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

[Crator]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I other words, avoid a place that is defended to go attack a place that is not? Sound familiar?

Seriously, have I ever said that wasn't a valid tactic? I've always said, the hex adjacency system had too many possibilities and the lattice fixed that.

[Baneblade]

Stalemates were the bread and butter of PS1.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by psijaka

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.

Aha. You admit thus that this game relies in popularity to succeed.

Then you should be quite in favor of my idea.

All Lattice: [Group of players that like the Lattice]

All Hex: [Group of players that like the Hex]

Both: [Group of players that like the Lattice] + [Group of players that like the Hex]

In stead of violently forcing people out of a game they were promised you would in fact attract more kinds of players and the game would offer a lot more variety, this allowing people stay for a longer time.

This makes up for more than the lack of trust you have in the devs doing what hundreds of development teams have done before them.

BTW, you have yet to understand or probably grasp that you keep operating solely from your personal and selfish point of view. You should try to come to terms that in the realm of personal opinions yours isn't necessarily better than someone else's.

Originally Posted by Sifer2

It's not a good idea to have multiple rulesets across the different continents. Not only will it be confusing for new players but it will make it harder to eventually implement the cross continental battles once warpgates are able to be taken.

Since they already said they are adding Battle Islands again I don't doubt some of those might have HEX territory systems in addition to all the other rulesets the minority screams for like no aircraft allowed. But on the main continents I think lattice is already proving itself to be superior in encouraging the large scale battles that the game wanted to provide from the start.

The thing is with HEX is that the system is just broken with anything less than peak populations. It only works during Alerts or double xp weekends as a result, and the rest of the time it's a miserable experience for anyone wanting large battles that feel like they matter to any degree.

Originally Posted by basti

Show me just one idea for the hex system that wasnt tried already. Go, show me.

Hint: you wont find it. The hex was tried for months, it failed, story over.

Kill it with fire now.

You're almost cute. You keep arguing like a machine. I could be explaining the intricacies of cooking with lead in the Roman Empire (could interesting a subject to look into, btw) and your response would still be the same.
Okay, it's not really cute. More like very creepy.

Anyways, I wonder when you'll be invited to a university to do some scans so they can find out why exactly your responses amount to probably the greatest example of "not understanding" in the history of the Orion arm of the galaxy.

You. Just. Don't. Get. It.

Originally Posted by camycamera

honestly i don't see this happening. you cant please everyone.

Second question in my FAQ. Pro-tip: If you want to reply to something, read what you're replying to.

Q: Why are you suggesting the impossible, namely trying to make everyone happy?

A: Making everyone happy is quite impossible. Luckily literally no one, anywhere, is suggesting that we do that.
The idea is to accommodate two distinctly different philosophies.

Originally Posted by Kail

It won't work to keep both just because the game rules need to be consistent across continents.

Personally I prefer the hex because there is so much cooler emergent behavior you can get from it with the proper encouragement, which it currently lacks. Oh well. Some people hate it as irrationally as they do tank-sized MAX units.

Side note: it boggles my mind that people associate the hex system with ghost capping, when the problem with ghost capping is always on continents that are under populated... which is a population problem and the lattice doesn't change that. And if you're getting ghost capped on a full continent... maybe you should stop waiting for "someone else" to go deal with that half squad of enemies.

There's no need why the game rules should have to be consistent across all continents. Not a single reason.

Originally Posted by Rstormrider

drone, people did have a place to vote. it was on the road map in the official forums. if people didnt want the lattice so bad, all they had to do was go down vote the hell out of it until the whole idea was crushed. instead, they didnt do anything when they had the chance. now we have the lattice being implemented with SOE dev team moving forward to make it better and give us the war we've all been itching for. its arrived finally, on indar at least.

the guy who said people are voting with their feet is speaking true. i logged in yesterday and found a que to get into indar. everywhere else no que. esamir had 2 battles going on my server, amerish was a ghost town, while indar continued to rage with easily 5 to 6 battles. 4 majors, 2 smaller ones.

if we have a game with mixed systems, its probably going to drive people away. if we have inter-continental lattice/warfare we're gonna have to go through a continent with a hex system (if your idea was to be put into place). i see myself, and many others logging out when that continent with the hex system is up next as the venue for battle. only people who are gonna stick around are the ones claiming they know "strategy" and "tactics" by circumventing the enemy and using the map as a coloring book. we'll be stuck there for ages! i shudder to think.

Hey, that's actually a sensible argument. It really, massively stands out.

For one, not everyone knew about the roadmap. Secondly, it's still a completely false comparison. The Hex has flaws and people want to see it fixed. If all the vets sacrifice some young child and then declare The Holy Lattice Was Perfect and will fix every known problem in the universe, then people are going to go for that. The Hex you're referring to is not a Hex anyone wants to see exist.

It was and is impossible to choose.

There is no reason to think that co-existence would somehow drive people away. There's no reason why you would need to have a hex continent in your playlists of maps you're going to play for that evening. I would like to point out to all the games that are successful and are already doing it. Variety and longevity is usually something you go for.


Also, you don't have a war. You have battles. Huge difference.

[Wahooo]

Or enjoy prolonged fights? That is what makes Planetside awesome and unique a fight that can last and last and last.

I'm really enjoying the Mao to abandon NS office to Howling pass. I wouldn't call it a stalemate. It goes back and forth. I like those fights. If you wanted a 15 minute or 20 minute fight then end and move on why not play a match style game?

The alerts didn't prove that Hex territory could be worth something and defended it was the opposite if anything. Alerts on Hex continents flip back and forth like crazy, especially toward the end, and major bases are looked at as drain and way to lose the Alert.
The Lattice isn't perfect but the alerts on Indar are much better. The large bases are important and there IS strategy on which bases to hold and pile troops into to defend. Flanking takes strategy and tactics and is a reality to move along the lattice not just a group wanting to believe they are doing something that has tactical merit or helping their team when in fact all they are doing is ghost capping.

It is important that some bases in the lattice have only two directions to take it, then others have multi-paths to move into.

Plain and simple with the hexes territory meant nothing and people played like it. With the lattice the territory still doesn't mean much but at least you have to fight for a lot of it which is what matters. A game isn't about conquest if you are just changing the color of the map as fast as possible with no interaction with the enemy, or leave a base to the enemy just to take another without resistance.

The Hex system was like playing checkers without taking turns. Two people unconcerned with what the other person does just flipping checkers around the board as fast as possible. The Lattice as it stands now is like connect 4. Not exactly the most complex and strategic game, you have limited places to move and sometimes your hand is forced to even more limited options if you want to win. BUT the lattice has more potential to be fixed. Balancing resources and making territories a true meta-game was just not possible with the Hex system, or it WOULD HAVE been done. We've been against the Hex since Tech-Test and someone somewhere on the Dev team liked and wanted to keep it. You don't think they've put in some effort to make it work before finally caving in to the lattice lines?

[Paperboy]

Why can't we have both? they could have some planets with hex and some planets with lattice, whats the big deal.

[Wahooo]

Originally Posted by Paperboy

Why can't we have both? they could have some planets with hex and some planets with lattice, whats the big deal.

Plain and simple developer time and resources.

It is not as simple as throwing out a map, one that has lines connecting bases and the other with a hex overlay. Look at all of the changes to the maps, base locations and terrain tweaks that are needed with the move to the Lattice. The two systems would require different maps be designed, with different layouts. Also as has been pointed out I think we can all agree both systems would need improvement and development. This would double the devs resources needed, two projects, two directions. The two systems would not or could not evolve in a linear fashion together. They are going to grow apart, and as that happened it would require more resources. New continents would need to be made twice. New base designs or terrain tweaks would need to be evaluated on both maps. Changes to the resource systems or base benefits would need to be evaluated and tweaked separately for the two systems.

The simple answer is you can't have both systems because, having both from a developer side of view is a MUCH bigger deal than anyone seems to be thinking about; and it will only get bigger moving forward with continued development.

They need to chose one. The better one. The lattice.

[Rstormrider]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

Hey, that's actually a sensible argument. It really, massively stands out.

For one, not everyone knew about the roadmap. Secondly, it's still a completely false comparison. The Hex has flaws and people want to see it fixed. If all the vets sacrifice some young child and then declare The Holy Lattice Was Perfect and will fix every known problem in the universe, then people are going to go for that. The Hex you're referring to is not a Hex anyone wants to see exist.

It was and is impossible to choose.

There is no reason to think that co-existence would somehow drive people away. There's no reason why you would need to have a hex continent in your playlists of maps you're going to play for that evening. I would like to point out to all the games that are successful and are already doing it. Variety and longevity is usually something you go for.


Also, you don't have a war. You have battles. Huge difference.

ok so lets say we have 4 continents. we go through indar and esamir, then amerish is next. amerish has stayed with the failed hex system. i want to keep on playing the game, but the lattice continents are currently locked and nobody can really do much of anything on them. so basically from what you are saying since i have no reason to play on it, then i should log out.

so while the players are once again stuck playing hot potato, i gotta either play another game or i go off to do something else entirely. what if it takes a few days or even a week for them to get past the lousy hex continent? if this is your idea of "co-existence" it sure does suck!

we dont have a war? enlighten me.

edit: wahooo has the right idea on why we cannot have both. money doesnt grow on trees. the dev team already busts ass on a daily basis trying to placate their own bosses as well as this playerbase. they're probably over-worked, underpaid, and god knows what else that we do not see from the outside. to have them make everything TWICE is just pure folly. also dont forget EQnext is in the future. ive heard they pulled financial resources from ps2 on over to that.

[Sledgecrushr]

My vote is for a lattice on every continent.

[Kerrec]

Originally Posted by Wahooo

...Plain and simple with the hexes territory meant nothing and people played like it. With the lattice the territory still doesn't mean much but at least you have to fight for a lot of it which is what matters. A game isn't about conquest if you are just changing the color of the map as fast as possible with no interaction with the enemy, or leave a base to the enemy just to take another without resistance.

Umm, from MY experience with Lattice, that still happens. I've gone from being warpgated (TR), pushing west to Saurva then all the way South to Hvar with little resistance. Lots of people sitting at the bases waiting for the progress bar to finish so we could move to the next base. Every base we did this, we lost numbers until all of a sudden we faced opposition. However by that point we were grossly outnumbered. So the whole gains were lost as the VS had their turn to sit on objectives waiting for the progress bar to flip base after base as they pushed the purple coloring back up to the north. The other aspect I see is huge stalemates where no one moves anywhere. Epic battles? Yeah, just like the Crown used to be and everyone sh!t on that for being lame. But now it's fantastic? Hypocrisy much?

Originally Posted by Wahooo

...BUT the lattice has more potential to be fixed.

Pure BS. It's convenient to make a claim that can never be proven.

Originally Posted by Wahooo

Balancing resources and making territories a true meta-game was just not possible with the Hex system, or it WOULD HAVE been done.

BS again. What the Hex absolutely needed was a resource overhaul. But it was never done because SOE spent all their time putting out all the other fires that had more to do with the CoD/BF type gameplay than the "strategy" type gameplay.

Originally Posted by Wahooo

We've been against the Hex since Tech-Test and someone somewhere on the Dev team liked and wanted to keep it. You don't think they've put in some effort to make it work before finally caving in to the lattice lines?

What I think honestly happened is they went with the Hex to offer more a more open game and everyone hated it simply because it wasn't the Lattice. By that point, it was just too late to implement the Lattice because they needed to get a releasable game that started to generate revenue. A complete map overhaul and associated delay would have upset the big bosses and people would have felt the heat.

So the game was released with the Hex, and every single thing that was bad about the game was blamed on not copying PS1. So PS2 has no resource/logistics to it and Hex suffers for it. To a PS1 vet it's not the fault of lack of resources/logistics, it's the fault of the Hex for not being Lattice.

I didn't come to PS2 with a background in Hex gaming. I also didn't play PS1. So either way, I wasn't biased to one or the other. All I see is a system that is vilified by many without EVER trying to FIX it.

Now the Lattice is in the game and every Pro-Lattice forum warrior is saying, "Yeah it's not working properly, but be patient and they'll FIX it."

Huh, what!?

[Snipefrag]

give it up OP, you are not going to convince people.. your part of a very small minority. The devs arent going to bend their game for you. Get over it.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2

[Wahooo]

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Umm, from MY experience with Lattice, that still happens. I've gone from being warpgated (TR), pushing west to Saurva then all the way South to Hvar with little resistance. Lots of people sitting at the bases waiting for the progress bar to finish so we could move to the next base.

Yeah it still happens... sometimes. With the Hex system this was the normal rather than an exception. If it is happening in the lattice where the direction of flow of base capture is laid out, then how many people would be required to keep it from happening in the Hexes?

Originally Posted by Kerrec

The other aspect I see is huge stalemates where no one moves anywhere. Epic battles?

Sorry for the ADD, huge battles take time. If you define stalemate by a few minutes then you won't be happy but we were sold large epic battles.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Yeah, just like the Crown used to be and everyone sh!t on that for being lame. But now it's fantastic? Hypocrisy much?

I personally liked the fighting at the Crown/TIalloys/Cross-roads. My problem and a lot of people agreed it wasn't the fight itself that was the problem with Indar or the Crown it was that there was no where else that you could find a fight and if you wanted to SHOOT in this FPS you HAD to go to the same place on the map ALL THE TIME. I have yet to go back to the crown since the lattice came in because i've found fights elsewhere. So Hypocrisy? Nope not at all, not from me and not from many others. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

What the Hex absolutely needed was a resource overhaul. But it was never done because SOE spent all their time putting out all the other fires that had more to do with the CoD/BF type gameplay than the "strategy" type gameplay.

BS right back at you, only I know what i'm talking about. The resource management has been overhauled multiple times all through Beta. The bases moved around, and changed the territory controlled by each base or outpost changed. A lot of changes were made, and none of them made a damn bit of difference to the lack of tactical or strategy game play.

Originally Posted by Kerrec

What I think honestly happened is they went with the Hex to offer more a more open game and everyone hated it simply because it wasn't the Lattice. By that point, it was just too late to implement the Lattice because they needed to get a releasable game that started to generate revenue. A complete map overhaul and associated delay would have upset the big bosses and people would have felt the heat.

So the game was released with the Hex, and every single thing that was bad about the game was blamed on not copying PS1. So PS2 has no resource/logistics to it and Hex suffers for it. To a PS1 vet it's not the fault of lack of resources/logistics, it's the fault of the Hex for not being Lattice.

I didn't come to PS2 with a background in Hex gaming. I also didn't play PS1. So either way, I wasn't biased to one or the other. All I see is a system that is vilified by many without EVER trying to FIX it.

Now the Lattice is in the game and every Pro-Lattice forum warrior is saying, "Yeah it's not working properly, but be patient and they'll FIX it."

You can think whatever you want, but you are still wrong.
Some people hated the Hex system because it wasn't the lattice but those people got ignored. If they changed it just because they caved to complaints it wouldn't have made it out of Beta. They DID work on the Hex system and resources and map layout. Look at Amerish with the roads and paths that almost force you into a base by base path. Still didn't change the way the game was being played.

So you see a system that you don't THINK was tried to be fixed or accepted but the reality is there were attempts.

I'm not shitting on the Hex just because it isn't the Lattice, i'm shitting on it because it isn't working. We need a rule set and a flow to the battle. Why can I look at the Lattice and see its deficiencies and have patience but didn't with the Hex? Because I see a LOT of ways the Lattice can be fixed, with resource gains or bringing back NTU type stuff or overhauls to base benefits. I had patience with the Hex system a long time ago and couldn't see it changing for the good or ever being an enjoyable map system. I tried, I tried to think-up or come up with a way to improve the Hexes to make the continental game play truly strategic and fun, and all I could see was different future failings, and all that was almost a year ago.

So why the Hex? i have yet to hear any pro-Hex people actually say what IS good about it and what are some SPECIFIC changes that would make the continental game fun with the Hex system?

[LtWelsh]

After reading this thread, I am exceedingly disappointed that almost all of you dodged the OP's actual question in favor of arguing Lattice vs Hex.

Very few if any of these posts actually brush an argument against keeping Hex and Lattice.
Most of you are just saying Hex is simply inferior to Lattice.
Unfortunately, as Drone points out, this is actually irrelevant to the issue he has proposed!

By dodging the real argument he attempts, you all just come across as mindless drones (I'm sure there's a pun in that somewhere) who are hard-wired to disregard anything Hex due what must have been severe previous trauma with it, I'm sure.

Addressing the actual issue; I feel we do not have the resources (Namely time) to adequately develop both systems to their working order.
However, until such time as we iron out the flaws in Lattice, which I hope no one disputes it has concerning small-squads, keeping a Hex continent would be advantageous to retaining such players.

[Holtzmann]

Originally Posted by LtWelsh

After reading this thread, I am exceedingly disappointed that almost all of you dodged the OP's actual question in favor of arguing Lattice vs Hex.

Very few if any of these posts actually brush an argument against keeping Hex and Lattice.
Most of you are just saying Hex is simply inferior to Lattice.
Unfortunately, as Drone points out, this is actually irrelevant to the issue he has proposed!

By dodging the real argument he attempts, you all just come across as mindless drones (I'm sure there's a pun in that somewhere) who are hard-wired to disregard anything Hex due what must have been severe previous trauma with it, I'm sure.

Addressing the actual issue; I feel we do not have the resources (Namely time) to adequately develop both systems to their working order.
However, until such time as we iron out the flaws in Lattice, which I hope no one disputes it has concerning small-squads, keeping a Hex continent would be advantageous to retaining such players.

The Hex system having failed is absolutely relevant to this discussion, because Drone is suggesting it should be maintained.

Of course people are going to argue against it. The OP's entire idea is that he thinks it's a good idea to keep the Hex system. The people criticizing the Hex system have already voiced their opinions on the matter: they don't want it.

The OP's examples of equivalents in different games are all irrelevant to Planetside 2. The Hex and the Lattice systems are not game modes or different areas of the game, they're different answers to the problem of players naturally being risk averse and so avoiding contact with the enemy.

As for me, I'll say one thing: consistency in gameplay is far more important than trying to keep everybody happy. If you keep one continent Hex-based and the rest Lattice-based, all you're going to do is split the community between people who play one or another. Eve Online (one of the examples given) has a huge rift between nullsec and high-sec players, and that's not something we can afford in this game. At least not at the moment.

And since so many more people seem to be positive or at the very least indifferent towards the Lattice being implemented, the amount of people who are actually for the Hex system is relatively tiny and not worth the developers' extra efforts to keep two completely different systems alive. Not to mention the inevitable cries of one side asking for more continents to be converted/released in the format they prefer.

[basti]

Originally Posted by Paperboy

Why can't we have both? they could have some planets with hex and some planets with lattice, whats the big deal.

Simple: If we try to keep both, the game is dead.

The hex system cannot be fixed. That is a simple fact. It is broken because it gives to many connections.

The Lattice fixes that very fundamental flaw of the Hex, but does introduce different issues the hex didnt have. Those issues however can be fixed, because they all result in the same fundamental flaw of the lattice: Not enough options of stuff to do.

Adding new options is easy. Benefit generators, NTU, a ressource system tied into the lattice, plenty of ideas are floating around that give more options.

Fixing the Hex is impossible. The fundamental idea of the game is capturing territory. The hex allows you to many options to directly capture territory. Those options could be used to have a zerg vs zerg fight, or have small squads fighting each other, or having squads ghost hack. The latter is the issue, because it actually is the best thing to do in order to capture more territory, alerts showed that. For the playerbase to stop that, people would need to constantly jump around the territorys to resecure, and that for all factions involved on the continent. Thats what drove a lot of players away over the last 6 months, because battles didnt happen in any predictable form, but just randomly whenever two enemy forces met. For Joe Bob random player, that isnt fun. But Joe Bob Random player is needed, or you wont have a full continent, means merges, means less players, means less cash for SOE, means less Devs, means less stuff coming in, means even less players, means a dead game. We depend on Joe Bob to play and Pay.



Now, the very basic issues is: The hex and the lattice are fundamentally different. Benefit generators and any ressource overhaul put into the lattice would not work on a Hex continent. Means the devs either just ignore the hex continents, or try to develop systems for them as well. Means double the work, means less new stuff in X time, means Joe Bob gets bored quicker, and Bang we are down half of the devs, and the cycle crushes the game.


Kill
The
Hex

[Dreamcast]

Originally Posted by Baneblade

Stalemates were the bread and butter of PS1.

But Planetside 1 actually had Tress for cover.

I understand Planetside 1 had stalemates but Planetside 2 stalemates just feel more castrophobic to me.

Is like they all involve that little room in the biodome with the shields.

In planetside 1 from what I remember, their was a front entrance attack,back entrance,you could get on top of the floor and push as well...Just felt more way of attacking.


IDK but I think the stalemates on thsoe small doorways need to stop....The facilities feel smaller than COD maps IMO.


I do like the stalemates on the mountains however...thats quite fun.