?
A)The game is designed around progression of Certs and Battle Ranks, not territory control. This caters to the addictive nature of standard MMO's. To compound the problem, capturing bases give flat XP reward that are relatively larger and more prominently displayed than smaller but more frequent XP rewards obtained in combat.
B) There is no control over fighting forces at individual objectives. There are no significant force multipliers that give smaller forces an advantage over larger forces. No one wants to be on the undermanned team that is almost guaranteed to lose.
C) It is human nature to think we are way better than we actually are. It is easy for us to rationalize avoiding a FPS confrontation (that we may lose) in order to win the metagame. IE: We fought no one, but we got more territory, so we win, you lose! And still got XP for doing it!

4) How do you make Territory Control the focus of the game?
First, Battle Ranks are generally pointless. Once a player has achieved the 3 loadouts that are rewarded at very low BR levels, there's no point to it beyond that. Yet there are players that will GRIND to maximized BR by using every overpowered and cheezy game mechanic (that often doesn't lend itself to territory control or fun and fair gameplay). The whole Battle Rank system could be discarded with very little impact on the current game.
That being said, Certs ARE tied into the "free to play" progression mechanic of the game and are part of real in game progression, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It doesn't take overly long to cert out a particular playstyle, which would leave territory control the only other reason to play. In other words, get rid of XP but keep awarding Certs. Certs can be tied to ribbons and the cert value of ribbons can be adjusted dynamically to encourage an equal distribution of played classes. (IE: if there are too many medics, then the cert reward for a revive or healing ribbon decreases. Same could apply for armored vehicles vs. infantry, armored vehicles vs. vehicles, etc...)

5) How do you control population at any given objective to keep things fair, so people will avoid stacking teams?
The way experience is awarded has to reflect the time and effort involved. As an example: Any battle or skirmish undertaken in a territory has to be tied to the capture or defense of objectives. Everything from healing, repairing, ammo resupply, damage done to enemy, enemy kills should go into an XP pool shared by both (or all 3) factions. Once an objective is captured or defended, the XP in that pool is awarded to the victors based on how much they contributed. So in essense, they get all of the XP they contributed AND a share of the enemy's XP relative to how much XP they contributed to the ally XP pool. This means the ONLY way to make XP is to capture or defend objectives and if there is no battle to capture a base, then there is no enemy XP to split, so no XP rewards for uncontested base captures. (In regards to my answer in question 4, XP and Certs could be interchanged here). This mechanic is already partially implemented in the game with Alerts. It just has to be improved to award XP to players even if they are no longer online due to crashing or logging out intentionally. As long as they participated in the victory and contributed their small or large share, they get awarded XP.

6) How do we counter Human Nature to take the easy route without taking away their fun?
If the easy route has the worst consequences, people will gravitate away from it. For example, allowing an enemy to take a base to deny them Certs/XP is an easy way to cheat the intent of the game, hopefully allowing your team to gain certs faster than the enemy team(s). But it's lame gameplay. However, if losing a base has undesirable consequences, it is not really an option. If the enemy gains the ability to buy grenades and you lose the ability to buy grenades, all hinging on that base... you will have a REASON to defend/attack the base. On the other hand, if the next base over upgrades ESF's to equip LOLpods and you die to LOLpods way more than to grenades, you WILL HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE.



TL;DR: There are plenty of inovative ways to "FIX" battle flow without having to tell someone he has no choice but to go there next. And when you do get to make a choice, they don't really matter.

[Crator]

Kerrec,

I'm not exactly certain how getting rid of XP and having only certs is tied to making Territory Control the focus actually. Although I do like what you said about something like that controlling which classes are played. Something like that might be over complicated for new players to figure out but something might be done to help that perhaps.

As for what you said about XP accumulation I think that would help with getting people to fight each other, instead of chasing the carrot of a static base capture award. If they made the way XP gain is obtained in this way, then we wouldn't need lattice. You might still have too much ghost capping just because people want to be annoying (if you use the hex adjacency system). Not certain they will do this because of the free-to-play system they've built.

If they did use an accumulation of XP for captures system they would also need to give a visual representation of accumulation for the player imo. This would make it easy to understand the outcome of the objective.

I did like the idea mentioned about removing many of the lattice links from smaller objectives on the map and making them connect to larger objectives. And also perhaps having a hex adjacency in between (like at Biolabs).

I've also heard an idea on the official forums about adding in a player control mechanic that would allow you to skip over a lattice connected hex to the next one over using a module from a vehicle or something that can be destroyed. So you would have to keep the connection safe while attacking the hex that you are skipping over to.

[Kerrec]

Kerrec,

I'm not exactly certain how getting rid of XP and having only certs is tied to making Territory Control the focus actually. Although I do like what you said about something like that controlling which classes are played. Something like that might be over complicated for new players to figure out but something might be done to help that perhaps.

Why do you think SOE had to add a mechanic to make newly spawned players worth almost no XP? Because people would prefer to sit and farm a Sunderer for XP instead of killing the Sunderer. In other words, they're not playing the metagame or the Territory Control game, they are grinding XP to gain some kind of accomplishment for reaching BR100.

Not everyone plays this way. But enough do. And these people abuse game mechanics for their goal of BR100. Farm infantry with Libs. Farm infantry with LOLpods. Farm infantry with Prowlers. Farm infantry with Maxes. Etc...

A lot of the nerfs we've experienced have more to do with reigning in people that play the game for the wrong reasons. If the goal was Territory Control, then having 10 Liberators in the sky is not helpful. One or two would have been enough and the rest could play infantry to push the objective. Liberators wouldn't have been nerfed to where they are now. Same with LoLPods. If they were used to attack infantry and vehicles in between bases instead of farming spawn points, they wouldn't have been nerfed to where they are now. How many people hate being farmed by Harassers speeding along making strafing runs where they otherwise have no impact on anything? As a TR, I've fought VS to take an objective while NC harassers race around shooting everything. What's the point of that?

What do Battle Ranks do for Planetside? Does it mean anything besides "this guy plays more than that guy?"

What's the difference between XP and Certs? As far as I'm concerned, Certs = XP/250 (boosts aside).

XP has done nothing for PS2 except encourage people to play in ways counter to the spirit of Planetside, which is supposed to be a Territory Control "metagame" on top of a FPS.

[EVILPIG]

Battle Ranks were supposed to provide thresholds for unlocking certain things, such as weapons and cert ranks. Somehow that was lost during development.

[Crator]

I thought that's what you meant. But I think people chase XP for certs, not to just chase them for an arbitrary Battle Rank # that means nothing (currently). So what I'm trying to say is removing XP (which actually drives certs, right?) won't do anything in regards to controlling how people behave (except for a few people perhaps).

[Kerrec]

I thought that's what you meant. But I think people chase XP for certs, not to just chase them for an arbitrary Battle Rank # that means nothing (currently). So what I'm trying to say is removing XP (which actually drives certs, right?) won't do anything in regards to controlling how people behave (except for a few people perhaps).

And now we're back to my suggestions above. Even killing someone can be considered farming. Look at how vilified Infiltrators (snipers) are to most. PS2 is more about killing or helping someone else kill, than Territory Control.

The point of the post you quoted was to provide reasons to encourage the gameplay that everyone says they want. SOE has done this so far by saying, "you can't do anything else, you have to go there" (IE: Lattice). That's just heavyhanded herding of sheep. I don't know about you, but I want a game where I'm more than just a sheep.

I made suggestions... you know, constructive criticism. Do I expect something like what I suggested ever make it into the game? Lol, no. I have about as much chance to win the lottery. But my suggestions try to counter human nature, which is what this game needs, Lattice or Hex.

1) Get rid of the pointless BR/XP carrot. It's not meaningful to the game in any way and encourages "some" people to play the wrong way. Tie certs to ribbons. Have certs be dynamically awarded to ribbon based on supply and demand. IE: the certs are the supply, the quantity of ribbons the demand. If people flock to some overpowered (preceived or no) gimmick, then the Cert reward will be diminished. A self balancing mechanism that allows some weapons to be powerful. Look at the Striker whines right now. The Striker is already a poor XP/Cert source, but if it's used in huge numbers, then it becomes even worse. Its efficient, but people won't resort to it automatically in favor of other methods what WILL grant better Certs/XP.

2) No XP/Certs should be awarded unless tied to a battle at an objective. The mechanism is already in place with the Alert XP distribution, it just needs to be improved to include players that log or crash out of the game. Personally I would only award XP to the winning faction, but in this day and age of political correctness, a "for your participation" prize could be handed out too (IE: 1/4 of the XP awarded the winners).

3) Objectives (bases) are IMPORTANT. I imagine spawning a stock MBT at a Warpgate, then driving to some base to upgrade it to AP, then drive it to another base to upgrade the Secondary, then to another base to put armor on it. Same for all vehicles, aircraft and infantry. The thought of losing a base and the perk tied to it would make people think twice about avoiding the enemy.

That kind of game design would have fixed Hex just fine. However, Lattice is the future and it is just as broken. Lattice needs this just as much!

[Rumblepit]

LOL to bad we cant change human nature and redesign the entire game.Until then we cant allow the players to have those options,because they fail to produce.

Someone else said this in this thread ,and i cant agree more."No matter how you look at it, flanking, resource denial,cutting the enemy off from other bases,backcapping is backcapping."

And if the players have the option to backcapp they go for 1 objective. THE WARPGATE. lol im sure a few people have used backcapping as a valid tactic ,but most dont.

Just in case you didnt play during the hex system , this is how all fights played out, FOR 7 FING MONTHS ALL DAY EVERYDAY. There was know reasons to defend anything in this game at all ever.

Set up a defense at rashnu the enemy is at Old stock pile and getting ready to move in. Enemy sees a defense at the biolab , and decides it would be better to just cut them off .Ns material and crimson bluff are now being backcapped. Howling pass will be infested with backcapping losers in 3 mins. We need to think about defending our Tech they are almost there. Move the entire defense from the biolab to the tech plant fast here they come. Biolab gets capped by 2 guys with 0 defenses in place. The enemy caps howling pass and is moving to east canyon and briggs.They see we have a defense in place at the mao tech plant and decides to cut us off again.they move for j908 and the firing range.Well guys they are right on top of our warp gate now, we need to fall back there and push the enemy out.2 guys cap mao with 0 defenses in place..

OMFG,,,, this makes me sick just thinking about it. If one could look up planetside 2 and garbage gameplay this would show up.

Changing incentives ,and adding dynamic xp, will never change human nature.

Players would spend hours ghostcapping /backcapping entire continents in ps1. You think they did it for xp???No there was dynamic xp in ps1, they would get 1 xp per cap. Cant change human nature.

[Wahooo]

But my suggestions try to counter human nature, which is what this game needs, Lattice or Hex.

errr... um.... you don't like the lattice to force the battle flow but you think there should be a game mechanic that is counter to human nature and that would be good?

1) Get rid of the pointless BR/XP carrot. It's not meaningful to the game in any way and encourages "some" people to play the wrong way.


Oh... I see "YOU CAN"T PLAY LIKE THAT!!!"

Please what draws a lot of people to planetside from other shooters? The size, the variety of play style the sandbox feel for what I can do. I can fly or drive a tank for an entire play session or move as an organized squad, or lone wolf snipe, or join a zergfit and ghost cap bases and pat our selves on the back for being so uber organized and tactical.
Long and the short of it is who the fuck are you to say there is a "wrong" way to play?
Like it or not, but K/D BR/XP Certs and kill achievements mean different things for different people and there is a whole host of players who really ONLY play for those things. There are things to like about PS2 over many other shooters and there are are reasons to go play other shooters over PS2, but to think these things don't matter or encourage play styles detrimental to the game IS wrong. They don't agree with your imagined TPS type meta-game you'd like to see, but the long and short of it is a TPS where actual human beings are the assets to be controlled in a GAME on the internet can never happen to the complexity of a simple and would be sub-par TPS game. YOU CAN"T BREAK human nature, if you try you will end up with a ghost town of a game. People play for stats, people play shooters to shoot people, people play a game touting 1000's in a single battle to be involved in a giant clusterfuck battle.

Lets see what the resource system changes bring. i'd love a re-vamp of the lattice, but I believe the lattice is needed. ANTs and resources and making the lattice a meaningful part of territory not just (but still) a line of the map telling you where to go. I also would like many outposts removed from the lattice but give them some kind of boost/benefit to the base they are tied to, whether it be resource gain or something else.
What is not going to work is returning to the frustrating, unfun game of whack-a-mole that was the hex system.

[Obstruction]

Just in case you didnt play during the hex system , this is how all fights played out, FOR 7 FING MONTHS ALL DAY EVERYDAY. There was know reasons to defend anything in this game at all ever.

except indar, the crown, the biolabs, tech plants, crossroads, other towers.

you're talking about the continents that nobody went to before alerts and barely go to now outside of them.

you call people losers for playing the influence system that was in place, rather than go to a 48 vs 48 because they just didn't want to.

i don't understand this discussion anymore at all, i think people are just cherrypicking things to complain about in order to feel right about what they are emotionally attached to.

[Obstruction]

the main thing i don't understand in this discussion is how "backcapping" or "ghost capping" is a crime. after launch there was the influence system that meant that a stalemate at a biolab could be helped by a small force that took surrounding territory, allowing their faction to have an advantage on the capture time.

this was a strategy given the rules of play.

first of all i don't think everyone means the same thing when they use those terms, but second, how is it invalid to ghost flip a base?

you can still do it in lattice if no one responds.

if 2 people can get into and out of 3 territories and turn them, suffer no losses, and create a situation that diverts enemy forces, that is a valid strategy that can turn the tide of a zerg stalemate. this still happens when pop is low enough on lattice.

if the enemy has to choose between losing territory (meaning, currently, resources) or diverting needed assets, that is an effective move.

so i just don't see the argument against it.

everything else that is said to have been fixed by lattice, either is not fixed, is not related to lattice at all, or was addressed by other changes.

one primary example is the "foothold" change that was made to the Amerish hex after lattice. there is no lattice but territories are locked without secure adjacency, which is a change that came in with lattice but is more closely related to the removal of the influence system.

what i said in my previous post on page 4 still stands. the devs make changes that interact with and/or counteract each other without considering the effect it will have once played out among the population.

some people here are blindly championing what they believe to be the one mechanic that exists, while just as blindly denying any merit to the systems that came before, without seeing that the whole thing is a broad interworking of related submechanics and player behavior.

[CrankyTRex]

YOU CAN"T BREAK human nature, if you try you will end up with a ghost town of a game. People play for stats, people play shooters to shoot people, people play a game touting 1000's in a single battle to be involved in a giant clusterfuck battle.

Well the goal wouldn't be to break human nature, but to get human nature to work for you. The Lattice is the brute force method of accomplishing what more subtle mechanics should be doing, which is what Kerrec is getting at.

The Lattice just tells people "You must go here", which actually removes a lot of the sandbox elements from the game. It also really hurts the pacing of the game since it encourages the steamroll and the stalemate.

The mechanics should say "Right now, it's probably best that you go here." Then players still flow to that location for big battles, but people who see another option can take it. A continental fight should be a bunch of little battles that coalesce into a large one, the conclusion of which determines success.

Even a large battle should really just an amalgam of smaller engagements over individual objectives, so that smaller groups feel like they're accomplishing something. Instead it's just a meat grinder because the objectives are few, and most of them involve simply mowing down infantry while waiting for some kind of arbitrary timer you can't affect to run out.

[Baneblade]

The problem wit lattice is that you can NEVER surround an enemy zerg.

What's stopping you?

[Babyfark McGeez]

What's stopping you?

Let me take a wild guess here: The enemy bases with enemy people and stuff. ;)

Linking ALL bases was not the best move imo, in PS1 you could surround a base by taking the towers around it, which also kinda set up the next stage in taking a base. You were able to sort of move in between the base you're assaulting and the next in line. This is not possible here with the system currently in place.
The enemy can never be practically surrounded since there is allways a locked enemy base pretty much next to the one you're going to assault, reducing possible ams locations and flanking options.

It seems to me the "tagline" of PS2s development does apply here again: "You gotta think your shit through".

[Baneblade]

I'm always flanking the enemy from the direction of their own territory. Sure it carries the risk of being routed yourself by reinforcements, but done properly it is still very viable. Having an enemy base to your back makes it easier most of the time, honestly.

[Kerrec]

errr... um.... you don't like the lattice to force the battle flow but you think there should be a game mechanic that is counter to human nature and that would be good?




Oh... I see "YOU CAN"T PLAY LIKE THAT!!!"

Please what draws a lot of people to planetside from other shooters? The size, the variety of play style the sandbox feel for what I can do. I can fly or drive a tank for an entire play session or move as an organized squad, or lone wolf snipe, or join a zergfit and ghost cap bases and pat our selves on the back for being so uber organized and tactical.
Long and the short of it is who the fuck are you to say there is a "wrong" way to play?.../snip

Whoa. You're either intentionally looking to argue or skimming my posts so fast you're interpreting something comepletely different.

For starters, I never said people shouldn't play how they want to play. If you want to snipe, or be a tanker, or fly, or Max, or infiltrate, or whatever... my suggestions ENCOURAGE it. What my suggestions discourage is:

1) having everyone doing the same thing because it's either OP or perceived to be
2) having people off doing things that have no impact on front lines, like blowing generators for nothing (note: I know this is fixed now with adjacency, I'm using it as an example).
3) having people completely ignore objectives. This pisses off your empire. Nothing like having 50% population while the enemy sits on the objectives and captures a base because a huge chunk of allies are off farming something.


And finally, you are a hypocrite. You rant at me that people should be allowed to play how they want to play, and support Lattice at the same time. Do you not see how that is a contradiction? Either you agree game mechanics should be put in place to force people to play a certain way, or not. You can't champion one or the other when it suits you.

[mrmrmrj]

I'm always flanking the enemy from the direction of their own territory. Sure it carries the risk of being routed yourself by reinforcements, but done properly it is still very viable. Having an enemy base to your back makes it easier most of the time, honestly.

Agreed. If there is a 48 v 48 front, that usually means that the bases behind the front are empty or lightly populated. If you attack them or at a minimum harass them, then forces have to leave the front to hunt you down. That helps your side.

[Wahooo]

And finally, you are a hypocrite. You rant at me that people should be allowed to play how they want to play, and support Lattice at the same time. Do you not see how that is a contradiction? Either you agree game mechanics should be put in place to force people to play a certain way, or not. You can't champion one or the other when it suits you.

Really? The lattice is not dictating HOW you play, and if you go against the lattice i'm not going to say you are playing "wrong". I'm not being hypocritical in supporting the lattice, as it is about creating a battle flow not forcing a play style.

I DO believe the lattice needs re-working. BUT my opinion is the lattice has a much better chance of achieving good game mechanics than the hex system. And the lattice re-working needs to be done with or after the resource overhaul.

I played on an amerish alert this weekend, and I have to say it is still frustrating, maybe more so on amerish as far as trying to respond to little fires all over the place. People have said that it is ok that amerish doesn't have or is the last to get the lattice because the terrain kinda dictates the battle flow... well no from what I experienced over the weekend it doesn't, it just makes responding to back hacks and such much more of a pain in the ass.

[Crator]

People have said that it is ok that amerish doesn't have or is the last to get the lattice because the terrain kinda dictates the battle flow... well no from what I experienced over the weekend it doesn't, it just makes responding to back hacks and such much more of a pain in the ass.

Terrain doesn't always dictate battle flow because players can hop in aircraft and fly over the terrain.

[Kerrec]

I made suggestions... you know, constructive criticism. Do I expect something like what I suggested ever make it into the game? Lol, no. I have about as much chance to win the lottery. But my suggestions try to counter human nature, which is what this game needs, Lattice or Hex.

/snip

That kind of game design would have fixed Hex just fine. However, Lattice is the future and it is just as broken. Lattice needs this just as much!

I quoted myself, so you can see how you didn't even read what I wrote before ranting at my post.

In essence, I am saying the very same thing you are. Not because I am a fan of Lattice, but because I realize there's no going back at this point.

So let's forget Hex. My list of suggestions apply just as much to Lattice because when you get to a fork in the lattice, there's no compelling choices that will make some people want to go one way and others the other way. Lattice didn't fix back-capping or ghost-capping. And it sure as heck doesn't even try to reward even fights (or should I say, try to penalize unbeatable odds).

[Babyfark McGeez]

I'm always flanking the enemy from the direction of their own territory. Sure it carries the risk of being routed yourself by reinforcements, but done properly it is still very viable. Having an enemy base to your back makes it easier most of the time, honestly.

Hmm, since i tend to spawn at the "next" base and go from there when the base i'm actually defending is under heavy siege i figured the enemy would do the same and avoided setting up an ams in that general direction due to possible enemy reinforcements rolling in.
Gotta actually try it i guess hehe.

[KesTro]

Here's a tidbit I'll throw in, mostly aimed at biolabs. Once you've captured one subbase, it would be really nice if they were linked to the other two subbases. Call 'em sublinks or what not so you cant just skirt around the biolab.

As it is now they're more brutal then they've ever been unless you straight up throw 48 people at them from the beginning in which case the base caps in 3 minutes and everyone is just as bored.

[Rumblepit]

Here's a tidbit I'll throw in, mostly aimed at biolabs. Once you've captured one subbase, it would be really nice if they were linked to the other two subbases. Call 'em sublinks or what not so you cant just skirt around the biolab.

As it is now they're more brutal then they've ever been unless you straight up throw 48 people at them from the beginning in which case the base caps in 3 minutes and everyone is just as bored.

i can agreed on that .all satellite bases should not be tied into the lattice.this aspect of the lattice is to restrictive.but the enemy should not be allow to progress beyond a major base until it is captured.

[Timithos]

As pointless as this is probably going to be, I'll give a shot at explaining why I don't like Lattice so much. However, before I begin, let me point out some fallacies:

Backcpas and Ghostcaps: At launch, this was impossible with Hex. We had a dynamic capture timer that was a function of quantity of adjacent friendly territories and quantity of allies in proximity of capture points. This dynamic was vilified by PS1 veterans because they wanted PS2 to be like PS1, which meant looking at a map and knowing EXACTLY how much time a base would take before it was lost.

I guess these people wanted to time their attacks to defend a base at the last possible second to get that epic "just in time" feeling. As far as I was concerned, if a base was being attacked, getting there ASAP was the order of the day, not waiting until the last minute.

That being said, the PS1 mechanic demands won out and 2 things happened: The friendly territory adjacency effect was removed and the requirement to have allies near capture points were removed. That broke Hex badly, introducing "ghostcaps", IE: flipping a point and leaving, letting the base flip on its own. BAD.

It also encouraged back-capping because every base type captures at the same speed. Have 48 people flip a base at the same time as ONE enemy flipped a base behind you, and both bases get captured in the same amount of time meaning 1 lone wolf = an infinitely large force one hex over. In other words, you could cap one base with 12 people or cap 12 bases with 12 people in the same amount of time. Well, duh? What are you going to do? Breaking Hex this way was DUMB.

With the original Hex with adjacency effect, an enemy backcapping would have very little adjacency and flipping a base would take a LONG TIME. So it was possible to push the front line forwards with superior forces and once all adjacency was removed, then go back, flip the attempted backcap which took way too long to be successful, and voila! Your front line moved forward and the attempted backcapping base was no longer in danger.

So don't come to these forums and say that we had 6 months of Hex fixes to try and get it working because we did NOT. We got 6 months of Hex wrecking and no fixes that made any sense.

That being said, Lattice fixed Ghostcapping and Backcapping? NOPE. So overall, saying that is a stupid argument. You can still flip a point and walk away, letting a base continue to flip on its own. IE: ghostcapping. You can also backcap just fine. In fact, in Lattice, it is WORSE. You absolutely MUST have someone sit on the base while everyone else goes and attacks the next base in the line. Otherwise, some lonewolf will flip the point behind your force and prevent you from flipping any points at the next base. With large zergs, this is not so much an issue as there will always be someone spawning at the base left behind. For smaller "squad vs. squad" fights, having to travel all the way back to the base you already secured to flip a ghostcap so you can then return to the next base in the line and hope to flip it before some retard cloaker or lone wolf flips the base behind you again is nothing but aggravation. At least with hex, if someone was backcapping, you could keep your forward momentum and actually flip a point.


Anyway, I've already written too much and have still to get to what I really want to say. Which is,

With Lattice, numbers rule, period. If you are facing 2:1 odds (66% enemy) or worse, it's a matter of time before you start being pushed back. Nothing will stop their momentum other than gaining reinforcement to even things out. Once you start to get near 2:1 odds (55%+) then things will change in your favor. And there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that you can do.

With the original Hex, you could force a superior force to split up by attacking adjacent hexes. If they refused to budge, you just went around them, which is what tended to happen. Not the fault of the numericaly inferior attacking force. Completely the fault of the numerically superior defending force that didn't want to do anything other than sit on some particularly defensible position. A numericaly superior defending force that spread out didn't have problems losing territory. And the closer they came to warpgating their enemies, the larger the battles became.

Now that is gone. I look at the map. If we are facing 1:2 odds or worse, I know there's no point defending a base. I look for places to farm and retreat. If I am with my outfit, we make our fun by seeing how long we can last where we choose to stand. But that is poor gameplay at a metagame scale.

PS2 gameplay with Lattice = 1.5:1 odds or better, you make progress. 1:1.5 odds or worse, you lose progress.

There's just nothing more than that to PS2 lattice.

DING DING DING! EXACTLY! Kerrac gets it. He's in my head, and I agree 100%.

[Timithos]

What a distorted view of the original hex system.

What PS1 vets wanted was to know if it was worth responding to in numbers or just a few people. What we had with the original hex was a bunch of 'shits on fire' notifications while we were in a good fight. leaving the good fight and no knowing if we were responding to a couple newbs or a platoon. More often than not it was just a few people. All this did was keep us from being able to have actual fights and IF you wanted to be a responder you felt like all you were doing was playing whack-a-mole. So what happened? Apathy to respond to anything and ghost capping took over.

The HEX system got revisions for 6 months because it was broken and not working. Whether you think the changes broke it more or not is irrelevant because it simply didn't work right from the start.

The hex system was both stripped of it's features, and abandoned in the name of esports/lattice 4-5 month development. It was never enhanced properly, or given a real chance.

[Rumblepit]

The hex system was both stripped of it's features, and abandoned in the name of esports/lattice 4-5 month development. It was never enhanced properly, or given a real chance.

6 to 7 months of testing wasnt enough? lol take a look at amerish, right now, tomorrow, or tonight even,anytime of the day, and tell me you dont see a never ending string backcaps.
LOL Im looking now, and every link that every faction has is flashing, 1 out of 12 vs 0, bases flipping everywhere, not 1 fight.

maybe there is a better system to utilize besides lattice, but the hex system is not it.

[Timithos]

And unfortunately, that's something that people are just going to have to live with, because ghost capping by any other name is still ghost-capping. Avoiding the larger fight in favor of surrounding its flanks and cutting it off so that it has to scatter is just ghost-capping for a tactical reason rather than the generic ghost-capping out of cowardice.

Anyway, I've spent about 5 hours today and another 5 Friday playing on Amerish, and I've yet to see any of the "tacticool" bullshit Evilpig and others have been talking about in here going on at Amerish. Amerish, lacking the lattice, is generally 30 bases simultaneously being capped/decapped around the continent while any squad or platoon with more than a dozen guys in it effortlessly crushes every base because there is no concentration of forces anywhere. Problems the lattice tries to fix.

The hex system is broken, abandoned, and non-enhanced. You can't expect Amerish to work, because the system was abandoned months ago.

[Timithos]

6 to 7 months of testing wasnt enough? lol take a look at amerish, right now, tomorrow, or tonight even,anytime of the day, and tell me you dont see a never ending string backcaps.
LOL Im looking now, and every link that every faction has is flashing, 1 out of 12 vs 0, bases flipping everywhere, not 1 fight.

maybe there is a better system to utilize besides lattice, but the hex system is not it.

The hex system on Amerish has been stripped of features, it is broken, and non-enhanced. It was abandoned in the name of steam-roll-side-esports and lattice development. They stripped the hex system and stopped enhancing it back in April. You can't criticize the hex system when it was totally abandoned and gutted months ago. A month from now, the lattice system will receive more enhancements, and the Amerish hex system will received NOTHING. The hex system will look even worse and worse as time goes on, and falsely enhance your pro-lattice argument.

[Rumblepit]

The hex system on Amerish has been stripped of features, it is broken, and non-enhanced. It was abandoned in the name of steam-roll-side-esports and lattice development. They stripped the hex system and stopped enhancing it back in April. You can't criticize the hex system when it was totally abandoned and gutted months ago. A month from now, the lattice system will receive more enhancements, and the Amerish hex system will received NOTHING. The hex system will look even worse and worse as time goes on, and falsely enhance your pro-lattice argument.


that is not true. they have been implementing different features to the amersih hex system for the past few months. none of which have stopped the endless backcapping.

[Timithos]

that is not true. they have been implementing different features to the amersih hex system for the past few months. none of which have stopped the endless backcapping.

Can you please list those features? I'm not aware of any. I only play on Esamir and Hossin out support for pro-defensive base design, and protest against anti-defender base design (Indar/Amerish).

[Rumblepit]

Can you please list those features? I'm not aware of any. I only play on Esamir and Hossin out support for pro-defensive base design, and protest against anti-defender base design (Indar/Amerish).


not sure if all the changes were in the patch notes or not , but there have been quite a few changes made.
well you cant hack adjacent hex if your link has been compromised , you cant destroy gens unless you have a adjacent link.cap timers on points and bases were changed.
i really dont play there enough to know all of the changes made, i cant stand chasing down the backcappers.Im sure if you looked around a bit you could find all the changes made,or someone on the forums might now better than I.


the changes did improve the hex system,but it didnt not fix the underlying problem. players can just bypass any base they want at will.

[EVILPIG]

not sure if all the changes were in the patch notes or not , but there have been quite a few changes made.
well you cant hack adjacent hex if your link has been compromised , you cant destroy gens unless you have a adjacent link.cap timers on points and bases were changed.
i really dont play there enough to know all of the changes made, i cant stand chasing down the backcappers.Im sure if you looked around a bit you could find all the changes made,or someone on the forums might now better than I.


the changes did improve the hex system,but it didnt not fix the underlying problem. players can just bypass any base they want at will.

You have to stop using the term "backcapping". Backcapping died when adjacency was added. There is nothing wrong with players choosing their own path when conquering territory. If they go around the enemy, then they are leaving their own flank exposed. A good force will have their forces securing and pushing the entire front with whatever forces are necessary, and reinforce where needed. They will also dispatch forces to secure any area that needs it. The only "problem" with the Hex system is that most players are only concerned with what's happening in their hex or are too shortsighted to see the rest. Others, can see it, but lack the forces or the coordination to handle it. Good vision and communication can prevent the enemy from capping across your flank and you can keep the enemy contained. That's a part of the challenge and is very rewarding to those who can do it.

[Rumblepit]

You have to stop using the term "backcapping". Backcapping died when adjacency was added. There is nothing wrong with players choosing their own path when conquering territory. If they go around the enemy, then they are leaving their own flank exposed. A good force will have their forces securing and pushing the entire front with whatever forces are necessary, and reinforce where needed. They will also dispatch forces to secure any area that needs it. The only "problem" with the Hex system is that most players are only concerned with what's happening in their hex or are too shortsighted to see the rest. Others, can see it, but lack the forces or the coordination to handle it. Good vision and communication can prevent the enemy from capping across your flank and you can keep the enemy contained. That's a part of the challenge and is very rewarding to those who can do it.

Having a very large outfit dosnt hurt either.I wish you played with those smaller outfits your in now when the hex system was in place. You would know where I am coming from.

Im sorry, call me a bias prickk,,, but I dont like to even think about the days I had to play this game during the hex system. It was bad.... Am I the only one that feels this way?If so ill be happy to keep my mouth shut.

[EVILPIG]

Having a very large outfit dosnt hurt either.

That is true. More true is being able to coordinate. A lot of these alliances we see, official or not, are groups of smaller outfits that function like a large one. If they communicate and balance their forces out, they can tackle these challenges too. With Lattice, players don't get much choice and are funneled into the"zerg" fights. With Hex, there's fights of all sizes across the map.

[KesTro]

that is not true. they have been implementing different features to the amersih hex system for the past few months. none of which have stopped the endless backcapping.

You still seem to think that is a bad thing where others seem to think it's not. Clearly you're not going to find common ground with people who hold an opposing idea of the hex system to your own.

I played/play in a smaller outfit and I really liked the hex system. Were the ghostcaps annoying yes but I also think it's annoying to be forced into a Platoons vs platoons fights at every base.

It's gotten to the point on Connery where I see outfits purposely let the enemy zerg finish and reach the WG before pushing back out.

There needs to be some sort of compromise with the lattice so it's not '100%' this is the way you are going.

[Rumblepit]

You still seem to think that is a bad thing where others seem to think it's not. Clearly you're not going to find common ground with people who hold an opposing idea of the hex system to your own.

Why is Amerish never pop locked on connery then? Esamir and Indar both are pop locked on and off all week.

Why are you forced into platoon vs platoon fights? I find fights of all sizes everyday.
You dont have to be apart of the main fight either, just because the enemy has 2 platoons in a bio lab dosnt mean you have to take your 2 squads in there. Defend a satellite base, or do a HEY KOOLAID, bring your 2 squads into the bottom of that bio lab with a GSD sundy and deny them armor, and kill them all as they try to get it lol.

I think we have more options with lattice because it caters to both large and small groups and outfits.
Hex system caters to very large outfits and alliances. Something that is not on every server, nore should be a requirement to play this game.


And i did say lattice should be less restrictive,and it will be when continental lattice is implemented. I also said there was no reason to have any satellite bases tied into the lattice system. This would allow players access to all bases around a major facility . But they should not be allowed to progress until that major facility is taken...... this is a must.
The enemy should never ever be allow to bypass one of these bases.

You do know when continental lattice is implement most of these fights will faction vs faction. It will not be a 3 way everywhere.Meaning it will be NC vs TR on indar, giving each faction 17% more options when it comes to lanes and lattice.This will be the case in most places, but Hossin will be a 3 way mess for many months to come.

[EVILPIG]

Im sorry, call me a bias prickk,,, but I dont like to even think about the days I had to play this game during the hex system. It was bad.... Am I the only one that feels this way?If so ill be happy to keep my mouth shut.

Hex was at it's worst in Tech Test when anyone could hack anywhere regardless of having a link. Adding Adjacency stabilized this a lot and now you need only tackle them before they get too deep. Perhaps what is currently needed is that if the territory you are in gets truncated, then you cannot hack anything that isn't linked to your primary area. By that I mean, through adjacency, you must have a connection to your warpgate, or you cannot go any further. This way, you could hack deep into and flank enemy territory, but if you get cut off, you can't go any further and must either simply defend what you have or reestablish the link.

Lattice is just too dumbed down and lacks strategy. You pretty much just point a finger down a rush lane and go at it. With Hex, you have to be thinking 2 steps ahead. You can out manuever or chase down the enemy. Take them on head on and stop them, or flank them. If you're a smaller force, you can avoid the larger forces. If you're larger, you can run down and jump on the smaller forces. There's just so much more too it. Influence certainly played a role in how forces attacked.

[Timithos]

not sure if all the changes were in the patch notes or not , but there have been quite a few changes made.
well you cant hack adjacent hex if your link has been compromised , you cant destroy gens unless you have a adjacent link.cap timers on points and bases were changed.
i really dont play there enough to know all of the changes made, i cant stand chasing down the backcappers.Im sure if you looked around a bit you could find all the changes made,or someone on the forums might now better than I.


the changes did improve the hex system,but it didnt not fix the underlying problem. players can just bypass any base they want at will.

Those two changes you mentioned are what they do for lattice anyway. It's not a hex enhancement. It's a lattice "enhancement" to pave the way for lattice on Amerish. I'll reiterate my point: Hex has been abandoned since April.

[Timithos]

Why is Amerish never pop locked on connery then? Esamir and Indar both are pop locked on and off all week.

Why are you forced into platoon vs platoon fights? I find fights of all sizes everyday.
You dont have to be apart of the main fight either, just because the enemy has 2 platoons in a bio lab dosnt mean you have to take your 2 squads in there. Defend a satellite base, or do a HEY KOOLAID, bring your 2 squads into the bottom of that bio lab with a GSD sundy and deny them armor, and kill them all as they try to get it lol.

I think we have more options with lattice because it caters to both large and small groups and outfits.
Hex system caters to very large outfits and alliances. Something that is not on every server, nore should be a requirement to play this game.

Because why play on a continent with a broken, abandoned map system? As good as Hex could have been; it never was. You can't make comparison to something that was abandoned, and make your case for lattice to look good. (I mean you can, but we see right through that.)

[Taramafor]

The way I see it there's good points and bad points with both. To put it in the simplest of terms, lattice is too forced and hex is too free.

Hex, despite its faults, gave us choice. But the problem is that there's too much to choose from. It's kind of like trying to decide which single corn of wheat looks best on a wheat farm (don't judge me, I suck at metaphors. >_>).

Lattice on the other hand is too forced. It gives you only one, or at most two paths to go along. No room for flanking and no room to establish any kind of foothold on the sides (notice I said sides, not back) since the lattice only goes one way and not any other.

What we need is a system that presents choices that everyone will use (zerg that way, small elite squad this way or vice versa) while still maintaining a general direction instead of a singular forced direction. And in that singular direction, there should be side directions in the distance to link up with other singular directions (perhaps giving people the option to establish those side bases or, horror of horrors, front lines).

[Kerrec]

Indar has ALWAYS been the most populated map. Esamir and Amerish much less so, since I started playing in December.

Then SOE went and put Lattice on Indar first. After that, everyone that defends Lattice has the gall to say, "Hey look, Indar has Lattice and it's the most populated map, so Lattice must be better than Hex!".

If SOE had put Lattice on Amerish first, and Indar became a ghostown for months while Esamir converted to Lattice, THEN there would be a convincing argument.

OR

If SOE had made Lattice WITHOUT breaking Hex to shit, while putting smart fixes to common complaints on Hex, THEN we could look at populations on maps and say, "yeah, people prefer this or that."

But the truth is, Hex was systematically destroyed and abandoned while Lattice evolved and there was never any intention of making Hex gameplay better. In my eyes, breaking Hex and causing crap gameplay on Hex was an acceptable compromise to get Lattice out quickly.

Hex was never improved, and at this point we will never know if it could have been better, OR NOT. Claiming to know is just blowing smoke in people's faces.

[GreyFrog]

Im with Rumble, Lattice is a vast improvement IMO.

[Calista]

I haven't read over all this but hex and lattice are the same thing. The problem with hex even with adjacency is too many "links". Lattice as it is might be a bit too restricted by links so maybe they can tune it somewhere in between. This would also improve performance by spreading everyone out a bit more but FFS lets not go back to open world whack-a-mole.

[Rumblepit]

Also they have not finished implementing the lattice system, i cant say this enough, wait until next month and tell me you dont have a lot more options per continent than you did before. 3 way fights will not be on every continent. Take indar for example, cut it in half,and put a faction in the north and a faction in the south and think about how it will play out.

Home continents and continental lattice will have a huge effect on the way this game is played.


But Hossin will be a 3 way mess for a long time... lol

[Timithos]

We're playing in an MMOFPS. But our game is now and has always been more FPS then MMO. I'd like to see multiple map and capture mechanics on different continents. MMO players can handle complex systems. We're not morons that need a blanket, homogenized system spread equally over every continent.

Back in April, the hex system was abandoned. The dev team went right into development of the lattice system. Even though the community provided all the feedback necessary to fix and enhance the hex, there was a new battle cry: eSports. And the veterans wanted some sort of lattice system, because let's face it: The hex system was not being enhanced properly. During development of lattice they even stripped away great features making the hex system look worse like taking away adjacency and the 0/3-0/6 cap timing enhancement. The hex system never stood a chance against Higby's esports, not to mention our base design has been suffering until the Esamir revamp took a step into the right direction.

Now with esports is compartmentalized and quarantined inside Nexus Battlegrounds, two things don't have to suffer anymore: map/capture mechanics and base design. No longer do we need a fast-paced Steamrollside with no defender advantages to supplicate the mighty gods of esports. The damage the lattice has done, can now be slowly unraveled, and yes, they're going slowly. That's not to say that a lattice-type system can't remain.

As far as changing the lattice system, I wish they'd eliminate all 2-way outpost connections and either A) make them all a minimum of 3-way (we are a 3-way empire system after all.), or B) create a sunderer ability to bridge lattice connections, or C) Make lattice count for resource and facility benefits only as someone suggested above.

However, I would like to see other continents continue with an enhanced hex system - an enhanced system that was never implemented. (MMO... not morons... you get it.)

One thing that is wrecking both the hex and lattice systems is ghost capping. It's making both systems look bad. It needs to be eliminated. No longer should you be able to flip a point, and then leave. You should be required to stay on point. Also in the past, ghost-capping has made a back-capping system impossible to deliver. So what did they do? They eliminated back-capping instead of what they should have eliminated: ghost-capping. So this wasn't a hex system failure. Stop blaming that. Ghost-capping has done more single-handed harm to the hex system then any single other thing. And today it continues to harm the lattice system to a degree.

And finally to address this large battle/small battle. Planetside, once and for all, is not ONLY about the big battles. And some stupid slogan like, "Size Always Matters", does NOT dictate everyone's playstyle. I prefer the smaller battles at outposts. Someone else prefers the large zerg battles with explosions shaking all around them. That's fine. That's them. And that's not everyone. And players need to stop telling people that if they don't want to be in a massive battle then they might as well go play an FPS. I don't play FPS's and I don't like them.

I like my Planetside. I like to work in small battles and some off-to-the-side outpost with the threat that a large zerg could arrive any moment on this massive open continent. Or just to enjoy the possibility that a liberator could fly in from this huge dangerous battle field and completely change the battle. I like to work around the zerg, and manipulate it to my advantage. I could do that at the peak of the hex system many months ago, and I could do that in Planetside 1. The lattice system in it's current state does not allow me or my team that luxury anymore.

[Timithos]

Indar has ALWAYS been the most populated map. Esamir and Amerish much less so, since I started playing in December.

Then SOE went and put Lattice on Indar first. After that, everyone that defends Lattice has the gall to say, "Hey look, Indar has Lattice and it's the most populated map, so Lattice must be better than Hex!".

If SOE had put Lattice on Amerish first, and Indar became a ghostown for months while Esamir converted to Lattice, THEN there would be a convincing argument.

OR

If SOE had made Lattice WITHOUT breaking Hex to shit, while putting smart fixes to common complaints on Hex, THEN we could look at populations on maps and say, "yeah, people prefer this or that."

But the truth is, Hex was systematically destroyed and abandoned while Lattice evolved and there was never any intention of making Hex gameplay better. In my eyes, breaking Hex and causing crap gameplay on Hex was an acceptable compromise to get Lattice out quickly.

Hex was never improved, and at this point we will never know if it could have been better, OR NOT. Claiming to know is just blowing smoke in people's faces.

EXACTLY! Get out of my head! I love you man!

[Taramafor]

Also they have not finished implementing the lattice system, i cant say this enough, wait until next month and tell me you dont have a lot more options per continent than you did before. 3 way fights will not be on every continent. Take indar for example, cut it in half,and put a faction in the north and a faction in the south and think about how it will play out.

Home continents and continental lattice will have a huge effect on the way this game is played.


But Hossin will be a 3 way mess for a long time... lol

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)

Second, adding continents will NOT change the battle flow. zerg vs zerg or small ssquad vs small squad. Doesn't matter. One line, no flanking (or at least not enough of it. And certaintly no option of surrounding). No support on the sides. This isn't about numbers and it's not about using a whole other continent to flank another continent (Is that what you meant? Not entirely sure).

What matters is the fight going on in the immediate and surrounding area. In such fights there should be choices of where to relocate too, be it a friendly base from behind, a heavily fortified base from the front or bases on the side which could be owned by either side. Which could either have heavy fighting or not and at least give people an opportunity for smaller engagements at the side of the zerg (supporting the zerg. Something that can't be done with lattice currently if those side lattice lines aren't connected nearby).

Hex gave that option but it gave it everywhere.

Lattice takes it away by clustering everyone into the line.

It's not about hex and it's not about lattice. It's about having options and choices. We, the players, get no choice whatsoever now.

[GreyFrog]

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)


From what we've worked out about current plans for Cont Locking. If Indar is not your home continent and you have not capped a linking battle island or Hossin, you won't be fighting on Indar.

[Taramafor]

From what we've worked out about current plans for Cont Locking. If Indar is not your home continent and you have not capped a linking battle island or Hossin, you won't be fighting on Indar.

Hmm... Glad I'm in TR then.

At any rate, my point in the immediate and surrounding area still stands. Continent take overs are a whole different ball game then taking over nearby bases in the continents themselves (mainly more time commitment and the waiting).

Even if waiting is taken out of the equation, it simply means flanking on the sides of continents only. Never in the middle of one (which should be harder naturally, but not entirely impossible).

[GreyFrog]

Hmm... Glad I'm in TR then.

At any rate, my point in the immediate and surrounding area still stands. Continent take overs are a whole different ball game then taking over nearby bases in the continents themselves (mainly more time commitment and the waiting).

I assume home continents will rotate like the current system :P

[Rumblepit]

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)

Second, adding continents will NOT change the battle flow. zerg vs zerg or small ssquad vs small squad. Doesn't matter. One line, no flanking (or at least not enough of it. And certaintly no option of surrounding). No support on the sides. This isn't about numbers and it's not about using a whole other continent to flank another continent (Is that what you meant? Not entirely sure).

What matters is the fight going on in the immediate and surrounding area. In such fights there should be choices of where to relocate too, be it a friendly base from behind, a heavily fortified base from the front or bases on the side which could be owned by either side. Which could either have heavy fighting or not and at least give people an opportunity for smaller engagements at the side of the zerg (supporting the zerg. Something that can't be done with lattice currently if those side lattice lines aren't connected nearby).

Hex gave that option but it gave it everywhere.

Lattice takes it away by clustering everyone into the line.

It's not about hex and it's not about lattice. It's about having options and choices. We, the players, get no choice whatsoever now.


Hex did give that option your right, and do you know what everyone choose to attack? The warp gate, nobody ever used the hex system to gain tactical advantage. The thought process was this..... If they want to defend? Camp the warp gate, If they dont want to chase down backcaps, camp the warpgate.....

Did you know there never use to be towers around the warp gate? Do you know why they put them there? Im sure it had to do with the insane heat maps they were getting from the api. They saw it was the one of the only places where fights were taking place.

Hex system didnt fail,the players failed , when you can fix human nature then the hex system will work.


And your going to have to look at the big picture at some point. Continent captures will be the game.

[Taramafor]

And your going to have to look at the big picture at some point. Continent captures will be the game.

Continent's are a part of the game. Not the whole of it.

Also, the warpgate problem would easily be solved with side lattice lanes every 3 bases away from the wrapgate or so (in a semi circle patten around the wrapgate) which would be tied into the lattice we have now. Put that in and we get to fight in the front or at the sides. But not behind the front lines.

Though this does make me wonder if behind the front lines game style should be added somehow since that also is a part of war (the airborne can atest to this). A way needs to be devised of how it should be implemented without going back to ghost capping. Damned if I know how though. Perhaps some ability applied from the gal to capture enemy bases behind the front line that wears off after 3 mins or when said base is captured? That way no one can just move around in a flash and ghost cap.

[GreyFrog]

Lattice Defuser Gals? :)

[Rumblepit]

Continent's are a part of the game. Not the whole of it.

Also, the warpgate problem would easily be solved with side lattice lanes every 3 bases away from the wrapgate or so (in a semi circle patten around the wrapgate) which would be tied into the lattice we have now. Put that in and we get to fight in the front or at the sides. But not behind the front lines.

Though this does make me wonder if behind the front lines game style should be added somehow since that also is a part of war (the airborne can atest to this). A way needs to be devised of how it should be implemented without going back to ghost capping. Damned if I know how though. Perhaps some ability applied from the gal to capture enemy bases behind the front line that wears off after 3 mins? That way no one can just move around in a flash and ghost cap.

Continent control will be the goal when it is implemented. And behind front line tactics are what made planetside 1 a great game if you ask me.Take out a enemies gen at a Tech plant and wait for incoming rage.I think at some point we will get to see this implemented. With the addition of the continental lattice ,and Inerlink the base benefits will have greater purpose when the goal is to capture the continent. But i still feel that a major base should never be bypassed.

[Taramafor]

Lattice Defuser Gals? :)

It would give them something to do other then troop transport. Honestly, how a sun can be deplorable and a gal not is beyond me. I think gals should be squad/platoon deploy only myself.

[BlaxicanX]

Hex system didnt fail,the players failed , when you can fix human nature then the hex system will work.


Well put. I think I'm going to make it my sig at some point- it really is the ultimate universal truth of why the Hex system didn't work, and not just the hex, but a lot of problems this game has with "flow", "defensibly" etc.

edit- On the topic of the Galaxy, I think it would be nice if the Gal was an AMS, and balanced by it only being a deploy point for your squad (not an entire platoon), and, more interestingly, people spawning from it not being able to change their classes. So if you die as an engineer and you want to spawn at the galaxy, you won't have the option to change to a heavy assault, MAX or any other class, you'd have to spawn from it as an engineer.

[Taramafor]

and, more interestingly, people spawning from it not being able to change their classes. So if you die as an engineer and you want to spawn at the galaxy, you won't have the option to change to a heavy assault, MAX or any other class, you'd have to spawn from it as an engineer.

I could live with that. That way the devs wouldn't have to add weapon terminals to gals. I think the reason you can't deploy from one though is because it's kind of hard to get one at a base and not have it shot down. Still, if the option was there and 3 gals land at a base, it could defiantly turn the tide of a battle. Which outweighs the negative impact I think.

[BlaxicanX]

From what I've heard, Gal's had the ability to deploy at some point in the beta, and it was removed because everyone stopped using sunderers and it made it too easy to hop around the hex system.

Both of those issues are (mostly) fixed now, though, especially with AA being as prevalent as it is now, so I'd like to see the idea re-introduced.

[EVILPIG]

From what I've heard, Gal's had the ability to deploy at some point in the beta, and it was removed because everyone stopped using sunderers and it made it too easy to hop around the hex system.

Both of those issues are (mostly) fixed now, though, especially with AA being as prevalent as it is now, so I'd like to see the idea re-introduced.

Gal spawns are coming back, though they will be limited to Squad or Platoon use only.

[Zadexin]

I just think Alerts need to go away. They were a stopgap measure to get people fighting in big clusters. Now that we have lattice it isn't necessary. They just need to drop the alerts altogether. Every time I'm running with a big group capping a continent an alert pops up and all of a sudden its "sit in a biodome for 2 hrs."

[EVILPIG]

I just think Alerts need to go away. They were a stopgap measure to get people fighting in big clusters. Now that we have lattice it isn't necessary. They just need to drop the alerts altogether. Every time I'm running with a big group capping a continent an alert pops up and all of a sudden its "sit in a biodome for 2 hrs."

Completely different topic, but I couldn't agree more. I hate the artificial mechanization of player motivation. It's a persistent world, yet Alerts create stop times where 1/4 of the server logs off. They also greatly interfere with player created events.

[Wahooo]

What matters is the fight going on in the immediate and surrounding area. In such fights there should be choices of where to relocate too, be it a friendly base from behind, a heavily fortified base from the front or bases on the side which could be owned by either side. Which could either have heavy fighting or not and at least give people an opportunity for smaller engagements at the side of the zerg (supporting the zerg. Something that can't be done with lattice currently if those side lattice lines aren't connected nearby).

Hex gave that option but it gave it everywhere.

Lattice takes it away by clustering everyone into the line.

It's not about hex and it's not about lattice. It's about having options and choices. We, the players, get no choice whatsoever now.

I don't think the lattice has taken away from this, and I personally believe the lattice has better potential in the long run with resources and the ability to do some resource disruption or other types of behind the lines work, like PS1 tech or interlink gen holds.

I fully agree with much of what you propose as fixes to the hex, but I believe they work better with a lattice. I was touting dynamic XP for base capping quite a while ago when I thought the lattice would never happen and we needed to think up a way to make the hex work.

There are still choices they are just different tactics, flanking is possible and probably MORE tactical to make it work, it isn't just surrounding a group dug in at a base they were trying to defend (which is part of what made base defense horrid. Even with improvements to the hex there was no real battle flow. If you tried to defend anything at all you lose the rest of your territory. Now it still can happen with the lattice, but it isn't about defending as much as it is farming a bio lab that causes that. The hex never appeared tactical to me, there was no real complex thinking it was a game of checkers where you could use both black AND red squares... there was less tactics and more chaos. It certainly wasn't a game of Chess. I"m not going to say the lattice is a chess game either, but it is closer to a game of checkers or backgammon. The choices are still there but need to be evaluated and considered. In order to flank your enemy you still have to FIGHT them, it isn't about just turning territory a different color and annoying those that were trying to have a fight it is about actually engaging and defeating.