new lattice tweet from higby - Page 3

Chewy · 2013-03-03, 12:53 AM

Originally Posted by zulu

This all seems super awesome.

I like both of these things. I like the option of just bypassing a heavily-defended installation and weakening it by surrounding it. I would especially like this if surrounding a base had a greater effect on the defenders (say, by lengthening spawn times a bit).

As far as conquerable warpgates -- that would be really awesome, but my assumption is that they might just be rotating the WGs.

Messing with spawns is touchy with me. Attackers already spawn faster than defenders but with a heavy depending on AMS location. I wouldn't bother with spawn times for as long as the SCU is in use as that's it main reason to exist. Though Id love to see all terminals stop working if a base is cut off. Make defenders work to get vehicle spawning and class changes back if they let an enemy take to much. Think of it as a cheap way to force people out of places like Bio-Labs and into the satellites or they wont be able to deal with all threats without a death to swap classes or even change loadout.

As for the maybe of a WG rotate. Why only swap the TR and VS and leave NC at north? Iv been reading talk on capping WGs (minus home WG) as part of cont locking and this can be a small clue to how it looks like. Say TR just took the mate to that WG and now are in a grace time to GTFO of it to cap some outposts before getting pushed back out.
Or maybe it's a dev server that has bases, outposts, and maybe WGs that change owners with a small /command and Im over thinking it. Iv been known to do that a lot with things like this. ADHD, I think non stop and with my being an idiot as well it turns out to be mostly bullshit.

artifice · 2013-03-03, 02:26 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

This is great. Would it be possible to put some paths that only infantry, even light assault could traverse to get access to? They could be mountain passes or caverns that vehicles can't fit through.

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.

I disagree with this. There are already four paths from the warpgate to Tarwich. That is plenty.

Xaine · 2013-03-03, 02:35 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

For the love of God, yes please!

Lonehunter · 2013-03-03, 02:55 AM

Full of EPIC

artifice · 2013-03-03, 02:55 AM

It would be nice if every place on the map produced benefits or resources. The more you link together, the more benefit your faction gets.

I think a capture the flag mechanic to connect bases would be nice using this system. Want Tawrich connected to Gravel Pass, Blackshard Iridium Mine, Red Ridge Communications, or Arroyo Torre Station after you just captured Tawrich? Take something from Tawrich to wherever you want to link it to. The only way to unlink them would be for the enemy to capture Tawrich or one of the places it is connected to.

I also really want an event system where a road could get cutoff by a landslide or a blizzard could make part of the continent hard to traverse.

Sturmhardt · 2013-03-03, 03:06 AM

Originally Posted by Mordelicius

Just by looking at the small picture (no idea about the whole continent), the pathways are bit too limited and constrained. Extra branching would be nice. The battle flow can still be predicted and/or contained but not so much as treading the same repetitive pathways 100 times over and over. Players will tire easily with such severe limitations.

I also disagree with this, if you add more path ways again we could basically just keep the current hex system. Real testing should determine how it works out in the end.

.sent via phone.

Ohaunlaim · 2013-03-03, 04:05 AM

OMG... thank Vanu! Finally they made the hex sizes smaller, to better be able to get control areas to conform to actual ground features.

Love the concise feel to the line and flow of battle this will invoke. I hope when it is final it looks very similar to this.

Mox · 2013-03-03, 04:24 AM

This look realy interesting.
The number of links seems a little bit high.
To say more i need further information.
I hope we will see some lattice like this soon.

raw · 2013-03-03, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by malorn

Wow wasn't expecting Matt to tweet that out so soon!

What you're looking at is a hex map with reduced connectivity for a more predictable battle flow. What do you think?

How is that different from what we have now? You'd still have no idea where the attacker/defender is gonna be.

The lack of lattice isn't the problem. The PS1 lattice was just a tool to guarantee combat flow on a global scale. There are indefinitely more tools that accomplish the same but are not called "lattice".

The "predictabiliy" in PS1 came from the smaller amount of bases, not the lattice itself. If you'd put as many bases on PS1 Indar as on PS2 Indar, it would just be as unpredictable.

This solution looks cool, but it won't solve any problems.

I say, flow is something that has to be solved by level design. If you look at Amerish, it is pretty "lattish" when you start out from your WG, forcing you along narrow serpentines and spreads out towards the middle to allow for more unpredictability in that area of the map. This is definitely what we want.
Then there is this mission system that has been talked about, which can be constructed to help a ton in directing the battle. Dynamic solutions over static solutions.

Shamrock · 2013-03-03, 04:28 AM

Looks good.

Nathaniak · 2013-03-03, 04:45 AM

This has the potential to be interesting, I agree. But only if we give some more defender buffs. Currently, a lot of players flee before the zerg. If this means bigger zergs, then this effect might become even more worrying. We need bases that are easier to defend. This can be directional - for example, the bases near WGs should be a lot harder for attackers to take then for the WG owners to win back.

Overall, I'm on the fence about this one. I don't like the limiting of options, but I feel that if it successfully increases the quality of the gameplay, then that's a price worth paying. We'll just have to wait and see.

camycamera · 2013-03-03, 04:46 AM

i think it could be related to continent locking/capping the warpgate

igster · 2013-03-03, 05:31 AM

Best news I've heard for a long time. I have high hopes and am glad that the 'metagame' improvements are so high on the radar.

It's very desparately needed!!

Ruffdog · 2013-03-03, 05:35 AM

Pretty darn fantastic!

Now please remove xp for resistance-less base captures so that the zergs can meet more often.

Sonny · 2013-03-03, 05:37 AM

The new lattice/hex system looks great!

I'm also not sure that it would be good to bypass large bases simply by taking the satellites. I can imagine that a lot of attackers would end up avoiding ever attacking the main base at all and simply moving to the next base, then taking the main base when the defenders have moved on. This may lead to less epic base battles.

But I love the rest

.