Plan C: We keep both, the Lattice AND the Hex

[Assist]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Q: If [insert either of both systems] is objectively superior because of [insert any rant here] then why should either be kept?

A: Vinyl is inherently inferior to CD's, yet some people simply prefer vinyl.

Your argument is based on the forum whining of people who want to keep the current hex system that HAS failed. You want an improved hex system, which is fine, but it's obvious that the lattice requires less development for the same results.

As for your example:
- 2.8 million vinyl records sold in 2010.
- 326.5 million CD albums sold in 2010.
Not even 1 in 100 people care about, or want, Vinyl - Very similar to the hex system.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Many feel the Hex was insufficiently developed. If you cared you could easily come up with a dozen changes that would improve the Hex.

Frankly, I'm inclined to think that there isn't a power in the verse that could make you do that.

You keep saying this however I've not seen a proposal for fixes to the hex system... I did however in the past see many reasons for implementing the lattice system, which seems to have done the job it was proposed to have done. What is it that could have been done with the hex system which would have produced larger, more consistent, battles and directed flow to moving through the map? You keep putting the onus on others to come up with ideas to make the hex system better, how about you do that yourself if you think you can?

Vets don't control these idea all by themselves. There's a public voting system that the SOE devs implemented which all players vote on. Not just PS1 vets.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Crator

You keep saying this however I've not seen a proposal for fixes to the hex system... I did however in the past see many reasons for implementing the lattice system, which seems to have done the job it was proposed to have done. What is it that could have been done with the hex system which would have produced larger, more consistent, battles and directed flow to moving through the map? You keep putting the onus on others to come up with ideas to make the hex system better, how about you do that yourself if you think you can?

Vets don't control these idea all by themselves. There's a public voting system that the SOE devs implemented which all players vote on. Not just PS1 vets.

The Hex worked fine during Alerts, when the factions had incentive to control territory. The whole problem with Hex was having a REASON to defend the rest of the time.

The Lattice didn't give people a REASON to defend a base. They just told people, "go here or here or here". I still see bases gained and lost without a care in the world. I still see ghostcapping, ie: huge zergs sitting on a base twiddling their thumbs waiting for it to flip before going on to the next one. And now I see more boring stalemate battles "a la Crown" that people detested so much before, but seem to adore now because it's not AT the Crown.

Hex or Lattice. They are both broken.

[ShadoViper]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

You can see the value of diversity in literally hundreds of games which took the effort of trying to cater to more than one kind of player.

Just focusing on one holds risks and simply isn't necessary. As far as I understand the Lattice needs much less work than the Hex. Some consider the Lattice to be virtually ready, as a concept.

There are more advantages than disadvantages.

First, I wanted to say that the lattice doesn't feel 100% ready to me, still needs work and quite a bit of extra things thrown at it to really flesh it out.

Now, for diversity in games... I can see what you're saying. But I don't agree with throwing in two mediocre game modes for people to play. It's not smart. The lattice was obviously not doing the job people wanted it to, or it would still be in. Therefore, It needs work. In one form or another, which would lead to the developers balancing the team between; Hossin, base redesign, lattice design, resource design for both systems, rush design.

Now, my main problem is this.

Lattice vs Rush

What is really different game play wise? wouldn't it be possible to achieve what both do in the lattice, with the right additions?

I think for now, it's just a waste of time to focus on it (Rush lanes). It's not the same thing as something like..

Capture the flag, capture the leader, domination, etc. Which would be adding something quite different to gameplay. (at face value)

Nor is it the same thing as adding in; Pve and PvP. (which is always annoying and takes extra effort and time to balance)

Right now, we don't have 1 system that is 95% solid, and to move on, is unacceptable to me. We need to have a firm foundation for the gamers to play on so they will stay before we move on and starting throwing more complications into the fray.

It's easier to fix a problem and assess it if you don't have 100 extra layers of crap going on.

[ringring]

Originally Posted by ShadoViper

First, I wanted to say that the lattice doesn't feel 100% ready to me, still needs work and quite a bit of extra things thrown at it to really flesh it out.

Now, for diversity in games... I can see what you're saying. But I don't agree with throwing in two mediocre game modes for people to play. It's not smart. The lattice was obviously not doing the job people wanted it to, or it would still be in. Therefore, It needs work. In one form or another, which would lead to the developers balancing the team between; Hossin, base redesign, lattice design, resource design for both systems, rush design.

Now, my main problem is this.

Lattice vs Rush

What is really different game play wise? wouldn't it be possible to achieve what both do in the lattice, with the right additions?

I think for now, it's just a waste of time to focus on it (Rush lanes). It's not the same thing as something like..

Capture the flag, capture the leader, domination, etc. Which would be adding something quite different to gameplay. (at face value)

Nor is it the same thing as adding in; Pve and PvP. (which is always annoying and takes extra effort and time to balance)

Right now, we don't have 1 system that is 95% solid, and to move on, is unacceptable to me. We need to have a firm foundation for the gamers to play on so they will stay before we move on and starting throwing more complications into the fray.

It's easier to fix a problem and assess it if you don't have 100 extra layers of crap going on.

Lattice and rush lanes are the same thing. The thing that wasn't doing the job as the hex system.

Different capture modes on base would be a good addition though.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Hex or Lattice. They are both broken.

Right, you keep saying that, and I totally agree. Which trumps this discussion entirely actually. But it is a different discussion topic I think. I have no answer for it though. I do however still prefer the lattice system over the hex. Lattice offers better defined routes to take (less mind boggling clutter that the hex system displayed).

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Assist

Your argument is based on the forum whining of people who want to keep the current hex system that HAS failed. You want an improved hex system, which is fine, but it's obvious that the lattice requires less development for the same results.

As for your example:
- 2.8 million vinyl records sold in 2010.
- 326.5 million CD albums sold in 2010.
Not even 1 in 100 people care about, or want, Vinyl - Very similar to the hex system.

Virtually no one wants to keep the current Hex and the fact that, as you say yourself, the Lattice needs less development time means that time could be made for improving the Hex.

You misunderstand the entire argument of the Hexers if you think they want the same result you do. You can tinker as much as you want, TDM won't turn into CTF.

And the superiority/inferiority of either system is irrelevant. It's a matter of taste.

The vinyl example was of course not to be taken literally. Everyone who wants to engage in a constructive discussion realizes that.

I was trying to explain, that even if you find something objectively inferior, there might be good reasons for some people why they prefer the inferior option.

Also, argumentum ad populum.

Originally Posted by Crator

You keep saying this however I've not seen a proposal for fixes to the hex system... I did however in the past see many reasons for implementing the lattice system, which seems to have done the job it was proposed to have done. What is it that could have been done with the hex system which would have produced larger, more consistent, battles and directed flow to moving through the map? You keep putting the onus on others to come up with ideas to make the hex system better, how about you do that yourself if you think you can?

Vets don't control these idea all by themselves. There's a public voting system that the SOE devs implemented which all players vote on. Not just PS1 vets.

The second I would introduce a proposal to fix the Hex this would be a pointless Lattice versus Hex discussion and you'd simply need to interpret my proposal as a strawman and when destroyed it would be claimed that this destroyed the entire concept of the Hex.

This topic isn't about that. It's not about proving either system superior or trying to fix either or both systems. It's about me introducing the novel concept of "personal taste".

The job the Lattice is doing isn't the job everyone wants to see done. Hundreds of games offer a variety of experiences and for some arbitrary reason PlanetSide 2 is unable to embrace the concept of attracting multiple types of players.

"It works" means something different for you than it means for many others.

"produced larger, more consistent, battles and directed flow to moving through the map"

The goal you stated isn't everyone's goal.


As for vets' control... They logically determine much of the perception of the community.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Hex or Lattice. They are both broken.

I absolutely agree.

Originally Posted by ShadoViper

First, I wanted to say that the lattice doesn't feel 100% ready to me, still needs work and quite a bit of extra things thrown at it to really flesh it out.

Now, for diversity in games... I can see what you're saying. But I don't agree with throwing in two mediocre game modes for people to play. It's not smart. The lattice was obviously not doing the job people wanted it to, or it would still be in. Therefore, It needs work. In one form or another, which would lead to the developers balancing the team between; Hossin, base redesign, lattice design, resource design for both systems, rush design.

Now, my main problem is this.

Lattice vs Rush

What is really different game play wise? wouldn't it be possible to achieve what both do in the lattice, with the right additions?

I think for now, it's just a waste of time to focus on it (Rush lanes). It's not the same thing as something like..

Capture the flag, capture the leader, domination, etc. Which would be adding something quite different to gameplay. (at face value)

Nor is it the same thing as adding in; Pve and PvP. (which is always annoying and takes extra effort and time to balance)

Right now, we don't have 1 system that is 95% solid, and to move on, is unacceptable to me. We need to have a firm foundation for the gamers to play on so they will stay before we move on and starting throwing more complications into the fray.

It's easier to fix a problem and assess it if you don't have 100 extra layers of crap going on.

Either you're suggesting that a perfect game-mode can be made that will please both groups or you are suggesting that one of both groups is simply irrelevant. The former is impossible. I don't see how TF2 could feature a rule set that would please both lovers of CTF and lovers of KOTH. A hybrid would just water down each experience. In the same way I can't see how CCP could ever successfully design a map with nulsec and Empire mingles together without hurting either area's fans.

In stead of trying to achieve multiple goals with the same system we should realize that this is harder than achieving two goals with two systems.

"Capture the flag, capture the leader, domination"

You absolutely, massively, majorly, immensely misunderstand. At no point would I ever suggest to introduce these game-modes to the game. I used those terms that many games are richer because they feature multiple rule-sets.

Originally Posted by Crator

Right, you keep saying that, and I totally agree. Which trumps this discussion entirely actually. But it is a different discussion topic I think. I have no answer for it though. I do however still prefer the lattice system over the hex. Lattice offers better defined routes to take (less mind boggling clutter that the hex system displayed).

Not everyone wants better defined routes. What is an advantage to you might be a disadvantage to someone else.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Not everyone wants better defined routes. What is an advantage to you might be a disadvantage to someone else.

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't think I've seen a clear reason for why the hex is more preferred by some people vs. the lattice. The only thing I've really heard was that it allowed players to essentially ghost cap because their computers couldn't handle the amount of players in an area at the same time.

[Sledgecrushr]

I have gone ahead and dropped 2k on building a new computer. Ive done this so I can enjoy the massive fights brought about by the new lattice system. I cant wait to get this baby in the mail!!!!!

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Crator

Forgive me for my ignorance, but I don't think I've seen a clear reason for why the hex is more preferred by some people vs. the lattice. The only thing I've really heard was that it allowed players to essentially ghost cap because their computers couldn't handle the amount of players in an area at the same time.

Then I would urge you to find a thread that deal with this. You'll be surprised.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Then I would urge you to find a thread that deal with this. You'll be surprised.

So you're just going to spout off about an issue but not give the underlying reason for it? Never mind, I give up on this conversation... Good luck in your endeavors...

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The future for who? There's this assumption that everyone should have the exact same idea as to how the game should be played. PS2 would be just about the only game where this is true.

People currently can't vote. I know literally zero Hexers who condone the current Hex. Therefore it is an inherently unfair comparison.

That you do not know this is very telling.

People can vote and, as I posted, they are doing: with their feet. I wonder where all those people queueing by the Esamir warp terminals are going?

That you do not know this is very telling.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Crator

So you're just going to spout off about an issue but not give the underlying reason for it? Never mind, I give up on this conversation... Good luck in your endeavors...

I'm desperately trying to avoid dealing with the pro's and con's of each system. You know why? Because as I've already stated more than once (check out the big blue text you missed on purpose) this thread is not, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT about the pro's and con's of each system. Your question was an attempt at derailing this thread, the purpose of which is extremely, radically clear.
The flaws and advantages of each system obviously do not factor in what I am proposing.
Discussing such is pretty much going off-topic and I've already been lured into that direction a few times too many.

You would realize this if your objective was a civil and constructive discussion.

This is not your objective.

Originally Posted by psijaka

People can vote and, as I posted, they are doing: with their feet. I wonder where all those people queueing by the Esamir warp terminals are going?

That you do not know this is very telling.

So where do they have to go if they want to vote for a future Hex system that currently doesn't exist but they believe could be implemented?

They would be able to vote if the option they prefer already existed. It does not. Until it exists there is literally no way whatsoever to vote.

I have already explained this, it is excruciatingly simple to understand and the only reason why you don't is because you don't want to.


Also, it's not because most people in BF3 play game-mode A (being either Rush or Conquest) is more popular that Dice should get rid of game-mode B. That would be a really dumb thing to do.

For future reference, in case you'll want to retry the popularity card, check out argumentum ad populum.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

I'm desperately trying to avoid dealing with the pro's and con's of each system. You know why? Because as I've already stated more than once (check out the big blue text you missed on purpose) this thread is not, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT, NOT about the pro's and con's of each system. Your question was an attempt at derailing this thread, the purpose of which is extremely, radically clear.
The flaws and advantages of each system obviously do not factor in what I am proposing.
Discussing such is pretty much going off-topic and I've already been lured into that direction a few times too many.

You would realize this if your objective was a civil and constructive discussion.

This is not your objective.

Are you kidding man? Your big blue text doesn't even exist on your original post. Which I went to several times to understand what you are trying to get at here. And no, my question is not an attempt to derail this thread. I'm trying to understand the objective you are trying to accomplish with better understanding on the reason of why. That is not derailing your thread.

I am very against intermingling of the two type of systems, hex and lattice. I've stated it in another thread before you even posted this thread and I see you put that in your FAQ section in the OP. My suggestion to have 2 different types of servers is still valid because they can offer character transfers for those that really want the hex system. It's probably invalid however cause the work the devs have to do is doubled to keep two types of systems in place. It most likely will not happen. For this same reason, they most likely will never have both types of systems, hex and lattice, even on the same server.

[psijaka]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

For future reference, in case you'll want to retry the popularity card, check out argumentum ad populum.

Then what is the point of voting other than to gauge the popularity of a proposal?
Edit - and yo're wrong to quote argumentum ad populum in any case; completely inappropriate when we are talking about a game that relies upon popularity to succeed.

Anyway; back to your proposal to run with a lattice and a modified hex system:

I was a strong supporter of the hex system initially, believing that any problems with ghost capping/finding a fight were due to low population levels and fine tuning. But time has proved me wrong - the hex system as it was regularly failed to deliver the promised "truly epic, massive combat".

The modified Hex system trialled on the test server is nothing more than a lattice dressed up to look like a hex system; any differences are purely a matter of detail and presentation. I would have been just as happy for this to go live instead of the lattice - but not both.

To spend time developing a new hex system in parallel with the lattice would be a serious distraction and a ludicrous waste of valuable development time; this is the reason that I am fundamentally against your proposal.

I would much prefer that SoE concentrated on refining and expanding the lattice, as well as working on issues such as base defensibility, the resource system, more continents, intercontinental warfare, spawn system; any one of the many things that could benefit from some creative thinking and hard work.

And not waste time trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.