Plan C: We keep both, the Lattice AND the Hex - Page 2

Hmr85 · 2013-05-27, 07:28 PM

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I really could care less from a personal stand point whether we have hex or lattice as both have their own advantages and disadvantages. But I do not think any kind of hybrid system would really solve any of these issues and frankly I am sick of all the damn time wasted on adjusting map flow. Refine the current lattice system and move on already. Rather than keep making passes on the current conts put the level designers to work on the new conts which is something the game really needs.

I also find drones comments about basti to be hypocritical since he has clearly demonstrated himself to be as close minded as he accuses basti to be. His comments about how there is some secret plot by ps1 vets to turn ps2 into ps1 with better graphics is silly at best. I played ps1 since sept of 2003 and am as vet as anybody. Yet I have never advocated that everything from ps1 be copy pasted into ps2. I have even outright opposed some things such as including an inventory system and adding in NTU etc. Hell Hamma who was a big enough ps1 fanboy that he started up this site has stated on multiple occasion that the two games and different and has reigned people in from making unjust comparisons between the games and mindlessly advocating that ps2 be made into ps1 with better graphics.

If anything the majority of ps1 vets realize the short comings of the game and do not want to see them remade with ps2. That being said it does not mean we should just discard everything ps1 did either. And just because somebody advocates the lattice which was a tried and true system does not mean they are some bitter vet out to destroy ps2 and remake it as ps1 with better graphics. There are only a handful of vets I know that have taken such a stance and they are a minority within the vet community.

QFT and well said.

Sunrock · 2013-05-27, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by Baneblade

PS1 didn't always have a lattice either. In the beginning it let you hack anything anywhere.

So if the 'hex' system was a dismal failure in PS1 ten years ago... why do people think it would have worked in PS2? PS2 isn't slow paced enough to make hex strategy viable, when bases and outposts flip in mere minutes, the game moves too fast for a more open strategic system.

The hex system would have been perfect for an RPG game where sieges can take weeks and months, making each choice of attack and defense critical to the survival of a given faction. But in PS2, everything happens too fast for it to actually add anything to the game, not to mention the consequences for bad strategic planning and action simply do not exist. So all PS2's hex system really did was convince some wanna be RISK players that... oh... RISK has a lattice.

Well the hex system would have worked if each continent had a larger population and that the community played allot more. The hex system failed when the population was low to medium for one reason or an other.

The Lacttice system strength is that it concentrate the population more then the hex system as you have less options from where you can attack. Making it more enjoyable to play when it's not prime time.

TheDrone · 2013-05-27, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by TheSaltySeagull

I really could care less from a personal stand point whether we have hex or lattice as both have their own advantages and disadvantages. But I do not think any kind of hybrid system would really solve any of these issues and frankly I am sick of all the damn time wasted on adjusting map flow. Refine the current lattice system and move on already. Rather than keep making passes on the current conts put the level designers to work on the new conts which is something the game really needs.

I also find drones comments about basti to be hypocritical since he has clearly demonstrated himself to be as close minded as he accuses basti to be. His comments about how there is some secret plot by ps1 vets to turn ps2 into ps1 with better graphics is silly at best. I played ps1 since sept of 2003 and am as vet as anybody. Yet I have never advocated that everything from ps1 be copy pasted into ps2. I have even outright opposed some things such as including an inventory system and adding in NTU etc. Hell Hamma who was a big enough ps1 fanboy that he started up this site has stated on multiple occasion that the two games and different and has reigned people in from making unjust comparisons between the games and mindlessly advocating that ps2 be made into ps1 with better graphics.

If anything the majority of ps1 vets realize the short comings of the game and do not want to see them remade with ps2. That being said it does not mean we should just discard everything ps1 did either. And just because somebody advocates the lattice which was a tried and true system does not mean they are some bitter vet out to destroy ps2 and remake it as ps1 with better graphics. There are only a handful of vets I know that have taken such a stance and they are a minority within the vet community.

At least you admit that both have their advantages and disadvantages. This makes you special. In a good way.

And I'm not proposing any kind of hybrid system. Read the OP. That's not hybrid. That's co-existence.

As for hypocrisy... At least I understand both sides have valid concerns and points. And I used to be pro-hex only. It's kinda statistically questionable to judge the zeal fo my convictions based on just two posts.

And I don't believe in a plot. Hanlon's razor and all that. You misunderstood or I was unable to communicate my ideas correctly. I believe PS1 weeded out certain kinds of players until only one kind remained. Only logical they would occupy all key positions.
Also, I'm commenting on a subjective observance of a general trend. Anecdotal evidence isn't really going to cut it.

Fact is, certain kinds of players will be weeded out. Again. Only one opinion will remain. Again. Just look at Hmr85's comment. It's almost comically self-explanatory. Excellent illustration of my point.

http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...4&postcount=15

Originally Posted by Baneblade

PS1 didn't always have a lattice either. In the beginning it let you hack anything anywhere.

So if the 'hex' system was a dismal failure in PS1 ten years ago... why do people think it would have worked in PS2? PS2 isn't slow paced enough to make hex strategy viable, when bases and outposts flip in mere minutes, the game moves too fast for a more open strategic system.

The hex system would have been perfect for an RPG game where sieges can take weeks and months, making each choice of attack and defense critical to the survival of a given faction. But in PS2, everything happens too fast for it to actually add anything to the game, not to mention the consequences for bad strategic planning and action simply do not exist. So all PS2's hex system really did was convince some wanna be RISK players that... oh... RISK has a lattice.

You should check up with TheSaltySeagull and Hamma as to what the differences are between the games.

As for now, could you please try to keep on topic?

Originally Posted by dsi

Exactly, a logistics system (coughNTUscough) brings back all the good bits of the hex system (small squad gameplay) without any of the bad bits (never a big fight, ghostcapping = winning)

The hex system isn't entirely gone from Indar, the territory is still there, so instead of the lattice telling you where it's possible to go like in PS1, it tells you where you have to go, there are alternate routes but the lattice doesn't fill them (because if it did it'd be a hex system with lines instead). The lattice system isn't completely in Indar either, there is no logistics system like there was in PS1, so there are no small fights to pacify the outfits who went ghostcapping during the hex period.

You're assuming that the analysis of the Hexers simply boils down to small-squad versus Zerg. I would re-read those threads if I were you.
Not saying I agree with either of you, just pointing out that things aren't as easy as you would think.

The fact that you have a hard time understanding the points of "the other side" proves my point that different people have different opinions, tastes, goals and definitions of "better". Nothing wrong with that.

Perhaps people are so used to arguing the same points over and over. I'm arguing about taste. Any perceived superiority of either system is completely and utterly irrelevant. I would appreciate it if you would stop trying to derail this thread's topic. Thank you very much.

Kerrec · 2013-05-27, 08:09 PM

The problems the Hex had are the same problem that the Lattice STILL has.

This game is not about capturing continents or even territory. This game is only about shooting stuff around objectives.

PS2, today, does not have any incentive to defend a territory. Win, lose, whatever. The front line moves from in front of the objective to behind it, and people don't rejoice or weep at losing the base, they just keep shooting at a new place.

The hex system would have worked JUST FINE if the was a reason to defend bases. But there was never any reason to do so. And the Lattice still has no reason to do so.

The Lattice has been out a week. I have personally logged into Indar to see the VS had all bases along the west side of the map and warpgated 2 separate lanes. I started playing just as the TR massed up to push back, but destroyed the little resistance that was there, and then GHOSTCAPPED all the way down to Hvar. A huge zerg of people sitting on points waiting for the territory to flip so we could move on to the next one. No resistance whatsoever besides a couple VS trying to farm kills from inside the spawn building.

How is that any different than the HEX? So the VS didn't fight back until the TR took Hvar and starting pushing up towards Allatum Biolab, where a huge stalemate battle with the NC was in progress. Only then did they decide the TR got too close and started pushing back. And the front line went from Allatum all the way back to Camp Connery because the TR zerg that started dispersed out of boredom at GHOSTCAPPING all those territories and they didn't give a sh!t if the VS took all those bases back.

All you pro-Hex and pro-Lattice people are retarded, because you can't SEE that nothing has changed. The same territory apathy that existed before still exists now, except now we have big artificially forced battles in weird places.

What PS2 needs is a massive RESOURCE overhaul. And if that ever gets done in a way that gives people incentive to attack AND defend, then you can look back objectively and say, "yeah this would or would not have worked with Hex/Lattice."

SOE should have fixed their resource system WAY BEFORE fugging around with Lattice.

Vashyo · 2013-05-27, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

The problems the Hex had are the same problem that the Lattice STILL has.

This game is not about capturing continents or even territory. This game is only about shooting stuff around objectives.

PS2, today, does not have any incentive to defend a territory. Win, lose, whatever. The front line moves from in front of the objective to behind it, and people don't rejoice or weep at losing the base, they just keep shooting at a new place.

The hex system would have worked JUST FINE if the was a reason to defend bases. But there was never any reason to do so. And the Lattice still has no reason to do so.

The Lattice has been out a week. I have personally logged into Indar to see the VS had all bases along the west side of the map and warpgated 2 separate lanes. I started playing just as the TR massed up to push back, but destroyed the little resistance that was there, and then GHOSTCAPPED all the way down to Hvar. A huge zerg of people sitting on points waiting for the territory to flip so we could move on to the next one. No resistance whatsoever besides a couple VS trying to farm kills from inside the spawn building.

How is that any different than the HEX? So the VS didn't fight back until the TR took Hvar and starting pushing up towards Allatum Biolab, where a huge stalemate battle with the NC was in progress. Only then did they decide the TR got too close and started pushing back. And the front line went from Allatum all the way back to Camp Connery because the TR zerg that started dispersed out of boredom at GHOSTCAPPING all those territories and they didn't give a sh!t if the VS took all those bases back.

All you pro-Hex and pro-Lattice people are retarded, because you can't SEE that nothing has changed. The same territory apathy that existed before still exists now, except now we have big artificially forced battles in weird places.

What PS2 needs is a massive RESOURCE overhaul. And if that ever gets done in a way that gives people incentive to attack AND defend, then you can look back objectively and say, "yeah this would or would not have worked with Hex/Lattice."

SOE should have fixed their resource system WAY BEFORE fugging around with Lattice.

I just dont get the resource overhaul idea, how would it work exactly?

Lot of people don't even need resources because they don't use vehicles or infantry gear enough. I feel no matter how they change the resources, they're not gonna matter unless they give you access to something that makes ur XP gain speed up, like giving u somekind of BFR that can just walk everyone.

Now if u could trade ur resources for certs, they would become insanely wanted commodity cause of the character progression mindset of modern gamers.

ShadoViper · 2013-05-27, 09:28 PM

Honestly, I can see the value in keeping both. But I don't think its worth the time of the developers to balance both.

Right now, I think it's best they pick 1 system and completely drop the other until the current system is as close to perfection as possible. Then evaluate and possibly incorporate the hex (or lattice) system back in.

I just don't see the value in having two systems being worked on, Dividing the team between them and balacing around them when neither is really in a "great" state.

So, i think it would be interesting for both, but It feels like a headache, and I would rather them just soley focus on one.

HereticusXZ · 2013-05-27, 10:06 PM

Hex is dead, it ain't coming back, It's broken and won't be fixed, coop.

This is PS2, not PS1, it's a reinventing of Planetside. Some mechanics of PS1 are genuine and should be adopted into the new world, a lot of others are a nuisance and should be forgotten.

Lattice is what you have, deal with it, make it work, make a progressive discussion about how to improve the Lattice.

I like the Lattice far better then the Hex, things that I want to see improved upon are:

*Facility Lockout Timers to delay but not prevent backcaps?
*NTU or Ant Mechanics to Bio-Labs?
*Other Siege Options? Artillery?

We got the Lattice, now how about the meat and potatoes that goes with the system?

Kerrec · 2013-05-27, 10:11 PM

Originally Posted by Vashyo

I just dont get the resource overhaul idea, how would it work exactly?

Lot of people don't even need resources because they don't use vehicles or infantry gear enough. I feel no matter how they change the resources, they're not gonna matter unless they give you access to something that makes ur XP gain speed up, like giving u somekind of BFR that can just walk everyone.

Now if u could trade ur resources for certs, they would become insanely wanted commodity cause of the character progression mindset of modern gamers.

There are a lot of people in this forum that have the creativity to come up with a system that puts value and incentive into different locations and would make EVERY hex/location/lattice link worth fighting for. Let alone people who are paid by SOE to do the same.

Just because you don't want to try to imagine a system that makes every loss of territory a true loss, or every gain of territory a true victory with tangible benefits, doesn't mean the notion is not worth pursuing.

Crator · 2013-05-27, 10:19 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

The problems the Hex had are the same problem that the Lattice STILL has.

This game is not about capturing continents or even territory. This game is only about shooting stuff around objectives.

PS2, today, does not have any incentive to defend a territory. Win, lose, whatever. The front line moves from in front of the objective to behind it, and people don't rejoice or weep at losing the base, they just keep shooting at a new place.

The hex system would have worked JUST FINE if the was a reason to defend bases. But there was never any reason to do so. And the Lattice still has no reason to do so.

The Lattice has been out a week. I have personally logged into Indar to see the VS had all bases along the west side of the map and warpgated 2 separate lanes. I started playing just as the TR massed up to push back, but destroyed the little resistance that was there, and then GHOSTCAPPED all the way down to Hvar. A huge zerg of people sitting on points waiting for the territory to flip so we could move on to the next one. No resistance whatsoever besides a couple VS trying to farm kills from inside the spawn building.

How is that any different than the HEX? So the VS didn't fight back until the TR took Hvar and starting pushing up towards Allatum Biolab, where a huge stalemate battle with the NC was in progress. Only then did they decide the TR got too close and started pushing back. And the front line went from Allatum all the way back to Camp Connery because the TR zerg that started dispersed out of boredom at GHOSTCAPPING all those territories and they didn't give a sh!t if the VS took all those bases back.

All you pro-Hex and pro-Lattice people are retarded, because you can't SEE that nothing has changed. The same territory apathy that existed before still exists now, except now we have big artificially forced battles in weird places.

What PS2 needs is a massive RESOURCE overhaul. And if that ever gets done in a way that gives people incentive to attack AND defend, then you can look back objectively and say, "yeah this would or would not have worked with Hex/Lattice."

SOE should have fixed their resource system WAY BEFORE fugging around with Lattice.

Actually, there is a difference between the hex and lattice if we are talking about base benefits. With the hex system you are able to cut off territories in a more free form fashion (but isn't this what caused a lot of ghost hacking?). In the lattice system you must follow a set of links which are associated to the hexes (this is how it currently is on Indar). So in a way, the hex/lattice system is currently the way we have the system. It is possible to cut off sections of enemy territory from the base benefits currently.

I know you are talking about more important benefits to bases though but just not sure what exactly it is they should be, other then what they currently have as benefits.

Falcon_br · 2013-05-27, 10:34 PM

I think we can make a pool. I really think 99% of the people will want lattice on.
But right now, people that don´t like lattice can enjoy the hex system on Esamir and Amerish.
Maybe, just maybe, after we got like 6 maps, we can keep one of then with the hex system, for the 1% that didn´t like the lattice!

Kerrec · 2013-05-27, 10:55 PM

Originally Posted by Crator

Actually, there is a difference between the hex and lattice if we are talking about base benefits. With the hex system you are able to cut off territories in a more free form fashion (but isn't this what caused a lot of ghost hacking?). In the lattice system you must follow a set of links which are associated to the hexes (this is how it currently is on Indar). So in a way, the hex/lattice system is currently the way we have the system. It is possible to cut off sections of enemy territory from the base benefits currently.

I know you are talking about more important benefits to bases though but just not sure what exactly it is they should be, other then what they currently have as benefits.

The majority of ghosthacking was never about "cutting off territory". It was just random people moving to undefended adjacent hexes to farm uncontested XP. Same way people were flying deep into enemy territory to destroy turrets, hack generators and hack terminals when there was no point. It's just human nature to "farm" easy XP. There are always losers who feel earning 100000 xp in a night is an accomplishment, regardless of how.

It reminds me of the strange people in MMORPG's that grind characters to max level, then make a new character and repeat the process. I've heard some people complain that they ran out of character slots and had to delete maxed out characters to be able to grind up new ones. That kind of "bizzare" human behavior is what ghostcapping was caused by.

Or the losers that just want to ruin peoples fun on purpose. There are always some of those around who find glee in flipping a point, hiding until the defenders flip it back, get bored and leave. Then the losers come out of hiding and go in and flip it again. Forcing people to come back to boring gameplay and flip it again. The idiot finds it hugely entertaining to ruin a group of people's fun, while the group of people just get pissed and either abandon the hex or the game. Do you really think Lattice is going to block those people from finding ways to ruin people's fun to their great enjoyment?

The other major complaint about Hex is that large forces avoided each other in favor of taking lightly contested hexes with excessive force. Who's fault is that? The players? Or the fact that there was never any reason to defend that base? Or the fact that base is easier to attack than defend? Or both?And did Lattice fix that? I'd say no... I still experience sitting on a point or spawnroom waiting for a progress bar to finish filling up.

What this game needed, hex or lattice, was incentive to defend. It wasn't there, it is still not there and neither system will work until it IS there.

TheAadvark · 2013-05-28, 03:22 AM

All I can say is that under the Lattice system we finally have fights that live upto what was the original ambition of this game, which is all out total war.

Under the Hex in the early days there were major battles but the showdown between zergs occured in a small area with one side getting run over pretty quickly. Recently on Waterson after GU9 the TR were engaging the NC at Crimson Bluff which we secured, thereafter we pushed to Rashnu Cavern and while we were securing that the NC started pouring out from Rust Mesa in a two pronged assault, towards Rashnu Cavern and to Crimson Bluff tower. This was a good one hour long fight in between these three points not at the facilities but in between. It was amazing scrambling for whatever little cover the groves in the hills gave us. It was a trench warfare kind of fight, with the front line sweeping to and fro in between these three locations.

What is the significance of this? Well since there are more limited options to capping on the map now forces are being funneled into each other making for some absolutely bitter fighting. Every grueling battle to take an outpost/facility makes us flock back to defend it if it is in jeopardy.

Yes for some people there is no incentive to defend anywhere. They just come in to shoot and grind certs. It’s no one’s fault, believe me once two or more continents come in and continent locking comes into effect there will be battles of such determination between factions the likes never seen before in the gaming world, so much so that I believe that stalemate breakers like orbital strikes and such will need to be implemented (hey,HEY ! put down those pitch forks ! ).

Anyway let’s not waste our time on Lattice or not. What we have now works for the time being and does bring out the potential of this game. Instead let the Dev’s focus on new continents.After that then we can bring this up.

P.S. Please excuse the colours im experimenting trying to see how i can make the text easier to read. Variation often promotes absorbtion. Plus the white on dark blue background gives me a headache.

Vashyo · 2013-05-28, 05:36 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

There are a lot of people in this forum that have the creativity to come up with a system that puts value and incentive into different locations and would make EVERY hex/location/lattice link worth fighting for. Let alone people who are paid by SOE to do the same.

Just because you don't want to try to imagine a system that makes every loss of territory a true loss, or every gain of territory a true victory with tangible benefits, doesn't mean the notion is not worth pursuing.

Well I want to think about how it would work, but the more I think about it the more it feels we need lot more mechanics in the game so we can use those resources for something truly useful and that is gonna take insane amount of time, especially if they want to do something very elaborate.

What I'm saying is that I just can't find a way to make the resources important enough that people would think about them while they go around capturing the continent. Also SOE doesn't want to limit people from playing with their preferred playstyle, and lets say if they make the resources more rare. That would mean every vehicle should be made to be a BFR, cause otherwise u will have 20 guys shooting at your tank with strikers since u have less allied armor support so u eat all the rockets enemy has to throw at u.

I was originally thinking that lack of resources could cause somekind of penalty for you, but that just isnt very fair cause weak faction would get even weaker and it would be gradually harder to make a comeback as you lose terrain making the battles meaningless once the other side gets big enough advantage.

I just can't find a 100% working solution to make the resources really matter on a personal level at the current state of game without affecting balance to heavily favour the side that has the most resources. Hence only thing I would see making resources meaningful was if they could be traded for XP.

NewSith · 2013-05-28, 05:48 AM

As per Off Forum:

Let's Just Face It, Both Territory Systems Are Incomplete

Because Hexes don't provide enough incentive for players to respond to the hacks and defend them...
(Resources don't mean ****, and there's no way to fix that. To make territory mean something, you need to have better and more notable bonuses provided. Example: "Scarred Mesa Skydock ownership allows you to install Rocketpods on your ESF")

...and the Lattice focuses fights, reducing the impact a smaller force can have on the outcome of a battle.
(Backhacking mechanics can solve that issue just as easily.)

But guess what you're all gonna say:

[Hex Fan 1]: No, I count resources everytime I go to a different Continent to obtain them!
[Hex Fan 2]: No, I paid for these rocketpods, why should I be incentivized to fight by devs' restricting their usage for me?

[Lattice Fan 1]: No, I don't want any backhacking, because a large fight is the only fight allowed in PlanetSide. Go play BF3 for small scale battles, because you don't know what you want to play
[Lattice Fan 2]: No, small scale battles exist in PlanetSide, it's your fault you come online during alerts and primetime

So what I am trying to say here is that if Hex system or LAttice system was complete, there would be much less QQing in the first place. But nobody agrees to that because everyone WANTS to QQ. And in that QQing, everyone just fails to see that the LAttice is about to fail, just as hex system, because judjing from the Esamir interview the devs still don't understand what it is "Spec Ops" want.

Bottomline - I'm fine with either system only if each one is complete and perfect. But Lattice is more preferable for me. Call it bias.

psijaka · 2013-05-28, 06:14 AM

Originally Posted by ShadoViper

Honestly, I can see the value in keeping both. But I don't think its worth the time of the developers to balance both.

^ THIS. The lattice is the future and this is where the devs should maximise their effort.

And we already have both systems, and people are voting with their feet; I often get logged on to Esamir after previously fighting on Indar, and there's usually quite a large queue waiting to warp to Indar; more so than pre lattice.