The Lattice is a false Messiah. Think twice. - Page 3

AThreatToYou · 2013-03-17, 03:27 PM

You've got it backwards OP, honestly. At least that's what I am getting from you.
We want facilities to be the focus of battle, and you seem to imply that we don't? Something like that. We also want facilities to be more defensible, because they are apparently important. In the past, if you had a defensible facility, the best choice was to just take all of the territories around it and capture one of the satellite points and watch the successful enemy defense find themselves losing, because influence. That was a part of BETA that made facilities a little worthless.

Most PS1 vets (not all, of course) want the fights to be focused around a couple central choke points with relatively few options for moving out. In PS1, these central chokes were facilities and the areas immediately around them (SOI/Tower). The new lattice is going to try to return us to that.

In addition, PS1 had the glorious Bridge Fight and that nicely defined space in which you would expect the bulk of the enemy force to move, with a wide enough space available for flanking maneuvers, because this space wasn't linking to any other territory. Right now, the closest thing to the Bridge Fight in PS2 is between The Crown and Ti Alloys; if the spaces on each side were flatter, and there really wasn't a way underneath the bridge (aside from infantry digging the catwalks), you'd have it. My best imagination is we don't want choke points just for the meatgrinder, we also want the choke points so it means more when you flank and outsmart the meatgrinder.

Because the new lattice will give us less connections, every path available suddenly becomes more meaningful because in a lot of cases, that base is the only way for your faction to gain access to more territory along that path. That's part of what the lattice in PS1 did.

Rumblepit · 2013-03-17, 03:32 PM

current system......" we have a massive front setup to defend the tech plant,mines and claymores are deployed, turrets are up,repaired and maned .while your a waiting the enemy to move on that location, they see your ready to defend, and make their move. the enemy goes around your defense , looking like they are planing to flank, but wait!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE GOING AROUND THE BASE AWAY FROM THE FIGHT AND TO STRAIGHT TO THE UNDEFENDED BASES BEHIND US

.............. this is the problem

not sure if the OP was in beta, but we have tested many many different versions of the hex system, and they all have the same problem.you can bypass what you want when you want,and do it all while avoiding the enemy. there is no way or place for a front line to form. this creates many problems when defending bases and territory.

with the lattice system in place, you will no longer be able to avoid fights..... you will have to take the crown, or a biolab if you want to progress . this is the way it should be.
you should never ever be aloud to just go around a defended base.

Gonefshn · 2013-03-17, 03:39 PM

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

current system......" we have a massive front setup to defend the tech plant,mines and claymores are deployed, turrets are up,repaired and maned .while your a waiting the enemy to move on that location, they see your ready to defend, and make their move. the enemy goes around your defense , looking like they are planing to flank, but wait!!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE GOING AROUND THE BASE AWAY FROM THE FIGHT AND TO STRAIGHT TO THE UNDEFENDED BASES BEHIND US

.............. this is the problem

not sure if the OP was in beta, but we have tested many many different versions of the hex system, and they all have the same problem.you can bypass what you want when you want,and do it all while avoiding the enemy. there is no way or place for a front line to form. this creates many problems when defending bases and territory.

with the lattice system in place, you will no longer be able to avoid fights..... you will have to take the crown, or a biolab if you want to progress . this is the way it should be.
you should never ever be aloud to just go around a defended base.

This guy makes an awesome point. The lattice system simply put provides you with obstacles. It forces you to take territory to advance. Imagine if the only option you had to advance your territory was to take the crown. This adds so much depth. You would have real goals and would have to plan accordingly.

The lattice system creates priority which is lacking in the current system.

PS2 would benefit greatly from a system that forces players to buckle down and take the territory necessary to advance their control of a continent.

Stardouser · 2013-03-17, 03:52 PM

Originally Posted by UberBonisseur

Since that and that only would set PS2 apart from the hidden deathmatch that is BF3 conquest mode.

This quote here is what really highlights the problem with so many fights being deathmatches:

Well we'd like them to be benefits that greatly help defenders in territories.

They don't realize that defenses are already overpowered in so many situations. If you don't want fights to stagnate into deathmatches, then the front line needs to keep moving. That means bases need to be easier to capture if the only defensive tactic the defenders use is respawn spamming from the base being attacked, because, so long as defenders can hold onto a base just by respawn spamming, they won't do anything else, and the attackers probably won't either. I am talking about small bases here mostly, large bases are a bit different.

That said, we need at least three changes:
1. No bases should be designed like TI Alloys where there is one easily defensible cap point, easily defended by the respawn spammers.
2. Somehow, we need to encourage thinking outside the fight you're currently at. If the base you are currently attacking is too swarmed with defenders, breaking off a force to hit the next base down the front line might succeed since it's probably not well defended. For defenders, you'd like to see them pulling vehicles from other bases to hit the besiegers from behind.
3. In the event there isn't a base down the front line because the fight is over an isolated hex with no adjacency, there should be a palpable penalty for the defense that makes it easier to capture.

Basically, find ways to discourage both sides from digging in for sieges.

typhaon · 2013-03-17, 03:56 PM

I don't think it's a solution, either.

The problem is a lack of definition about the actual endgame/metagame/whatever. If that was established, I think better base and world design would've worked without the invisible walls of this lattice system.

moosepoop · 2013-03-17, 03:58 PM

anyone that thinks lattice is a bad idea is a moron.

UberBonisseur · 2013-03-17, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by AThreatToYou

You've got it backwards OP, honestly. At least that's what I am getting from you.
We want facilities to be the focus of battle, and you seem to imply that we don't? Something like that. We also want facilities to be more defensible, because they are apparently important. In the past, if you had a defensible facility, the best choice was to just take all of the territories around it and capture one of the satellite points and watch the successful enemy defense find themselves losing, because influence. That was a part of BETA that made facilities a little worthless.

On Indar, facilities are worth 10 to 15 outposts worth of resources. They also grant significant benefits. They also have heavy vehicle spawns.
And they are strong footholds.
All of this create an imbalance when it comes to territory value.

You need to make the rest of the territory relevant, there must be a point in capturing it. If the only reason you can come up with is "it links facilities", that's very cheap.

That's why influence was good, it gave a reason to spread and actually fight for smaller outposts to act as a lever on the facility itself. It's exactly the same thing as draining NTU: a siege, slowly bleeding out the defenders.
Slowly being the key word. NTU drain wasn't the best strategy in PS1, was it ?

In the end, you could remove all the benefits from a facility, people would still fight for it because it's a strong defensible position, just like the Crown is always being contested.

They will always remain the focus on the battle, but surrounding territory also needs to play a part in the battle, and not just "be there". Not every base is a facility like PS1.

That and snowballing with 2 facilities can lead to a curbstomp battle faster than fighting over 30 smaller ones.

Most PS1 vets (not all, of course) want the fights to be focused around a couple central choke points with relatively few options for moving out. In PS1, these central chokes were facilities and the areas immediately around them (SOI/Tower). The new lattice is going to try to return us to that.

Terrain is going to return you that, Amerish proves it.
The lattice just directed players on those choke points, but it's nothing world design can't do. And the average Facility to Facility in PS1 distance was bigger. Now you can just put outposts in between.

In addition, PS1 had the glorious Bridge Fight and that nicely defined space in which you would expect the bulk of the enemy force to move, with a wide enough space available for flanking maneuvers, because this space wasn't linking to any other territory. Right now, the closest thing to the Bridge Fight in PS2 is between The Crown and Ti Alloys; if the spaces on each side were flatter, and there really wasn't a way underneath the bridge (aside from infantry digging the catwalks), you'd have it. My best imagination is we don't want choke points just for the meatgrinder, we also want the choke points so it means more when you flank and outsmart the meatgrinder.

Once again, Amerish. Or south-east Indar (when it's fought for)
You can ALREADY outsmart the meat grinder. In a variety of ways.

Because the new lattice will give us less connections, every path available suddenly becomes more meaningful because in a lot of cases, that base is the only way for your faction to gain access to more territory along that path. That's part of what the lattice in PS1 did.

Can't disagree since you are forced into this.

AThreatToYou · 2013-03-17, 04:35 PM

Terrain is going to return you that, Amerish proves it.

I'm not going to moot your point, because it's valid, but Amerish is not a popular continent. If we want it on all continents without having this level-design business (which is difficult since I'd like to fire some folks on that), we have to force the flow of battle with a lattice.

Once again, Amerish. Or south-east Indar (when it's fought for)
You can ALREADY outsmart the meat grinder. In a variety of ways.

I know, but there are not enough opportunities and they aren't very clear.

Figment · 2013-03-18, 04:18 PM

Amerish is a bad example, because terrain doesn't actually do that much on its own. You can ignore all terrain by flying or driving straight through mountainous area.

It doesn't stop zergs of Liberators and ESF even mildly. You can't block East Hills from being captured if you even lose ONE connecting territory. At that point, you can't go there to defend either for:

1. You'll get there too late.
2. You'll get to a spawncamped area.
3. You'll lose whatever you're defending currently in the process.

Making it "worthwhile" on a theoretical level by tieing a reward to it in terms of gameplay (tanks, etc) or experience is far from enough and only devaluates other territories further by reducing them to influence zones.

Buffer zones are far more worthwhile because they gain you time. The most precious and rare of resources.

DviddLeff · 2013-03-18, 05:28 PM

All the lattice system will do is restrict our options for attack to less locations making more fights actually happen instead of forces bypassing each other and chasing each others tails.

It will harm strategy in that it will restrict options, however at the moment this is needed.

camycamera · 2013-03-18, 06:15 PM

I WANT THIS TO WORK, FIX IT HIGGLES!

Silent Thunder · 2013-03-18, 07:10 PM

Yea the problem with people claiming that it will restrict options is that there are simply too many options for a actual fight to develop. The open area, between base fights should be something that happens fairly often, not once or twice a playsession before degenrating into more zerg vs 20 guys standing behind a shielded doorway.

Empra · 2013-03-18, 09:56 PM

I think it's a shame they got rid of doors completely. Bases just seem to get swarmed too quick and theres nothing you can do about it. With this system in place it will truly put to test the defense of bases. They are slowly coming together with SCU and tunnel changes. IMO the outside spawns are a little too campable.

I think this change will be very good. The test server will be up way before it goes live so I'm not worried.