Lattice flow mechanic details (not the actual link-count, for once) - Page 3

Mietz · 2013-02-08, 06:59 AM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

I've actually seen this more than a couple of times now since the update (might be something to do with the defensibility updates, certainly makes me think they had some sort of positive effect at least).

Just last night I was fighting a the Crossroads Watchtower (as NC, against the TR). They had both of the outer capture points and were almost finished with the cap, but we actually managed to make a last minute push and resecured (and took the fight to them instead).

We could even get out of the spawn room and defend the stairs from the garage area, which makes a massive change from what it was like before.

Thats not exactly what I'm talking about.
What I mean is you have a base fight and then you actually "secure" the facility.
i.e. the assault is done and they have to leave.

This is simply not possible because there is no condition to lock a base and prevent a flip (beyond actively fighting for it and delaying the inevitable).
The defensibility of bases is tightly tied to the actual capture mechanics, its not just a question of having more walls, turrets, shields and mans.

A guy on the SOE PS2 forums called Tuco is constantly calling for the return of minefields, spitfires, cloaked AMS and motion detectors for example.
And don't get me wrong, they would all be fun and add a certain edge for the defenders, but they wouldn't make a base defensible in the sense I understand it. They would only hold back a tide that will overpower you at some point.

What I'm talking about is actually securing the base in the sense where the defenders aren't tied up in the defense anymore but can go on the offensive in the knowledge that their job here is done.

Yes, I'm implying base-locks, but -clever- base-locks that aren't an automatic win for the defenders by just holding the facility or resecuring it (like in Beta).
Figments system would in fact give a chance for that, but it would be solely by virtue of holding and securing the outlying hexes instead of an actual mechanic for the bases themselves.

It would be a good step forward, but I'm not sure of the long term consequences as the link-structure in the current "lattice" might screw over some bases that have less links and therefore can't achieve the suggested X% of influence as not all bases have the same amount of adjecent territory that would provide influence.
So for one base you would need to take 2 outlying outposts to "unlock it" for capture, but for others you would maybe need 4.
The most obvious candidates for this to happen are outposts that are on the edge of the map as they have less territories connected and able to provide influence.

I would need to analyze the structure of the hexes for a more specific example but I'm too lazy right now.

exile · 2013-02-08, 07:56 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

Hell, most of the defense spawnroom design updates of the previous patch can largely be attributed to my critiques and suggestions.

What was that word again?

Figment · 2013-02-08, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by exile

What was that word again?

You being completely ignorant to my Private messaging and emailing with world designers since Gamescom?

Maybe you are not aware I have a direct line to some of them? Maybe you don't know something I do in my spare time?

Oh wait no, you have all the knowledge of the world and us players are all equal peons and plebs.

Look up my spawn building redesign threads, look at what I've een suggesting and which features have been added and ffs look at Arclegger's response: loves my type of constructive critique! Look at the design suggestions and compare the shapes and placement on the new towers and spawnbuildings. The only things missing are a CC and SCU in the building itself.

Your inability to even imagine there might be some truth in it is typical of your prejudiced posting behaviour though.

What if I am responsible for them looking at these things and implementing these as I claim, is that arrogant? Sod off.

Back in alpha/beta I campaigned for the ground AMS even when the gal was deemed final and most of the changes are coincidentally the same as the things I talked about directly to the vehicle designer (who loved my AMS Mk3 thread) and Higby. At Gamescom, Higby said he loved reading my really long posts along with Malorns due to them being filled with interesting perspectives, good arguments, good examples, deep thoughts and background info that is easily missed. If you did not notice, both are major improvements to gameplay and wern't ideas or adjustments that originated in the original dev design philosophy.

I give the devs credit for undertaking an incredibly complex and ambitious product. But I don't expect them to understand everything in such a short development period. Worked with enough designers to know they all mean well, but they are all only human. Including me.

That doesn't mean I can't ever claim influence, when it is fact. You may be oblivious to it, but not all communication happens in public.

For the record, Malorn is very interested in this topic and has been discussion this internally with others and by Skype and PM with me ever since he became dev. Told him then I don't have much faith in the mass on point system and my expectation critiques turned out to be correct.

Mark my words: expect more capture system, map design and lattice composition and rules changes.

I don't like to brag, otherwise I would have claimed it before, but I can claim some credit when it is due if you make assumptive character attacks. They are just humans, they need us, US, for indepth constructive feedback and creating insight in player behaviour and psychology. Even if we risk being superfluous.

Kerrec · 2013-02-08, 08:49 AM

Figment, I'm not writing to say you do or don't have these amazing insider contacts. But can't you see that what you write sounds absolutely absurd?

I do mechanical (robotic) design for a living. I work with colleagues that do the same. When one of us is stuck, or can't be creative, we ask each other for help. When we get that help, we don't go to management and say, "Hey look at MY fantastic idea!". I give credit where it is due, because if I don't the ideas will dry up, or I'll damage my working relationship with my colleagues.

Therefore, I find it really unlikely that if the entire design philosophy behind something that is implemented into the game came from one person, which you claim is you, the developers wouldn't at least give you some form of public credit. I'm also sure, by the attitude you display in these recent posts, that if you DID have that kind of credit, you would be flaunting it instead of writing about it.

Regardless, what you wrote sounds alot like, "I'm the only expert that is qualified, that cares and that SOE needs, so everyone that critiques me better shut up and get lost."

Figment · 2013-02-08, 11:01 AM

Kerrec, you read far too selectively. I never claimed sole expert.

I claim less expertise in new players, including you.

I prefer discussions with members from particular outfits, due to their playstyle requiring experience and intricate knowledge of the systems, new and old. With you, I can only discuss what is, somewhat what could be, but not at all what was, because you are biased towarss and ignorant of the previous incarnation's subsystems and details.

It is for people like you that I explain these things first. That is called courtesy. Or did you know already everything about those ps1 systems, how and why they were implemented and their (side-)effects?

I severely doubt it. The same goes for the dev team that I can't imagine having been part of command chat or anything, seeing some of their vids where they were ingame of PS1 and their movement patterns and choices. That is fine, as long as they know they wern't the best players ever with a thorough understanding of ps1. And they kinda do admit that, which I respect. Knowing your own limitations is very important in design. I don't typically discuss certain specifics of PS(2) gameplay, because it isn't my expertise, thus not my place to make suggestions. Continent and base/outpost flow, base layouts, defenses, vehicles, infiltration, objectives and player psychology? That's my thing and no, I'm not the only authority on it. I always check with dozens of players from other outfits. Particular the resecure outfits that see more diverse fighting and have more demanding odds to take on and have been doing that for years on end. I value their critique much higher than that of most new players. With some exceptions.

I would call that realistic, not arrogant. You keep assuming negative things about me rather than taking me at face value though. I'm always honest and direct. I would find subtle and gossip unfair. However, honesty can hurt egoes. And that is what you and exile can't handle it seems. I'd accept your critique if it was fair and not selectively biased.

I don't want or ask public recognition, there are way too many players that provide good feedback. Mentioning me would not do those justice. And why do you assume they would do that? They don't mention who is to be credited within their own team, why would they credit someone outside of it if the info is provided as fair use? Doesn't make sense.

psijaka · 2013-02-08, 11:54 AM

Derailed thread is derailed. Seriously guys, figment went to a lot of trouble over his OP, and it deserves better than this.

As I see it, the main problem with the current implementation of the hex system is ghost capping. I'm fine with the fact that influence can change during the course of a capture or defence as this adds some real time strategy to the game; capturing an adjoining base can influence a battle at a nearby major base, especially if it has several control points. So I'm not in favour of any mechanism that would not allow influence to change dynamically.

And in my opinion, the OP ideas just seem too complicated and arbitrary; far better to have a simple system - think of the game of go, very simple rules but huge levels of complexity in how the game plays out. On the whole, I like the hex system, especially on Indar.

Now, ghost capping. A simple way to reduce this would be to require the attackers to hold the point for progress to be made, rather than just hack it and move on to the next base. No such requirement for the defenders. Simple but effective.

Kerrec · 2013-02-08, 01:00 PM

The thread is pretty much derailed. I do feel bad for derailing the TTK thread, since the OP wasn't involved in the derailing. However, this is Figment's thread, and he's doing the large majority of the derailing.

At post #9, I pretty much said exactly what you just said, Psijaka. I left my input at that, because I didn't want to look like I was intentionally derailing Figment's thread.

However, the last bit between Figment and Exile is just over the top. I am not defending Exile, but I am calling out Figment. His attitude to "discussion" is "Thou art not worthy, begone".

Look I don't have PS1 experience. However, I DO have 35+ years of gaming experience, across ALL KINDS of genres. I've played single player games, PVP, RVR (team vs team vs team), games with class structures, games with open character structures and the list goes on.

I even have beta testing experience. And I don't just mean being given access to open betas. I was the Mercenary Team Lead for DAoC for around 9 months. I have spent countless hours on their test server, testing "issues" to prove them right, or wrong. I compiled monthly reports, sorting thru community feedback to sift the garbage from the gems. I have experience providing feedback, as well as communicating with Devs.

Yet if I so much as call Figment out on anything he writes, I'm (and other people as well) too ignorant to know how things work? Too ignorant to know that changing one thing has consequences and side effects? Too ignorant to SEE how something that works in a subscription based game would or would not work in a F2P game? Too ignorant to realized how a good idea could be used to grief, or simply bypassed to the point it is just a hassle to players more than anything?

If Figment has quality ideas and feedback, then he should simply write what he has to say, and let the merit of what he wrote speak for his ideas. Instead, he routinely calls people stupid, ignorant, dumb, silly thinking that if he can swamp his "opponent" in walls of derogatory text, someone like a developer will side with him because of how forceful his posts are.

If people post things that are truly stupid and dumb, or would never work, then he doesn't even NEED to reply. The people he is supposedly targeting (the devs) will be able to sort the garbage from the gems all by themselves. Instead, they probably leave the thread after the first bit of flaming.

I don't care if I'm derailing the thread further, because if I was a dev, I would have stopped reading this thread a long time ago. They have plenty of places to get sources of material. They have no need to wade thru walls of text telling people they are stupid, silly and can't possibly intuitively understand how game mechanics worked or would work.

The OP is good stuff, if a bit long winded. The first page pretty much says everything that needs to be said. The other two pages are just garbage, and Figment is just as repsonsible for it than Exile, myself or anyone else that is derailing this thread.

psijaka · 2013-02-08, 01:49 PM

Not in favour of a 40% or whatever limit. If any of the hex territory being hacked is adjacent to territory held by the attackers, then the attack can go ahead. The penalty being that it will take ages, and under my proposal, the attacker would have to be at the control point for the attack to progress.

Also, if they get cut off from their territory, then influence is zero and the attack should fail.

Not sure if I explained what I meant correctly in my previous post, for the attack to proceed, the attackers have to be at the point, no progress if they clear off and leave A at 0/2, then nothing happens. No such requirement for the defenders though, it's their base.

bpostal · 2013-02-08, 02:12 PM

Well, we tried to fix it but it looks like this thread is fucked. I'm gonna to fuck about in the 666 free money thread. Cheers

Kerrec · 2013-02-08, 02:17 PM

Well, I have to agree with Figment. If a territory is "adjacent" because of one line on one hex, I find it pretty weak to consider that a valid hex to attack, especially since some hex groups wrap around others.

I like the idea of having a minimum adjacency requirement because:

1) it allows people that WANT to play defense to narrow down where they have to defend. Instead of playing catch-up, they can be pre-emptive.

2) it gives a way to know when the defense has won. I mean, right now you can resecure and hold an objective that was taken, and the game congratulates you with a big "base defended" pop up, but that's generally NOT the end of the defence. That may simply be an ebb in the flow of battle. There should be a point in the battle where an outfit can say, "Ok, they don't have enough adjacency anymore, now we can leave this base and push to make sure they don't get enough adjacency to try again on this base." A transition from defense to offense. That's when you start to push the front line forward and the base becomes secure, ie: completely defended.

3) Ghost capping: If it was my choice, I would not allow a base to be cappable unless all the points was fully manned. IE: you need [6/6] for the bar to progress. (no empty base being flipped scenarios)

I can only guess at how many ghost caps are just solo people trying to make a difference. I myself am part of that problem, but the game allows it, and why shouldn't I cap a base if I can? Especially if it will help with adjacency, where a big fight is happening? IMO, this IS the kind of human behavior that should be controlled by game mechanics. I would still play the game if I couldn't cap a base on my own. I would just do one less cheesy thing...