new lattice tweet from higby

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Assist

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.

There's a difference between what can happen and what will happen. All the current misgivings with the hex system don't HAVE to happen. There are plenty of other options. Yet those other options don't happen. There are reasons for this.

And there are reasons for the lattice having serious issues in PS1. There are reasons why your interpretation of the lattice won't happen in PS2. Ironically the same reasons why the hex isn't working.

I agree it's maybe not one playlists. Every few fights you get to choose the next playlist. That's not strategy. That's pandering to the COD crowd and the PS1-romanticizing-crowd.

Stop presenting a false dichotomy. I'm the first to say the hex isn't perfect. That link you conveniently ignored as it's a long text and you don't care about to read it and/or lack the attention span to read it? That was my attempt at fixing the hex, thus acknowledging it's flawed.
It's not either the lattice or the hex. There are plenty of options. And some of those actually fix the core issues, something neither the hex or the lattice does.
So there are options to allow smaller squads to have their role and allow for their play-style. These options are destroyed the second you implement a lattice. Simple as that.

Originally Posted by Assist

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.

You don't fix incentive by removing it. PlanetSide 2 shoulod have a metagame. Destroying player-options and destroying all options for incentive is in effect destroying all hopes for a metagame. Period. There can't be a metagame with a lattice. Period.
A metagame needs variety and changing conditions. A metagame needs the option of investment and the occasional sense of urgency.
All these potentials are gone when the lattice is introduced. There is simply no way to introduce these variables in a lattice. Can you present a way to introduce these? Honest question.

Originally Posted by Assist

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

Which proves my point. PlanetSide 2 isn't run by experienced and motivated developers. PlanetSide 2 is the hostage of an insane and schizophrenic bandwagon, its community.

[NewSith]

Okay there was me hoping I can refrain from posting.


@ all people giving negative feedback:
Please hold your judgement on the matter until you see a bigger picture, literally. The lower right corner of Indar is by no means illustrative of the overall effect. This is mostly due to the fact that this very part of the continent will always have pre-defined paths of combat, dictated mostly by the landscape.


I myself see one great necessary upgrade to the current hex system - neutral hexes. This is not making it into the game during the next 4 months, which I'm pretty sure of, since Hossin will probably be the testing field for such a mechanic, as other continents were not designed with such scheme in mind. So let's wait until we get more "how" information.

[Aaron]

Drone, can you perhaps explain why this new layout would play in a less fun way, or why it can't have some interesting mechanics added to it in the future?

SOE can't do everything at once, and I think this is a decent response to a critical problem. I've been capping uncontested territory since beta, and it isn't exactly invigorating.

EDIT: And what NewSith said. We can only see a very, very small portion of what this is.

[Maarvy]

I like it we need to see this in action realy soon and judge it in action .

Also a return for deffensive exp would be cool Imo .

P.s this might have saved me just as interest was waning a little .

[capiqu]

Originally Posted by artifice

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.

Maybe those neutral hexes can then be instanly hack to obtain their resources by adjacency to the outpost and bases.

[Hmr85]

I am loving the look of what I am seeing. All I have to say is "Its about time"

[capiqu]

What about Battle flow hexes, and adjacent hexes? Adjacent hexes to the bases and outpost can then be instantly hacked to obtain their resources. This would allow these territories to still play an important part in the game.

[Crator]

OMG, a hex-lattice!

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Okay there was me hoping I can refrain from posting.


@ all people giving negative feedback:
Please hold your judgement on the matter until you see a bigger picture, literally. The lower right corner of Indar is by no means illustrative of the overall effect. This is mostly due to the fact that this very part of the continent will always have pre-defined paths of combat, dictated mostly by the landscape.


I myself see one great necessary upgrade to the current hex system - neutral hexes. This is not making it into the game during the next 4 months, which I'm pretty sure of, since Hossin will probably be the testing field for such a mechanic, as other continents were not designed with such scheme in mind. So let's wait until we get more "how" information.

If this image can cause a massive part of the community to whip out their COD or PS1 cd's and then violently copulate with them (why you think CD's have holes in them?) until they blow their red/blue/purple load then I can at least try to stem the tide by painstakingly trying to explain that 2+2=4.

It's a lattice. Period.

Originally Posted by Aaron

Drone, can you perhaps explain why this new layout would play in a less fun way, or why it can't have some interesting mechanics added to it in the future?

SOE can't do everything at once, and I think this is a decent response to a critical problem. I've been capping uncontested territory since beta, and it isn't exactly invigorating.

It's not fixing the issues at hand. It's doing what was done in PS1, a thin coat of paint over the hole in the wall.

Yes, a limitation of options is necessary. But you can't fix that by making a somewhat large MOBA map where 3 or 4 zergs per faction will clash mindlessly for all of infinity. Well, yea, it does fix that. But it's like you're lobotomizing a child because he's got ADD.

The first thing we need to foster strategic play is some kind of organ that will formulate strategies. Now we barely have that, which makes sense as the tools for coordination and command are woefully inadequate.
No matter the system, hex or lattice, people will still be mindless zergs until we address this issue.

Doing so would even make the hex a lot better.

The second step should be to have a metagame. Any metagame. Soemthing that motivates and rewards players.

These elements combined, a kind of brain at the top and some kind of reason to get out of bed, WILL de facto mean limited options.
It's a WARgame. Look at WW2, for example. Now that's a bunch of hexes. And due to the fact that there were reasons why Hex A was more valuable than hex B there WERE lanes, there WERE limitations and there WAS (absolutely horrific) epicness to be had.

Oh, and I think SOE has done an exemplary job trying and I applaud them for holding off the mindless mob for so long.

[MrMak]

On Esamir the Frozen river could be a big influence devider. Hexes could only connect via the Bridges with maybe an exception at the eastern warpgate since there is no bridge connecting it to the south side of the map. Not sure about the rest of the continent but im pretty sure there are at least a few places where terrain would "rationalise" neutral hexes.

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Soon™


I don't know / can't say when or if stuff will be out. But couldn't resist the urge to use that response!

Your sir. Are a mean, mean man!

[Hamma]

What we need now is a test server.

[Stanis]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

<snip>.

I read your metagame design document.
Interesting ideas. I do like the changes to resources - or rather a meaningful drain on them and something to spend them on.

However I disagree that structuring resources or developing command are either the best or only method to provide a metagame.

I'd be very interested in your ideas being explored - but I think the resource investment in bases and command voting would be in the hands of a few elite players and beyond the zerg.


The changes we can see in that single image on twitter get me very interested. It offers what I can see as a solution for my biggest problem with the strategic game and tactical play right now.

Your proposal does not stop the enemy bypassing any form of defence.
(with the exception of heavily invested fortress regions).

Your prosposal does not stop the enemy jumping across inumerable possble hex adjacencies.

Comment regarding a 'maplist' are mostly irrelevant. I'm sure we've gone in circles hacking the same bases hour after hour. Or even locked the continent to have it fall within the hour.
Restrictions are just as important as freedoms. restrictions are rules - they allow strategy and tactics by being predictable.
There will still be big fights - but now those that are using teamwork and co-operation with allies can actually play a game that is deeper than 'zerg more'.

I have written in another thread about the futility of defending Onatha on Amerish.
When the enemy only has adajaceny to the north - the main base is as impossible to defend as when they surround every hex.

A well defended northern satellite is irrelevant.

The adjacency and current hex systems lets the attack ignore any defence or choke point. Lets them jump to any satellite.
Let's them go immediately for generators.

The image we see for tawrich with hex walls providing a lattice rather the every hex being adjacent makes flanking attacks beneficial to the attacker.
Most importantly seperating the satellites into surrounding hexes makes their defence impossible for the enemy to ignore.

Finally a base such as The Stronghold actually becomes one.
It is a fairly defensible structure at the now junture points of two or more hex walls.

This has the potential to mean that as a defender the location of the enemy attack can be predicted.
This means as an attacker you can not afford to leave the enemy behind you.

In short - it makes strategic and tactical combat at platoon and squad level meaningful.

Right now we are run ragged trying to defend at numerous points and on many objectives.

I would welcome the addition of your metagame ideas to the commanders role and resource system.

I think this hex wall is a fantastic idea.

Finally - it may be that the hex system will actually be different on various continents. That also has potential to make for engaging and different game play.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Stanis

I read your metagame design document.
Interesting ideas. I do like the changes to resources - or rather a meaningful drain on them and something to spend them on.

However I disagree that structuring resources or developing command are either the best or only method to provide a metagame.

I'd be very interested in your ideas being explored - but I think the resource investment in bases and command voting would be in the hands of a few elite players and beyond the zerg.


The changes we can see in that single image on twitter get me very interested. It offers what I can see as a solution for my biggest problem with the strategic game and tactical play right now.

Your proposal does not stop the enemy bypassing any form of defence.
(with the exception of heavily invested fortress regions).

Your prosposal does not stop the enemy jumping across inumerable possble hex adjacencies.

Comment regarding a 'maplist' are mostly irrelevant. I'm sure we've gone in circles hacking the same bases hour after hour. Or even locked the continent to have it fall within the hour.
Restrictions are just as important as freedoms. restrictions are rules - they allow strategy and tactics by being predictable.
There will still be big fights - but now those that are using teamwork and co-operation with allies can actually play a game that is deeper than 'zerg more'.

I have written in another thread about the futility of defending Onatha on Amerish.
When the enemy only has adajaceny to the north - the main base is as impossible to defend as when they surround every hex.

A well defended northern satellite is irrelevant.

The adjacency and current hex systems lets the attack ignore any defence or choke point. Lets them jump to any satellite.
Let's them go immediately for generators.

The image we see for tawrich with hex walls providing a lattice rather the every hex being adjacent makes flanking attacks beneficial to the attacker.
Most importantly seperating the satellites into surrounding hexes makes their defence impossible for the enemy to ignore.

Finally a base such as The Stronghold actually becomes one.
It is a fairly defensible structure at the now junture points of two or more hex walls.

This has the potential to mean that as a defender the location of the enemy attack can be predicted.
This means as an attacker you can not afford to leave the enemy behind you.

In short - it makes strategic and tactical combat at platoon and squad level meaningful.

Right now we are run ragged trying to defend at numerous points and on many objectives.

I would welcome the addition of your metagame ideas to the commanders role and resource system.

I think this hex wall is a fantastic idea.

Finally - it may be that the hex system will actually be different on various continents. That also has potential to make for engaging and different game play.

The fact that I created an elaborate idea kinda means I acknowledged the hex system is not ideal. Far from it.
My proposal isn't perfect either.

However, the criticisms on the lattice do not hinge on the hex or my proposal being superior alternatives or not.




The lattice is flawed all on its own.


The fact remains that the lattice massively decreases the amount of activities (to exactly one: be part of a zerg and fight a zerg) massively increases the predictability and STILL does not fix the simple fact that a zerg or even a collection of zergs will not be able to provide any kind of strategic planning.
With the lattice the amount of options will be insanely limited, and what's worse, there will be NO framework provided to expand upon later on. Where I thought the community would have to spend at least an entire year to destroy the game, I could see them succeed by June.

BTW, my proposal does feature the inability to bypass defenses unless heavy investments are made beforehand. See how that works? In stead of having 5 options at a time, there are long-term elements in play, various objectives for various kinds of players and various incentives each with their pro's an con's.

With the lattice there are 5 playlists of maps to choose from and exactly 1 (one) kind of play-style catered to. That's it.

[Mietz]

There is only one question here.

Where the fuck is Figment?

He's either missing out on a great mechanics thread because hes drunk, or hes writing the mother of all posts that will end PS2 as we know it.