new lattice tweet from higby

[Badjuju]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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

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

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

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

Love it. Thanks for the updates.

[Dkamanus]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Figment]

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


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


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

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


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


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

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




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

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Figment

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

I was joking ;D

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mietz

I was joking ;D

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

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

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


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

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

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

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

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

I find this extremely dull both strategically and tactically.

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

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

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


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


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

We need a test server. This has potential.

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

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

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


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

This seems like a step in the right direction.

[MurderBunneh]

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

[Sifer2]

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

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

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

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

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Figment

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

How do you people even survive...

[Mustakrakish]

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

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

[Climhazzard]

Originally Posted by zulu

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

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

Originally Posted by artifice

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

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

Originally Posted by Figment

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

And yet people ghost cap.

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

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

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

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

Originally Posted by Figment

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

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

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

[Sirisian]

After my quick initial comment I wanted to expand on some of the points I made earlier:

Originally Posted by Sirisian

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

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


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

I think some others brought the predictable path problem up (including TheDrone a few times) with others:

Originally Posted by Electrofreak

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

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

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

Originally Posted by artifice

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

As a side note, Malorn since you have a programming background you might try persuading them to implement the transvoxel algorithm to add more clever paths into the canyons and mountain regions. Right now what the artists are doing with models seems kind of limited and that would solve it and give them a lot of choices. Adding small tunnels from the ground on a canyon for instance up to the top of the canyon. Even if normal models were used it would open up a lot of choice for player movements. (Allowing people to fully use the landscape).

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

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

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

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

I don't think you should view it as creating metagame. It's not doing that at all and I don't think that's the goal of it. It's just redesigning the current lattice system and the connections to be more obvious.

About flanking at the strategic level I think you bring up a really good point. Malorn you might want to consider dropping the hex system as a way to define connectivity. You're invariably going to run into issues where you want to connect two bases but in creating the path you touch another hex or overlap one which can't have a connection. Your image indicates this issue:

You have an obvious bridge yet you left the connection out. What happens if you want to add tunnels later through a mountain for infantry and define an adjacency. No matter how small you make the hexes you can't visually show overlapping regions.

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

[typhaon]

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

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

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

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

[Roy Awesome]

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

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

[p0intman]

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

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