new lattice tweet from higby - Page 4

Dougnifico · 2013-03-03, 07:06 AM

Mietz · 2013-03-03, 07:16 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?

Are we to understand that its only the connections that have/will be changed but not the influence system itself or the capture mechanics?

Because I'm afraid simply limiting the connections will not necessarily lead to better battle flow on its own.

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 07:29 AM

I'm hoping Malorn is reading this...

Sorry for any harsh words, it's not personal.

I greatly dislike it, have good reasons to do so, and would be really unhappy if this were to become the future of PS2. I know I'm going against the grain here, but my opinion probably differs from the community's because I've thought this over. (I'm the author of this tome intended for the metagame design meeting)
I'm not saying my ideas are better. I'm saying the lattice is horrible.

The lattice in PS1 was an easy way out, wasn't interesting and sure as hell wasn't even remotely fostering a metagame.

Yes, this alternative is in fact superior. Of course because there are more options. But the lattice gravely lacks player control.

IMHO if the intent is to limit the options of the players to direct the flow of battle then a) This is attempting to paint over the symptoms in stead of trying to fix the reasons why there isn't a flow of battle and b) even in the realm of easy fixes there are more interesting options, such as player-controlled region-locking.

BTW, even if I were to like the lattice 2.0, I don't really like the presentation. Parts of the map not filled with a color... I'm thinking there are better ways to do so.

Anyways, here I go again typing up a wall of text no one cares about...

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 07:41 AM

The more I think about it, the more I hate it.

It's like joining a server of a run-of-the-mill arena shooter and then having an upcoming playlist of maps. That's it. It's a way of presenting a list of maps you're going to play. All of them big battles. All of them chokepoints. No jobs for smaller squads. No surprises. The tedious grind, ad infinitum.

The problem with a 100% freeform hex-system is that there are more options than the zerg can coordinate around. It's an issue of communication, overhead and INCENTIVE.

With a lattice, you're not fixing anything, you're killing the MMOFPS genre because you refuse to fix the fact that the zerg can't/won't coordinate and therefore simply tell the zerg what they're going to do.
SOE is going to give us a list of maps we're going to play and that's it.

The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

Yes, I'm bitter. Goddammit. I knew the community was going to kill this game, but I hadn't expected them to be so very efficient and thorough at it.

elementHTTP · 2013-03-03, 07:44 AM

My concern is crown, TI and cross

Can lattice system prevent empires concentrating in middle of map ?

This can lead to non populated lattice lines/roads

Carbon Copied · 2013-03-03, 07:46 AM

Like the look of the system here - we can only speculate how it's going to play out on whatever GU it releases but initial impressions I do like; however if it does turn into a stalemate on 3 fronts for whatever reason maybe there could be some form of dynamic lattice overlay (the system picking randomly from 1 or 2 extra pre-defined layouts) - by that I mean if a continent hasn't been capped in (insert xx value of pre-defined hours/days here) the "pipelines" to the warp gates switch to another layout?

Ok that may encourage the zerg to cap as fast as possible through a continent but it'd potentially break any stalement and have to have people thinking on the fly adapting at change.

Rago · 2013-03-03, 07:59 AM

Did i read Lattice ? !

Mietz · 2013-03-03, 08:10 AM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

I'm hoping Malorn is reading this...

Sorry for any harsh words, it's not personal.

I greatly dislike it, have good reasons to do so, and would be really unhappy if this were to become the future of PS2. I know I'm going against the grain here, but my opinion probably differs from the community's because I've thought this over. (I'm the author of this tome intended for the metagame design meeting)
I'm not saying my ideas are better. I'm saying the lattice is horrible.

The lattice in PS1 was an easy way out, wasn't interesting and sure as hell wasn't even remotely fostering a metagame.

Yes, this alternative is in fact superior. Of course because there are more options. But the lattice gravely lacks player control.

IMHO if the intent is to limit the options of the players to direct the flow of battle then a) This is attempting to paint over the symptoms in stead of trying to fix the reasons why there isn't a flow of battle and b) even in the realm of easy fixes there are more interesting options, such as player-controlled region-locking.

BTW, even if I were to like the lattice 2.0, I don't really like the presentation. Parts of the map not filled with a color... I'm thinking there are better ways to do so.

Anyways, here I go again typing up a wall of text no one cares about...

I partially agree with this, the problem is however one of the developers that read what they want to read, not necessarily the community.

They read "lattice" from people and knee-jerk react to it by making The Lattice. They read "resources are unimportant" and they remove auraxium. They read "AA too weak!!" and buff AA directly. Its like they only read the titles of posts and then go on as taking those as feedback.

The community has presented a myriad of ways on how to direct or restrain battle-flow in a dynamic way, they were all summarily ignored for cop-out solutions.

I have no input for the idea presented by higby because I don't have all the information but it will not lead down a path they intend to by just looking at what we know. Just restricting options is not going to make the game flow better.
i.e. without a look at capture mechanics and resources a "lattice-fix" does nothing and shows a design-philosophy that is not concerned with interdependence of mechanics and foresight but rather a localized easy solution for a singular problem. This is why we continuously get more problems after each GU, because nobody thinks of the gameplay consequences long-term.

Assist · 2013-03-03, 08:13 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?

Increases strategy, helps the defensive faction out because of choke points and finally gives the attacking faction a real disadvantage. Increasing the ability to defend without changing bases - +1

raw · 2013-03-03, 08:29 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Just restricting options is not going to make the game flow better.

They're not even restricting options; looking at that picture it's the exact same routes people take right now. Again, the lattice worked in PS1, because it had a magnitude less bases. PS2 needs a flow control mechanism that takes the amount of bases into account and not try to make the square go through the round.

The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

+1

Assist · 2013-03-03, 08:31 AM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The more I think about it, the more I hate it.

It's like joining a server of a run-of-the-mill arena shooter and then having an upcoming playlist of maps. That's it. It's a way of presenting a list of maps you're going to play. All of them big battles. All of them chokepoints. No jobs for smaller squads. No surprises. The tedious grind, ad infinitum.

That's your opinion on it, none of those are facts. It's not an upcoming playlist at all, there's still plenty of options on which base you want to go to. There's also plenty of routes to get there, you don't have to follow the yellow brick road to get to point A. Sure you need to take base A to get to base B, but it's not a whole lot different than it is now for the big bases. Just at a quick glance you see there's AT LEAST 5 ways into Tawrich, this is not a defined Point A to Point B lattice system and there's no reason to make it out to be. If your concern about the system is smaller squads, then tell me what exactly is the point of smaller squads now? To take empty territory until someone realizes they're there? Smaller squads are squashed under massive numbers because there are no choke points for them to work from.

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The problem with a 100% freeform hex-system is that there are more options than the zerg can coordinate around. It's an issue of communication, overhead and INCENTIVE.

With a lattice, you're not fixing anything, you're killing the MMOFPS genre because you refuse to fix the fact that the zerg can't/won't coordinate and therefore simply tell the zerg what they're going to do.
SOE is going to give us a list of maps we're going to play and that's it.

I disagree again. The problem is incentive and they are fixing that by removing the need for incentive(which they've already said will be added LATER, not never). This fixes the immediate problem, just not the way you would like. It's also not an issue of communicating the zerg, that exists even in the lattice system, it's an issue of the zerg being able to flat out overrun every battle because they don't have to think strategically when assaulting any base. Once again you see lattice and you're assuming "Point A to Point B", but if you look at the map it doesn't at all play that way.
What does this system have to do with the FPS genre? Pure FPS players don't care one way or another about the system if you're going to assume they're that way. But FPS players who are playing PS2 are here for more than just the regular FPS. Don't brand a group of people because you think all they care about is shooting some guy who is going to respawn. Both systems the MMO and FPS community feel the same about, where a player came from has nothing to do with what they want this game to be. I personally have played MMO's and tournament-level FPS, I prefer the lattice system presented.

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The problem is that with the PlanetSide 2 community it can't get fixed. The FPS players don't mind having no options, hell it'll be familiar to them, the MMO players can't really process this as they're already having a hard time multi-tasking breathing and playing the game and the PS1 players love it because it's in a way like PS1 and even hinting that PS1 was't the epitome of perfection and there might be more ways to design an MMOFPS is BLASPHEMY.

Yes, I'm bitter. Goddammit. I knew the community was going to kill this game, but I hadn't expected them to be so very efficient and thorough at it.

This is not a PS1 vs PS2 addition to the game. Plenty of non-PS1 players want a lattice system.

raw · 2013-03-03, 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by Assist

Plenty of non-PS1 players want a lattice system.

That's a pretty bold claim. A lot of players want to eat at least 3 meals per day, too.

Assist · 2013-03-03, 08:37 AM

Originally Posted by raw

That's a pretty bold claim. A lot of players want to eat at least 3 meals per day, too.

Why would you assume they don't? Other FPS games all have huge amounts of structure in their PvP, as well as MMO's. The few people I play with who never played PS1 liked the idea of the lattice when myself and another presented it to them during beta.

Stanis · 2013-03-03, 08:41 AM

I need new underwear.

That is an excellent step in the right direction.

The bit that pleases me most is the diverse paths now have seperate strategic importance.

And most importantly the satellites around tawrich become seperate territories - hopefully making base captures more significant as the enemy can't just jump over any defenders where they don't have a viable link.

Brilliant.
Now please, put it on the roadmap for April ?

raw · 2013-03-03, 08:43 AM

Originally Posted by Assist

Why would you assume they don't? Other FPS games all have huge amounts of structure in their PvP, as well as MMO's.

Exactly. FPS are all about battle flow. You don't need a lattice to maintain a flow, in fact a lattice in an open world FPS game is counter productive from the outset as it obviously makes everything less open.

When people are babbling about "lattice" they want something that puts a flow down on the map and not neccessarily The Lattice.