The Lattice is a false Messiah. Think twice. - Page 2

basti · 2013-03-17, 11:44 AM

Originally Posted by p0intman

mate,
we cannot be seen agreeing like this, it hurts my credibility as a leader of the NC.

Thanks in advance.

For real though, How are we on the same page like this?

Its obvious.
Im VS, i have the brains.

basti · 2013-03-17, 11:55 AM

Originally Posted by UberBonisseur

The last thing I can do is trust; this game has none of the mechanics which made PS1 work. It's entirely different in the classes, vehicles, base design and flow.

I can see the appeal of a lattice to the veteran crowd but it has been a shot at nostalgia rather than going in detail about how it would work, and seeing how Higby discusses about it, we're in very early stage, thus it'll take at least 4 more months of non-improvement till we get something potentially decent.

I see your point. I raised it some time ago as well on some other topics, but came to a simple conclusion in the end:

Better shut up and let it play out.

Sounds harsh, but what i mean is this: Whatever potential system you dream up or someone else dreams up, there will be downsides. There is no magical "fix everything" button.

However, to fix the problems we have, there are two potential approaches: The Band aid, and the surgery.

Band aiding would be to attempt to fix all the little areas where we have problems. The bunch of crown changes we had, the tunnels, the change to base walls, heck even during beta the change from many capture points to a single one and a bunch of generators, all that was attempting to quickly fix a small part of the game to make it better overall.

A lot of those band aids helped, together they helped a lot, but you can only go so far with them. There are problems you simply cant fix that way.

The flow of battle, the fact that people just spread out after they took something, rather than attacking somethign together, the inability of defenders to predict where the enemy is goint to, their inability to prepare and properly defend, thats stuff you cant fix quickly with a band aid. Devs tried, didnt work. The whole map stuff with instant action and the change to spawning was all attempts to improve the situation, but it all didnt work good enough.

Thats what brings us to the surgery.

A deep cut into the very basic mechanics of the game. The result wont be perfect, and will need new band aids, but it gives new playground to improve, as the problems the new system is going to face are different that the problems of the old. Thats the entire point: Fix the problems you couldnt fix before, deal with the new problems and hope they are not as bad as the old ones.

Im quite sure the new lattice like hex system will improve the game a lot. Just by looking at the map, i get the same chills i got from PS1, as i can see right away where i am, where the enemy is, and what they are going to do next. That means i have time to call for folks, and set up a proper defence.
With this, we will hopefully get more even fights, and then we can take a look at all bases to see how well you can defend them. Earlier you couldnt do that because whenever the attacker ran into a wall, they just went right around it, ignoring the wall completly. They cant do that now anymore.

Snydenthur · 2013-03-17, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by basti

The flow of battle, the fact that people just spread out after they took something, rather than attacking somethign together, the inability of defenders to predict where the enemy is goint to, their inability to prepare and properly defend, thats stuff you cant fix quickly with a band aid. Devs tried, didnt work. The whole map stuff with instant action and the change to spawning was all attempts to improve the situation, but it all didnt work good enough.

But how is the flow of battle because of the game? You can't fix players. The hex system now surely allows people to attack and defend together, but since every player is individual, they like to do what they want. Someone likes to move with the zerg, someone likes to defend bases, some people just want to run off alone and try to cap smaller bases alone. Forcing people to play the game like some people want might lead to more players quitting the game.

For me this concept doesn't really sound like it would be a good thing. I'm not saying current system is perfect, no way. But it could be easily fixed by adding something to make people want to defend instead of constantly attacking. Maybe just giving xp for defending a base would be enough.

Phantomdestiny · 2013-03-17, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by Snydenthur

But how is the flow of battle because of the game? You can't fix players. The hex system now surely allows people to attack and defend together, but since every player is individual, they like to do what they want. Someone likes to move with the zerg, someone likes to defend bases, some people just want to run off alone and try to cap smaller bases alone. Forcing people to play the game like some people want might lead to more players quitting the game.

For me this concept doesn't really sound like it would be a good thing. I'm not saying current system is perfect, no way. But it could be easily fixed by adding something to make people want to defend instead of constantly attacking. Maybe just giving xp for defending a base would be enough.

right now new players don't know what to do therefore this new system will give them direction instead of zerging

Carbon Copied · 2013-03-17, 12:39 PM

I'm pretty stoked for the new hex adjacency system - I like the potential for the push/pull it gives both the defending and attacking fronts. I have the potential to know where they are and what they're going for I just don't know how they're going to go about doing it (which is good).

The big bonus is that this being tested prior as a mini-beta on the new test server(s) rather than simply using live as the guinea pig. Hopefully this gives way to constructive criticism that influences it for the better. As basti mentioned: band aids and surgery.

Badjuju · 2013-03-17, 01:08 PM

Bases will still need some work but right now cannot stop the larger faction because either you are spread to thin with the sheer number of areas the enemy is capping from, or the larger faction is spread out so much they flood every point.

This limits attacking options which allows you to plan defense strategies, prepare for assaults, and allocate the appropriate amount soldiers to attempt a defense with out them attacking 8 other hexes instead because you put up a good fight.

The underdog should have more of a chance to defend continents and you have the opportunity to make more strategic decisions as you can see the possible courses of actions your enemy can take.

wave · 2013-03-17, 01:15 PM

Listen up. Armchair game designers who have not even played the Planetside 1 lattice system have an opinion about the lattice system.

.

Kerrec · 2013-03-17, 01:28 PM

I'm worried that I won't be able to find fights that have the right balance of "not too many players to kill my FPS" but not too few to make sure "I have a challenging fight".

I can't declare this new "lattice" will take that sweet spot away, but I'm afraid that it will.

IMO, if they would just give bases real WORTH, then people may try to defend them. And the varying worth of the bases will give the predictability people want.

Badjuju · 2013-03-17, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by UberBonisseur

Fewer people also means fewer people.
PS1 had from 266 to 400 players on a continent. A squad/platoon easily made up 20% of the total faction on a continent. Not the case in PS2. It's just a matter of relative numbers, smaller battles make individuals more valuable.
You can easily win a 12v12 Crown battle, but not a 100v100.

However, unless there is a huge overhaul of strategic/logistic mechanics, the only meaningful thing you can do is busting the vehicle zerg.

In theory that sounds great but unfortunately it is just too much. It just leads to lots of ghost capping and the larger force taking to many hexes at once to handle.

I made a comment about a value of the system so I wont go into that. However there are still roles to fill by smaller groups, and hopefully they will look at some mechanic changes that will as well.

For one, keep in mind there will still be many fronts unless you own almost no territory or almost all the territory on the map. Fronts will just be less chaotic and unpredictable, but youll still have the opportunity for smaller battles.

In larger battles you can take/hold key objectives such as satellites, gens, choke points, and flanks. I ran with SG the other night and they dedicated a team to defending an Amp station satellite and it was a hell of a fight. VS were pushing hard to get that spawn point, and holding them off was a huge blow to their ability to take the base which was completely cut off. You can make strategic drops to either interrupt a defense or wreak havoc on an enemy offense (on a ridge with AV behind an advancing tank column for example). ect..

More importantly, this should help develop more battle flow, strategic depth, and be a start to a decent meta game. As we progress all of these issues, the community will have more of an opportunity and hopefully be more inclined to start working together and coordinating more. It took a while in PS1 but eventually you had great empire cohesion.

When this happens, smaller units have a greater chance to excel as strategies are made and team work among the empires is used to achieve goals.

I agree capture methods need a serious look at and changes to them could help smaller groups allot, but that is down the road.

p0intman · 2013-03-17, 01:41 PM

Originally Posted by wave

Armchair game designers who have not even played the Planetside 1 lattice system have an opinion about the lattice system.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2013/03/13/ca...a-2-interview/

unfortunately true. Too many Cod and Bf armchair tacticians opining on things they haven't a clue about.

Badjuju · 2013-03-17, 01:42 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I'm worried that I won't be able to find fights that have the right balance of "not too many players to kill my FPS" but not too few to make sure "I have a challenging fight".

I can't declare this new "lattice" will take that sweet spot away, but I'm afraid that it will.

IMO, if they would just give bases real WORTH, then people may try to defend them. And the varying worth of the bases will give the predictability people want.

Worth dosnt matter when they the larger force can attack 10 hexes at once. That is the problem were seeing now. There should still be plenty of approaches of attack.

Electrofreak · 2013-03-17, 01:49 PM

Think twice? It worked for the better part of a decade beautifully in PS1. Why think twice, it's tried-and-true.

Kail · 2013-03-17, 01:50 PM

Originally Posted by wave

Listen up. Armchair game designers who have not even played the Planetside 1 lattice system have an opinion about the lattice system.

.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

Palerion · 2013-03-17, 01:59 PM

Originally Posted by wave

Listen up. Armchair game designers who have not even played the Planetside 1 lattice system have an opinion about the lattice system..

Well now, I've never played PS1 (well, briefly; my computer couldn't handle it :/) and I still happen to think a lattice system would be great. It helps players to know which way the battle will flow and, therefore, gives a better combat experience. Also creates more 2-ways, less 3-ways, making matches more push-pull, like it should be, instead if chaotic.

Gonefshn · 2013-03-17, 03:13 PM

This change is mostly to allow fights to continue after a territory flips. Having a more predictable game allows for players to develop the meta game. There is a reason people in RTS games don't like big changes to the game. They spend so much time working off the rules that are set in stone to develop meta game strategies. Changing the rules resets the strategies.

The lattice system allows a more predictable game, allowing defenders a chance to prepare for an upcoming assault. A more understandable battle flow means outfits and players alike can plan better and develop a more solid and deep meta game.