Breaking Lattice - Page 8

Rumblepit · 2013-08-20, 04:38 PM

Also they have not finished implementing the lattice system, i cant say this enough, wait until next month and tell me you dont have a lot more options per continent than you did before. 3 way fights will not be on every continent. Take indar for example, cut it in half,and put a faction in the north and a faction in the south and think about how it will play out.

Home continents and continental lattice will have a huge effect on the way this game is played.

But Hossin will be a 3 way mess for a long time... lol

Timithos · 2013-08-20, 04:53 PM

We're playing in an MMOFPS. But our game is now and has always been more FPS then MMO. I'd like to see multiple map and capture mechanics on different continents. MMO players can handle complex systems. We're not morons that need a blanket, homogenized system spread equally over every continent.

Back in April, the hex system was abandoned. The dev team went right into development of the lattice system. Even though the community provided all the feedback necessary to fix and enhance the hex, there was a new battle cry: eSports. And the veterans wanted some sort of lattice system, because let's face it: The hex system was not being enhanced properly. During development of lattice they even stripped away great features making the hex system look worse like taking away adjacency and the 0/3-0/6 cap timing enhancement. The hex system never stood a chance against Higby's esports, not to mention our base design has been suffering until the Esamir revamp took a step into the right direction.

Now with esports is compartmentalized and quarantined inside Nexus Battlegrounds, two things don't have to suffer anymore: map/capture mechanics and base design. No longer do we need a fast-paced Steamrollside with no defender advantages to supplicate the mighty gods of esports. The damage the lattice has done, can now be slowly unraveled, and yes, they're going slowly. That's not to say that a lattice-type system can't remain.

As far as changing the lattice system, I wish they'd eliminate all 2-way outpost connections and either A) make them all a minimum of 3-way (we are a 3-way empire system after all.), or B) create a sunderer ability to bridge lattice connections, or C) Make lattice count for resource and facility benefits only as someone suggested above.

However, I would like to see other continents continue with an enhanced hex system - an enhanced system that was never implemented. (MMO... not morons... you get it.)

One thing that is wrecking both the hex and lattice systems is ghost capping. It's making both systems look bad. It needs to be eliminated. No longer should you be able to flip a point, and then leave. You should be required to stay on point. Also in the past, ghost-capping has made a back-capping system impossible to deliver. So what did they do? They eliminated back-capping instead of what they should have eliminated: ghost-capping. So this wasn't a hex system failure. Stop blaming that. Ghost-capping has done more single-handed harm to the hex system then any single other thing. And today it continues to harm the lattice system to a degree.

And finally to address this large battle/small battle. Planetside, once and for all, is not ONLY about the big battles. And some stupid slogan like, "Size Always Matters", does NOT dictate everyone's playstyle. I prefer the smaller battles at outposts. Someone else prefers the large zerg battles with explosions shaking all around them. That's fine. That's them. And that's not everyone. And players need to stop telling people that if they don't want to be in a massive battle then they might as well go play an FPS. I don't play FPS's and I don't like them.

I like my Planetside. I like to work in small battles and some off-to-the-side outpost with the threat that a large zerg could arrive any moment on this massive open continent. Or just to enjoy the possibility that a liberator could fly in from this huge dangerous battle field and completely change the battle. I like to work around the zerg, and manipulate it to my advantage. I could do that at the peak of the hex system many months ago, and I could do that in Planetside 1. The lattice system in it's current state does not allow me or my team that luxury anymore.

Timithos · 2013-08-20, 04:56 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

Indar has ALWAYS been the most populated map. Esamir and Amerish much less so, since I started playing in December.

Then SOE went and put Lattice on Indar first. After that, everyone that defends Lattice has the gall to say, "Hey look, Indar has Lattice and it's the most populated map, so Lattice must be better than Hex!".

If SOE had put Lattice on Amerish first, and Indar became a ghostown for months while Esamir converted to Lattice, THEN there would be a convincing argument.

OR

If SOE had made Lattice WITHOUT breaking Hex to shit, while putting smart fixes to common complaints on Hex, THEN we could look at populations on maps and say, "yeah, people prefer this or that."

But the truth is, Hex was systematically destroyed and abandoned while Lattice evolved and there was never any intention of making Hex gameplay better. In my eyes, breaking Hex and causing crap gameplay on Hex was an acceptable compromise to get Lattice out quickly.

Hex was never improved, and at this point we will never know if it could have been better, OR NOT. Claiming to know is just blowing smoke in people's faces.

EXACTLY! Get out of my head! I love you man!

Taramafor · 2013-08-20, 05:08 PM

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

Also they have not finished implementing the lattice system, i cant say this enough, wait until next month and tell me you dont have a lot more options per continent than you did before. 3 way fights will not be on every continent. Take indar for example, cut it in half,and put a faction in the north and a faction in the south and think about how it will play out.

Home continents and continental lattice will have a huge effect on the way this game is played.

But Hossin will be a 3 way mess for a long time... lol

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)

Second, adding continents will NOT change the battle flow. zerg vs zerg or small ssquad vs small squad. Doesn't matter. One line, no flanking (or at least not enough of it. And certaintly no option of surrounding). No support on the sides. This isn't about numbers and it's not about using a whole other continent to flank another continent (Is that what you meant? Not entirely sure).

What matters is the fight going on in the immediate and surrounding area. In such fights there should be choices of where to relocate too, be it a friendly base from behind, a heavily fortified base from the front or bases on the side which could be owned by either side. Which could either have heavy fighting or not and at least give people an opportunity for smaller engagements at the side of the zerg (supporting the zerg. Something that can't be done with lattice currently if those side lattice lines aren't connected nearby).

Hex gave that option but it gave it everywhere.

Lattice takes it away by clustering everyone into the line.

It's not about hex and it's not about lattice. It's about having options and choices. We, the players, get no choice whatsoever now.

GreyFrog · 2013-08-20, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)

From what we've worked out about current plans for Cont Locking. If Indar is not your home continent and you have not capped a linking battle island or Hossin, you won't be fighting on Indar.

Taramafor · 2013-08-20, 05:24 PM

Originally Posted by GreyFrog

From what we've worked out about current plans for Cont Locking. If Indar is not your home continent and you have not capped a linking battle island or Hossin, you won't be fighting on Indar.

Hmm... Glad I'm in TR then.

At any rate, my point in the immediate and surrounding area still stands. Continent take overs are a whole different ball game then taking over nearby bases in the continents themselves (mainly more time commitment and the waiting).

Even if waiting is taken out of the equation, it simply means flanking on the sides of continents only. Never in the middle of one (which should be harder naturally, but not entirely impossible).

GreyFrog · 2013-08-20, 05:27 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

Hmm... Glad I'm in TR then.

At any rate, my point in the immediate and surrounding area still stands. Continent take overs are a whole different ball game then taking over nearby bases in the continents themselves (mainly more time commitment and the waiting).

I assume home continents will rotate like the current system :P

Rumblepit · 2013-08-20, 06:14 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

First of all, I don't know where that one faction north and other south came from. Every map will always have 3 warpgates (would you play if you couldn't fight on Indar?)

Second, adding continents will NOT change the battle flow. zerg vs zerg or small ssquad vs small squad. Doesn't matter. One line, no flanking (or at least not enough of it. And certaintly no option of surrounding). No support on the sides. This isn't about numbers and it's not about using a whole other continent to flank another continent (Is that what you meant? Not entirely sure).

What matters is the fight going on in the immediate and surrounding area. In such fights there should be choices of where to relocate too, be it a friendly base from behind, a heavily fortified base from the front or bases on the side which could be owned by either side. Which could either have heavy fighting or not and at least give people an opportunity for smaller engagements at the side of the zerg (supporting the zerg. Something that can't be done with lattice currently if those side lattice lines aren't connected nearby).

Hex gave that option but it gave it everywhere.

Lattice takes it away by clustering everyone into the line.

It's not about hex and it's not about lattice. It's about having options and choices. We, the players, get no choice whatsoever now.

Hex did give that option your right, and do you know what everyone choose to attack? The warp gate, nobody ever used the hex system to gain tactical advantage. The thought process was this..... If they want to defend? Camp the warp gate, If they dont want to chase down backcaps, camp the warpgate.....

Did you know there never use to be towers around the warp gate? Do you know why they put them there? Im sure it had to do with the insane heat maps they were getting from the api. They saw it was the one of the only places where fights were taking place.

Hex system didnt fail,the players failed , when you can fix human nature then the hex system will work.

And your going to have to look at the big picture at some point. Continent captures will be the game.

Taramafor · 2013-08-20, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

And your going to have to look at the big picture at some point. Continent captures will be the game.

Continent's are a part of the game. Not the whole of it.

Also, the warpgate problem would easily be solved with side lattice lanes every 3 bases away from the wrapgate or so (in a semi circle patten around the wrapgate) which would be tied into the lattice we have now. Put that in and we get to fight in the front or at the sides. But not behind the front lines.

Though this does make me wonder if behind the front lines game style should be added somehow since that also is a part of war (the airborne can atest to this). A way needs to be devised of how it should be implemented without going back to ghost capping. Damned if I know how though. Perhaps some ability applied from the gal to capture enemy bases behind the front line that wears off after 3 mins or when said base is captured? That way no one can just move around in a flash and ghost cap.

GreyFrog · 2013-08-20, 07:06 PM

Lattice Defuser Gals?

Rumblepit · 2013-08-20, 07:07 PM

Originally Posted by Taramafor

Continent's are a part of the game. Not the whole of it.

Also, the warpgate problem would easily be solved with side lattice lanes every 3 bases away from the wrapgate or so (in a semi circle patten around the wrapgate) which would be tied into the lattice we have now. Put that in and we get to fight in the front or at the sides. But not behind the front lines.

Though this does make me wonder if behind the front lines game style should be added somehow since that also is a part of war (the airborne can atest to this). A way needs to be devised of how it should be implemented without going back to ghost capping. Damned if I know how though. Perhaps some ability applied from the gal to capture enemy bases behind the front line that wears off after 3 mins? That way no one can just move around in a flash and ghost cap.

Continent control will be the goal when it is implemented. And behind front line tactics are what made planetside 1 a great game if you ask me.Take out a enemies gen at a Tech plant and wait for incoming rage.I think at some point we will get to see this implemented. With the addition of the continental lattice ,and Inerlink the base benefits will have greater purpose when the goal is to capture the continent. But i still feel that a major base should never be bypassed.

Taramafor · 2013-08-20, 07:08 PM

Originally Posted by GreyFrog

Lattice Defuser Gals?

It would give them something to do other then troop transport. Honestly, how a sun can be deplorable and a gal not is beyond me. I think gals should be squad/platoon deploy only myself.

BlaxicanX · 2013-08-20, 07:40 PM

Originally Posted by Rumblepit

Hex system didnt fail,the players failed , when you can fix human nature then the hex system will work.

Well put. I think I'm going to make it my sig at some point- it really is the ultimate universal truth of why the Hex system didn't work, and not just the hex, but a lot of problems this game has with "flow", "defensibly" etc.

edit- On the topic of the Galaxy, I think it would be nice if the Gal was an AMS, and balanced by it only being a deploy point for your squad (not an entire platoon), and, more interestingly, people spawning from it not being able to change their classes. So if you die as an engineer and you want to spawn at the galaxy, you won't have the option to change to a heavy assault, MAX or any other class, you'd have to spawn from it as an engineer.

Taramafor · 2013-08-20, 10:13 PM

Originally Posted by BlaxicanX

and, more interestingly, people spawning from it not being able to change their classes. So if you die as an engineer and you want to spawn at the galaxy, you won't have the option to change to a heavy assault, MAX or any other class, you'd have to spawn from it as an engineer.

I could live with that. That way the devs wouldn't have to add weapon terminals to gals. I think the reason you can't deploy from one though is because it's kind of hard to get one at a base and not have it shot down. Still, if the option was there and 3 gals land at a base, it could defiantly turn the tide of a battle. Which outweighs the negative impact I think.

BlaxicanX · 2013-08-20, 10:20 PM

From what I've heard, Gal's had the ability to deploy at some point in the beta, and it was removed because everyone stopped using sunderers and it made it too easy to hop around the hex system.

Both of those issues are (mostly) fixed now, though, especially with AA being as prevalent as it is now, so I'd like to see the idea re-introduced.