Test Server Lattice and Map Changes - Page 2

Gatekeeper · 2013-05-17, 04:41 AM

This seems pretty pointless in its current form - it makes the map more confusing/harder to read but doesn't actually do anything to change the battle-flow.

Hope we see some proper changes to Esamir; it's my favourite continent - but it's badly flawed as is.

ringring · 2013-05-17, 05:48 AM

Originally Posted by Gatekeeper

This seems pretty pointless in its current form - it makes the map more confusing/harder to read but doesn't actually do anything to change the battle-flow.

Hope we see some proper changes to Esamir; it's my favourite continent - but it's badly flawed as is.

I disagree, I think it makes it clearer and the links in the north of Indar are different to the hexes and will/should change the battle flow.

I also like the other changes to the map, much clearer.

Carbon Copied · 2013-05-17, 07:10 AM

I can see why they put the hex back in as an underlay - but the previous coloured underlay I thought was fine if it had slightly more contrast between the faction front line colours and if anything made the map GUI less cluttered. If they are adament about having defined lines then any hex lines behind the "front line" I think should just be removed so theres only ever a borderline between faction territories. If it can be toggled or even edited for community interfaces (hint hint Higby) then thats all good to

Shogun · 2013-05-17, 07:13 AM

Originally Posted by Carbon Copied

I can see why they put the hex back in as an underlay - but the previous coloured underlay I thought was fine if it had slightly more contrast between the faction front line colours and if anything made the map GUI less cluttered. If they are adament about having defined lines then any hex lines behind the "front line" I think should just be removed so theres only ever a borderline between faction territories. If it can be toggled or even edited for community interfaces (hint hint Higby) then thats all good to

this!

the work in progress pic was so much better! the map is too important to be cluttered with distracting stuff like the hexes! like carboncopy said, the only needed change would be a less cloudy borderline.

Gatekeeper · 2013-05-17, 07:41 AM

Originally Posted by ringring

I disagree, I think it makes it clearer and the links in the north of Indar are different to the hexes and will/should change the battle flow.

I also like the other changes to the map, much clearer.

Sorry, should have been clearer in my original comment - I was just talking about the Esamir map, which doesn't seem to have actually changed how the links between bases work - it's just added extra clutter to the map.

I don't generally play on Indar, so I don't really have anything to say about that.

Assist · 2013-05-17, 08:05 AM

I really don't see what's wrong with straight lines. It's how every GPS in the world works. How does I get from Point A to Point C!? Does I go to point B First!? I DUNNO! TO THE CLOUD!

ChipMHazard · 2013-05-17, 08:08 AM

So it's going to be a hybrid of the two designs, hex and lattice? Seems rather odd.

CrimsonTemplar · 2013-05-17, 08:20 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

So it's going to be a hybrid of the two designs, hex and lattice? Seems rather odd.

Don't think so. Rather or at least currently, I believe the hex is meant to show the resources from a region. That's why it shows hex and lattice together. Also remember they're working on a system to switch between hex and lattice, so they can make tweaks or fix problems with one or the other. This might be a very rough iteration but again it's the Test Server.

Figment · 2013-05-17, 08:31 AM

Indar map:

They should have increased the contrast (more like the Esamir maps), seems like they decreased it to put more emphasis on the available links, but then it becomes a lot harder to read the pathing and thus strategic options of the entire system.

Due to people seeing regions and therefore borders, it intuitively makes less sense to path people. I'd remove the regions and go back to sphere's of influence and a lot of neutral terrain in between. Compared to the PS1 system, this was more clear in that regards because it puts more emphasis on the bases and links than control over rather arbitrary region lines.

From a region adjecency link system, depicting regions make more sense, but from a more pathed system, borders between regions lose their intuitiveness and neutral terrain can help in clarifying the pathing (could be a crossover here too, like the initial map for the rush lane system - however, that was rather unclear where and to what it linked exactly and the system provided a bit of a sensory overload).

Muted colours for the faction territory in the background with highlighted coloured lines would have made it more readible.

I don't think the base symbols are perfect atm:

1. All symbols have the same size. Slightly more distinction in size may help in base size identification.
2. Facilities may need a symbol more clearly related to the benefit they provide:
AMP looks like a power plant symbol, Tech... I don't know what that is. Maybe put in a tank symbol? Bio Lab, perhaps represent it with a dome or a cross because it heals people slowly?

However, the locations of the actual bases are a lot clearer now.

One thing that still needs to be done, is differentiate between links between enemies and available to you to attack (or defend against) enemies: both types of links are yellow currently. Those not available to you should be given a neutral colour. Like green or grey. I would go with grey, because green can then be used for instance if a drain system is ever added, at which point green lines can be those between neutralised bases.

What I like about the Esamir map is that it shows the current system's strategic flaws much better. Just look at how many options you have as a player and how impossible it is to predict enemy movement from it and keep it safe from attack. Some bases have up to 7 routes, which means it's pretty much impossible to keep it secure.

It also shows something else about Esamir more clearly: it takes four links to get straight from the northeast to the northwest warpgate or from the southwest to the northwest warpgate, while it takes 6 steps with larger distances to get from the south west to the north east warpgate.

Canaris · 2013-05-17, 08:54 AM

lens flares, that's what it reminds me of, been trying to think of where I saw it before

"Mr Spock... is that you, who's idea was lens flares on a starship that moves through the darnkess of space. Set phasers to torture JJ"

NewSith · 2013-05-17, 08:55 AM

IMO it looks ugly. But as pretty much everyone noted here already, there're no functional changes. I myself can add that the design is not going to change, I can bet on it.

Why? Because it's even more ugly having 1 continent with rush lanes hex layout and 2 other continents with old hex layout.

KaskaMatej · 2013-05-17, 08:59 AM

Originally Posted by ChipMHazard

So it's going to be a hybrid of the two designs, hex and lattice? Seems rather odd.

As I see it, hexes are there only for information of how many people are in said hex.

With previous iteration, you could have whole platoons in Indar Neutral Zone and you wouldn't be able to properly prepare for such force. You aren't be able to do that with the latest hex-lattice version.

Lord Mondando · 2013-05-17, 09:09 AM

Well the 'rush lanes' system was allways just a change to the logic of which bases you could cap, given the bases you had.

I'm downloading to give it a proper poke around now. My initial gut reaction however, is that it will be more intuitive and encourage people to engage each other in between the bases more. Whilst still preserving the basis concentration of people with which the system aims.

NoblesseOblige · 2013-05-17, 09:16 AM

I'm going to have to jump on the bandwagon and say the images I'm seeing are not really that appealing at all. Hex + lattice is very cluttered and confusing. I understand that this is a process, but I can only really comment on what I see.

Now, Planetside 1 was certainly not a perfect game, but I believe that the lattice system was inherrently beneficial to a game of its nature. It created a regimented path and a forward line. It allowed the different zergs to frequently collide, resulting in protracted base battles (sometimes lasting over three hours.) It's clever game design, really.

I understand what Higby and friends were going for with the hex system, but I'm of the mind that it's a little too chaotic right now and the "game feel" is a little off from time to time. I don't want to come across as someone who says "Planetside 1 is better, make it more like PS1." What I'm getting at is I would rather they commit to one over the other and my personal preference is lattice lines.

I thought Indar on the Test Server was a great start and I'm thinking that should be brought to its logical conclusion...

I really like this image that was posted earlier. I think it's the closest we've seen to a lattice system. The hex is gone and there are battle lines. The color bloom might be a little over the top, but I still like it in a certain way (though I have been playing a lot Tiberian Sun lately, so I might be a little biased about colored lighting effects.) The lines could also be incorporated into the metagame, where resources flow from a point of origin (presumably the warpgates) and would travel along the lines across allied terratory. Bases cut off from the warpgate would not be able to recieve resources.

ringring · 2013-05-17, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Shogun

this!

the work in progress pic was so much better! the map is too important to be cluttered with distracting stuff like the hexes! like carboncopy said, the only needed change would be a less cloudy borderline.

Agreed I liked it. I know what the hex display is supposed to show, the resource areas, but to be honest it's the outposts and bases that matter on that account so the map display doesn't add a lot.

In my view it comes down to aesthetics and I did like that particular one.