new lattice tweet from higby - Page 11

Babyfark McGeez · 2013-03-04, 02:15 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

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

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

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

psijaka · 2013-03-04, 03:46 AM

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

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

PredatorFour · 2013-03-04, 05:19 AM

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

Lord Mondando · 2013-03-04, 06:24 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived.

this is because in PS1, there were things small squads could do behind lines to effect game-play like sabotage generators in bases.

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

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

Lord Mondando · 2013-03-04, 06:41 AM

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

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...4#post-1336867

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mietz · 2013-03-04, 07:25 AM

Originally Posted by Climhazzard

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

Yeah that facilitates great gameplay and strategy:

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

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

HiroshiChugi · 2013-03-04, 07:30 AM

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

Edit: Grammar.

Twido · 2013-03-04, 07:55 AM

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

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

KamikaZee · 2013-03-04, 08:20 AM

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

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

Lord Mondando · 2013-03-04, 08:27 AM

Originally Posted by KamikaZee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that aint whats on the table here.

Thunderhawk · 2013-03-04, 08:27 AM

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

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

BUT....

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

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

------

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

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

Figment · 2013-03-04, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

How do you people even survive...

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

Lord Mondando · 2013-03-04, 08:31 AM

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

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

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

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

Assist · 2013-03-04, 08:52 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Mondando

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

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

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

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

KamikaZee · 2013-03-04, 09:03 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Mondando

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

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