new lattice tweet from higby

[Erendil]

Introducing a more PS1-style lattice/adjacency mechanic for conquering territories is a bad idea IMO. It unnecessarily limits player choice, herds empire assaults along a limited number of attack vectors, reduces the number of strategic avenues available to an empire, and takes one more step towards repetitive gameplay.

Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits already direct a lot of the flow of battle. We don't need more artificial rules in place to do our tactical thinking for us and force the fight down even fewer avenues than we have now.

If you want more predictable battle flow, watch the map. Pay attention to what the enemy is doing. If you watch enemy movements for more than 5 minutes and keep track of more than just the last territory that got capped it becomes pretty easy to predict where the enemy will go next. And, if there are multiple options, send scouts out to each one.

There are many things missing from PS2 that should have been ported over from PS1. The lattice is not one of them.

[Lord Mondando]

Originally Posted by Assist

With the amount of connections it's far from a linear progression.

I'm sorry but its by definition a linear progression as lateral movement is basically ruled out. Linear doesn't mean it can't or does not branch. Indeed, the branching is linear.

What the hex system at least tries to capture at the moment, is some space for lateral movement. that is to say, attacking a flank.

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.

I'm sorry but I think I am, what he has said is quite clear on certain things being ruled out, namely that movements will be made
1) More predictable.
2) Less in terms of options from base to base.

Furthermore, what he does say on addressing concerns is quite frankly very vague, moreover as I've noted. Makes reference to PS1 game mechanics which currently PS2 does not have at all.

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

Ok, I think firstly, you've been very, very lucky with your experience of PS2 if performance has not been a major issue.

though you raise a fair point, the crown has large battles. yet two things here.
A) the crown doesn't always have great performance. Indeed if its heavily populated performance there can be pretty iffy in my experience. I'm hardly scraping the bottom of the barrel with my fx 8350 @ 4.5 and my GTX 650 at 1.2.
B) Performance for a comparable (or indeed greater) number of people can absolutely tank in many of the major bases when they are heavily populated.

Now, this hinges on 'are all fights going to be larger.

I think the answer is: well as a function fo the time of day, yes. At prime time, your going to see given the population of a map can be as high as 600-700 each side, about 50-100 people at each possible conflict point on the map. Even a 50 v 50 engagement can be pretty taxing. A 100 v 100 is almost always taxing.

I also think, due to ruling out the options to quite a large degree, this will largely be what happens. If you going to limit the players total options for movement, your going to get more people in a smaller number of areas, which as a whole is going to effect performance.

Also this.

The game runs functionally well for people with low end computers even in massively huge battles that have horrible infantry render distances.

I just contest sorry, it really doesn't I also cannot imagine what lead you to think this. A few i3 users luck out and have it magically work well, below that everyone not in possession of a fairly recent high end CPU and somewhat half descent graphics card has been having problems from the get-go.

Given this game is F2p, accessibility is allways key and so frankly. SoE needs to keep performance at the top of their minds.

[Lord Mondando]

Originally Posted by KamikaZee

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.

Well as per your mock up, there are in effect only two choices, attack through arroyo, or attack through blackshard. trying to attack tawich via skydock or red ridge is now off the table (i've done this a few times and attacking down cliffs is cool). As it is impossible to take tawich without taking either arroyo or blackshard first.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Erendil

Introducing a more PS1-style lattice/adjacency mechanic for conquering territories is a bad idea IMO. It unnecessarily limits player choice, herds empire assaults along a limited number of attack vectors, reduces the number of strategic avenues available to an empire, and takes one more step towards repetitive gameplay.

You mean the repetitive gameplay where whenever you leave a base you just captured, you can go back because it's just been recaptured by the enemy while you were taking a base further along?

THAT ISN'T REPETITIVE IF YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE SAME BASES TIME AFTER TIME AND CAN'T MOVE ON BECAUSE THE ENEMY KEEPS IGNORING YOUR FRONTLINE?

>__>

Unlike you, we'd like to move on to another part of the map now and then, instead of being stuck in your own terrain continuously (day in day out) due to fending of the sheer amount of incursions. The only time we can do that now is when we completely IGNORE defense and usualy end up ghostcapping our way somewhere.

Adjacency, terrain, facility types, and base benefits already direct a lot of the flow of battle. We don't need more artificial rules in place to do our tactical thinking for us and force the fight down even fewer avenues than we have now.

They don't direct the flow of battle at all. Not sure about you, but we ignore logical progression completely.

If you want more predictable battle flow, watch the map. Pay attention to what the enemy is doing. If you watch enemy movements for more than 5 minutes and keep track of more than just the last territory that got capped it becomes pretty easy to predict where the enemy will go next. And, if there are multiple options, send scouts out to each one.

Sorry, don't have 40 people available to send out as scouts to each potential capture and defense location.

There are many things missing from PS2 that should have been ported over from PS1. The lattice is not one of them.

1. This isn't the PS1 lattice.
2. Restrictions including adjecency have so far done nothing but improve gameplay.

If you recall, we went from pure chaos and frustration in tech test to a bit calmer, but still annoyingly repetitive game. Linearity allows for more progression and therefore much better "moving the map" as we called it in PS1. You want some closure so you can move on. The worst thing that could occur to us was being stuck on the same map the entire time because an enemy would continuously come back.


Do you remember the Dagda song? You know, the song that wasn't over till someone went and captured Andvari? That is PS2 right now, only spread over a similar sized region, with a few more territories and that you can hardly put a plug on it (there's no "Andvari" to protect the continent behind it). Each impossible to defend (certainly impossible to defend ALL) and therefore utterly frustrating to play ping pong between these bases.

[moosepoop]

This is awesome

do want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Hamma]

Excellent mostly constructive discussion in this thread!

I think we can all agree we need a test server yesterday.

[Blynd]

Originally Posted by Hamma

Excellent mostly constructive discussion in this thread!

I think we can all agree we need a test server yesterday.

Amen to that brother

[Figment]

I still find it weird they didn't continue a beta server for that. >.>

[Lord Mondando]

Originally Posted by Figmet

Unlike you, we'd like to move on to another part of the map now and then, instead of being stuck in your own terrain continuously (day in day out) due to fending of the sheer amount of incursions. The only time we can do that now is when we completely IGNORE defense and usualy end up ghostcapping our way somewhere.

though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by Figment

I still find it weird they didn't continue a beta server for that. >.>

Indeed.

[Mietz]

Originally Posted by Figment

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

I blame my dependency on that one event where I drank coffee i made that was chemically saturated with caffeine during my pharmacy studies.

Its like with Obelix who fell into the magic potion cauldron when he was a kid and gained superpowers. Except i gained an addiction and didn't become super strong.

[Frozenland]

Originally Posted by Nobel

The video that explains the idea

Announcing the Community Design Meeting and adding Metagame to Planetside 2! - YouTube

No this video is about a different idea. It is a good idea but I think the old lattice system even better.

[Babyfark McGeez]

Originally Posted by Lord Mondando

though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

It's about getting some structure and direction into the battle flow. Imo, the maps are way too "fluid", which results in nobdoy giving a shit because you cannot deal with each ghost hack anyway.
The proposed new system would help there, plus visually outlining what's at stake for even the most oblivious player (Hi my TR mates on Miller).

I gotta disagree with Fig on one thing though (shocking, i know): Imo the terrain is currently the only contributing factor to directing battle flow (Check the SE area of indar around Tawrich for example, or the whole of Amerish).

EDIT: That being said, now that we are about to get some structure into the maps, we only (still) need some incentives to motivate people to defend territories (once more, base benefits minus Tech Plant are laughable, and resources barely matter).

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Lord Mondando

though this was an intresting point, as you seem to be suggesting the movement fo the front lines across the map will be move fluid.

If, as per the 'rush' system (which presumably, unless the term in meaningless, will be a case of taking base A to unlock being able to take B and C, etc) both sides fighting are reasonably easily matched. It is not, in fact more likely that without the ability for someone attacking a flank, even by just ghosting to draw troops away that front lines might in fact be incredibly static?

What in this system, actually makes the map more fluid?

"More static" isn't per definition worse as "too dynamic" also exists.

Static (left) vs Dynamic (right):
World of Tanks -- BF Rush map ---- PlanetSide 1 capital lattice ----- PlanetSide 1 ------------------------------------ PlanetSide 2 proposed ---------------- PlanetSide 2 current -------------------- PlanetSide 2 Tech Test



Flow is how a battle moves. It can be guided, unguided, restricted or unrestricted. Unrestricted flow leads to chaos and people avoiding combat, not finding combat and generally not having a good time. There can be such a thing as too much unrestricted flow. Consider that what we'll get is a rivermouth, with maybe a few branch-offs, where we had a swampy delta. Both flow to sea, but one can potentially be controlled by plugging a branch, the other cannot as it has too many branches. This then is about flow control by the players.



Too much chaos is bad. Very bad. It means you can't ever have a decent session where you feel you contributed to a fight, because literally 10 seconds later the entire frontline can be reduced to sanctuary.

That's not very satisfying to a whole lot of players.


"Static" as you describe it is simply more staged fighting and progression, with fall back options that still allow you to stall and defend, without being completely overwhelmed. Stalling allows you to set up a meaningful campaign where you can plan fights for a few hours ahead. And that doesn't mean those hours are spend at the same point, it means you can steer the fight in your favour and any tactical and strategic moves made by the opposition and allies have far greater impact on the course of battle in the long term. And that gives much greater satisfaction than "flanking" and having your "flanking" move undone as soon as you try to move on.


I'm not sure why anyone would think having over 80 options with just three continents is a good thing (and we have that right now - just stop for a second each evening and count the options on ALL CONTINENTS: which are ALL BORDER REGIONS, friendly AND enemy). There are too few players and too high concentrations of players to have a fight at half or more of them. That's why there's so much ghosting.

Too fluid a map is just going to mean that you're going to be ignored half the time as it's too much choice and too much effort to deal with it: there's just no time to respond so most people don't even bother showing up. This is a PvP game. There should be some PvP somewhere. Look, some ghosting will always happen, but if 60% of your time is ghosting or pointless defense, then people will just go to The Crown and ignore the conquest and defense in favour of at least having some targets to shoot at.


Note that I never said this new system would make the game "more fluid". In fact, making things more fluid would reduce the game closer to the early tech test status. That was so turbulent, there was no breathing space, no time to plan anything, no time to defend, respond or even time to get away from the location you were defending, because you couldn't stop people coming back there.

What I said was better flow and easier to comprehend and respond to for the average player. Not more flow (more fluid).



Look, that I'm able to read the map and SirAlydon is able to read the map, doesn't mean that Zergling X, Y and Z (and xXZergerZXx) is going to be able to read the map. But even SirAlydon will have to admit Dark is not capable of responding to all the threats at once and that coordinating people to defend all those regions is not just a pain in the arse, it's virtually impossible. It's simply too chaotic for command to deal with. :/


Now and then I hear or see people use voice command or leader and I hear what they're saying and while they're discussing moving somewhere, I'm watching the map and that has already obsoleted their entire discussion.

The current system is impossible to plan for at all. And yes, of course plans have to be adapted constantly, but to have such a fluid state where a plan has been obsoleted before it has been conceived, let alone prepared or executed is just plain daft. A bit more static frontlines allow time for plans to hatch, be executed and make a noticable impact. Meanwhile, players who just want to play don't have to continuously find a new fight since those fights won't be gone by the time they get there and they can have an hour or two of leisurely fighting without the effort of constantly relocating. That's after all one of the underlying reasons why The Crown is very popular.


And no, the new lattice won't automatically balance populations fighting one another. It may very well disperse population in a more controlled manner. If that's the case, it should make commanding more relevant. Of course, that still requires the base designs to be suitable for defense. If small teams get good defensive positions, they'll gladly take on zergs to stall them for reinforcements. And the less pressure on a lane, the more likely it will be used for flanking.

Speaking of flanking, looks like they intend there to be more feasible assistance-flanking around bases, what with the main bases having their own linked regions around it. That could well make holding and taking minor outposts more interesting and important for smaller groups as well.

[Bocheezu]

I haven't read the entire thread, and I'm not going to read some random dude's manifesto about how lattice is wrong, but the people that complain that this will reduce small-squad viability or reduce the number of "maps" just don't understand what's going on.

Small squads will become MORE viable because they won't be ghost-capping some useless shit outpost that no one cares about. In this scenario, small squads can do the same thing they did in PS1: the PS2 equivalent of the CC hold. Big Zerg is hitting Feldspar Canyon, you drop behind them inside the Stronghold (which has an interior cap point) and you do a CC hold. They should make it so that just contending the Stronghold cap point breaks the link and prevents the ability for the big zerg to hack Feldspar; you shouldn't have to take the base. Now your small squad, which has an extreme defensive advantage inside that building if they play smartly with MAX/medics/engies, can try to hold off multiple squads from resecuring. The big zerg is trapped at Feldspar doing jack shit now and just got fucked in the ass by your small squad. That's what Planetside is about.

Some things need to change to make this viable for all bases, however. All cap points need to be indoors and window-free. Tanks/planes should not be able to clear out the small squad trying the CC hold. Infantry should be the only way to clear the people out in there.

As far as this reducing the number of maps -- exactly how many maps do we play on now? Five, maybe six?

Allatum
TI Alloys
Crown
Crossroads
Hvar
Quartz Ridge

That's it folks, there's your current maps. Everything else is pretty much a ghost cap, or at best a mild skirmish that lasts 15 minutes. Those are not Planetside battles. This system could have a huge battle over Red Ridge Communications or some other ridiculous place that no one's ever fought at before. The map is being opened up, not shrunk down.

Will there be issues? Sure. I can forsee a lot of never-fought-over-before bases becoming complete logjams. We will bitch about these bases. But at least we'll analyze the base itself (why is this a logjam?) and devise strategies (what do we do about it?) instead of just nonchalantly passing through it on the way to something else. It will give the bases some character and importance.