New lattice and gray lands

[Ruffdog]

[basti]

/facepalm


The Lattice system is there to FOCUS stuff, adding any new BS would work only against the very goal of the lattice.



In any way, there is no "gray land that isnt fought over". THere is only neutral territory that you cant directly capture. There will be battles for every inch of the map in the future, and thats the very purpose of those gray lands: They provide space to have those battles.

[capiqu]

No it will be like Planetside 1 where there where places in the map that almost no one ever set foot on much less knew it existed.
Let me put it this way. I can fight at neutral land and get nothing for it or I could fight at a lattice hex and get experience. 99% of players will choose the lattice hexes. Just because it's there is not a good enough reason to fight on it or for it.

[Whiteagle]

Originally Posted by basti

The Lattice system is there to FOCUS stuff, adding any new BS would work only against the very goal of the lattice.

True, but...

Originally Posted by basti

In any way, there is no "gray land that isnt fought over". THere is only neutral territory that you cant directly capture. There will be battles for every inch of the map in the future, and thats the very purpose of those gray lands: They provide space to have those battles.

There needs to be an actual reason for people to fight over them...

Ideally the reason two Bases next to each other don't have a connection is because there is a geological feature in the way preventing a road from being stretched between them.

But if there is nothing there, why bother stepping off the "Lane" instead of proceeding to the next Node on the Lattice in the first place?

Thinking players like you and me of course know that if you attack from unexpected angles, you can off-balance the Defenders and soften up a Base for invasion...
...But I expect others will either ignore this entirely or abuse the granted "undetectability" to break the game.

[Rothnang]

There is no "gray land", it's still all part of the battlefield. I personally don't understand why they chose to visually represent the lattice with small hexes that make it look like there is a specific intended path between one base and another, but I'm sure people will get used to it and use the "gray land" all the same.

[Silent Thunder]

Originally Posted by Rothnang

There is no "gray land", it's still all part of the battlefield. I personally don't understand why they chose to visually represent the lattice with small hexes that make it look like there is a specific intended path between one base and another, but I'm sure people will get used to it and use the "gray land" all the same.

I'm thinking maybe it was some sort of placeholder at first, but it would up sticking around so long internally that it grew on them. That or some weirdass limitation with how the engine displays the map that won't let them do lattice lines without a major rewrite. Programs can be weird like that.

[Figment]

What I don't get is why people think neutral zones would not be fought in... Have they never heard of alternate approach routes?

No, you don't fight over the flipping of the neutral zones in the coming version, you would use it to turn the pathway areas. The paths only represent the shortest, most straightforward route without looking like the SOI / line of old. Probably to guide new players to the next objective better. Doesn't mean you have to use that route nor that you don't have to block access over it!

[Brusi]

Here was my take on it:

(link to Official Forums)

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i...-empty.115431/

[Hamma]

I don't like the neutral areas either. There was so much land in ps1 that never saw anyone due to the lattice. I think ps2 will be a little different because its a bit more compact.

Bottom line is if they put something there it defeats what they are trying to accomplish.

[Dougnifico]

I support figment's modification. It just feels better; more significant.

[capiqu]

I disagree that breaking down the neutral zones into smaller resourced hexes that can be captured would undo what the lattice system is trying to achieve.
The way I see it is that as we move along the lattice routes we can then, with little effort, hack and capture those hexes for additional resources. This sounds better than automatic resource acquisition just by capturing the neutral zones surrounding lattice hexes.
Most players will not set foot on those neutral zones unless they have an incentive to do so. Again I use Planetside1 as an example. There where sections of the maps that most players never set foot on.

[Figment]

Capiqu ffs, don't make such a fuss out of it. The distances between ps1 bases were the same as te distance between allatum and saurva! The chances of using a straight line there are significantly greater and you wouldn't use terrain that is too far from the route. Still, even then you moved in areas around the lattice line that in our case could easily be up to three to five miles on either side! But the longer the path, the later most zerglings and resec groups deviate from their path to cut down on travel time.

That said, empty terrain was often used for sneak attacks, like Galaxy drops and like we did, drive with Thunderers around hills to come up behind enemies or to do a raid without being seen till the last moment, using the empty terrain as safe, unsuspecting approach and route and sometimes you just need to have that space due to the concentration of enemies. In PS2, the pop will be dispersed over terrain more in comparison.

The thing is that capturing the entire continent did not require capturing all towers, usualy there was just one or two towers left after cont capture, due to enemies being present there and them hacking the point back after everything turned (blue of course ). That rendered most towers useless as you neither could footzerg from it (too far), and they were out of route (too far), after which they were ignored due to cont capture turning. That situation does not occur in PS2.

You completely ignore the density of bases which completely renders your argument voor aside from a few edges of the map that do not see Antarctica now either (just ghosting) because the zerg is attracting too much attention in the central areas. These paths will generate more use from both sides to the edge bases, likely with the zerg taking the middle routes predominantly.

Please don't pretend the situation is the same!

[Ssential]

Why should we suddenly stop fighting in these neutral zones? What would be the big difference compared to now?

The only difference I see is the XP boost for defending and attacking while being in the vicinity of a base. But that's only because of the small influence area around a base we currently have with this new system. It doesn't really have something to do with the lattice system itself. Just make the area of influence larger ---> fixed

In my opinion, reject the whole hex system, introduce connections between bases that can be captured in succession as a line and make a rather large circle or custom geometry of influence around a base in which you get the attack and defend XP bonus. You could even keep the hex layout we currently have on the normal servers for all I care and introduce the lattice system as a system of lines connecting the bases.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Ssential

In my opinion, reject the whole hex system, introduce connections between bases that can be captured in succession as a line and make a rather large circle or custom geometry of influence around a base in which you get the attack and defend XP bonus.

I'm sure I've seen that before somewhere. :o

[Qwan]

maybe put a small tower there no vehicles, just spawn points.