new lattice tweet from higby - Page 6

NewSith · 2013-03-03, 12:59 PM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

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.

First off - current system is also lattice.
Second thing to say is a question - what alternatives do YOU propose?

This:
"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."

...is pure waffle, not a suggestion of an alternative way. I hope you realise that strategy is based off sequences, not the other way around? You can't FIRST have strategy and AFTER - an object of strategy.

Bring up an idea of your own, starting with the following basement - "You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

Mietz · 2013-03-03, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by raw

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.

Routes don't matter, what matters are the connections. If the connections will be reduced then the influence mechanic will reduce the choices where to go.

A simple route-system only creates one way to play the game, the developers way, no matter what is going on with bases, troops or movement.

Akrasjel Lanate · 2013-03-03, 01:02 PM

Looks nice

CrazEpharmacist · 2013-03-03, 01:07 PM

I'm not sure if Cyridius is a member here but he wrote a really good post directed at Lattice nay-sayers on the official PS2 forums. It's a really good read:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i.../#post-1333415

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

First off - current system is also lattice.
Second thing to say is a question - what alternativces do YOU propose?

This:
"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."

...is pure waffle, not a suggestion of an alternative way. I hope you realise that strategy is based off sequences, not the other way around? You can't FIRST have strategy and AFTER - an object of strategy.

Bring up an idea of your own, starting with the following basement - "You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

"Mmmmh. This person seems to be suffering from a headache. I propose decapitation. What do you mean, bad idea? Listen, you dimwit, none of your criticisms of my idea are valid, unless you can provide a better idea. Yes, this is a completely illogical, non-constructive and arbitrary rule I've just made up. So what?"

I have proposed an idea of mine, BTW, which I doubt you will read anyways as it contains a lot of words.
Next up you're going to try and find my idea, take a few hours/days to read it and then rebuke my idea pretending that also rebukes are criticisms of the lattice, which it of course doesn't.

Stop being so very, very illogical.

NewSith · 2013-03-03, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

"Mmmmh. This person seems to be suffering from a headache. I propose decapitation. What do you mean, bad idea? Listen, you dimwit, none of your criticisms of my idea are valid, unless you can provide a better idea. Yes, this is a completely illogical, non-constructive and arbitrary rule I've just made up. So what?"

I have proposed an idea of mine, BTW, which I doubt you will read anyways as it contains a lot of words.
Next up you're going to try and find my idea, take a few hours/days to read it and then rebuke my idea pretending that also rebukes are criticisms of the lattice, which it of course doesn't.

Stop being so very, very illogical.

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by CrazEpharmacist

I'm not sure if Cyridius is a member here but he wrote a really good post directed at Lattice nay-sayers on the official PS2 forums. It's a really good read:

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/i.../#post-1333415

This doesn't address any of the criticisms. It's just the onset for yet another dimwitted circle-jerk.

I'm so right not to touch the official forums with a ten-foot pole.

Jaegen · 2013-03-03, 01:14 PM

The changes seem pretty good. I really think the idea for limiting resource flow is important to keep battles away from one area (The Crown) all of the time.

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 01:18 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next? And then... Hey, let's act like something somewhat resemble an adult and have an actual conversation about the lattice system."

Is what I would say. If you are too lazy to look for the idea I posted in this thread then you'll be too lazy to read and understand it.

I implore you to take this a little more seriously, do a little logical reasoning or just read up on a "red herring".

The validity of the anti-lattice arguments does not depend on any childish limitations of discussion you impose or on the validity of any proposed alternatives. Got it?

MrBloodworth · 2013-03-03, 01:18 PM

This looks over engineered. Its not instantly recognizable as to its function, something that is EXTREMELY important. I do not really see what this does, that lines connecting to bases showing optional advancement lines across a continent would do ( From A, take A, B, or C base to fulfill continental dominance ).

It feels over engineered.

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

This looks over engineered. Its not instantly recognizable as to its function, something that is EXTREMELY important. I do not really see what this does, that lines connecting to bases showing optional advancement lines across a continent would do ( From A, take A, B, or C base to fulfill continental dominance ).

It feels over engineered.

Well, in essence it's SOE holding our hands and telling us which maps we're going to play in which succession... So... Yea. That's super-over-engineered.

Snipefrag · 2013-03-03, 01:23 PM

Originally Posted by NewSith

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next?"

What is that one next step, and I'll tell you if I'm interested in reading what you wrote.

Mmmm, I thought you left? Indecisive much?

MrBloodworth · 2013-03-03, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Well, in essence it's SOE holding our hands and telling us which maps we're going to play in which succession... So... Yea. That's super-over-engineered.

I have no idea how you came to that conclusion, this does not show relationships between continents. For all we know footholds still exist in this version. Meaning no global movement.

NewSith · 2013-03-03, 01:24 PM

Originally Posted by TheDrone

"You have land, you have capturable facilities on it. What's next? And then... Hey, let's act like something somewhat resemble an adult and have an actual conversation about the lattice system."

Is what I would say. If you are too lazy to look for the idea I posted in this thread then you'll be too lazy to read and understand it.

Why do you assume so much? Why don't you answer one simple question I asked? Isn't that what a converstation is supposed to be?

Whatever your idea is, it has some basement, some foundation that your idea is built upon. I'm asking what that foundation is and instead you keep jumping inside your "I'm being attacked by ignorance" shell. It's either you're too afraid of your idea being rejected or you're trolling. If former - please, don't be. Everyone here is mature, and if you wish to be treated as mature yourself, don't view everyone who enters a conversation with you hostile.

Originally Posted by Snipefrag

Mmmm, I thought you left? Indecisive much?

Blame the picture and mr. Drone here.

Crator · 2013-03-03, 01:25 PM

The one thing I like the most about it is that it makes it easier to read the options on a strategic level an empire can choose. It's better in that aspect instead of no neutral spots in the hex grid.