new lattice tweet from higby

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Crator

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.

So would.... Ahem.

[CrazEpharmacist]

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.

Why don't you wait until they release a picture of the entirety of Indar..as well as other continents. We know very little information aside from that tiny portion of Indar, a portion that was already quite linear to begin with.

[Crator]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

So would.... Ahem.

Yes, of course a line representation lattice would work as well. But the idea was put forth as a quick remedy, correct?

[capiqu]

Why does higby do this to us? WHY, WHY?

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Crator

Yes, of course a line representation lattice would work as well. But the idea was put forth as a quick remedy, correct?

It's clear and Concise. This is important.

This looks over engineered and muddied, even a bit restrictive. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it feels like what you do, in order to "design" something that "different" than what you do not want to use from a previously working design.

Because, Different?

In what way shape or form is this different then lattice lines? and in what way does this have a function to avoid the stated reason for not using a lattice. IE: To many users in one location.

I currently look at this, see the same benefits and downsides as the lattice system, its just more muddied in its presentation.

I believe that's a fair critique.

[capiqu]

Well if Tr called for Forseral then Anu would be TR's first fight so all tr would be Fighting at Anu. IN PS2 on Indar Tr will have 4 different links to the warp gate so all of the Tr would not head to one base or outpost. Four roads gives you options.

[MrBloodworth]

Also, I can't really shake that the more I look at this the more it looks like a crooked lattice system, connecting useless bases and adding an SOI system over the main bases that has no function.

Just ditch the hexes. Use a clean lattice system, add the SOI's back, ignore outposts in your connections add back in the Activity grid ( What the hex emulates already ).

Still, none of this avoids the reason that's been stated PS2 Can't use the lattice system "To many users in one location".

[MrMak]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

It's clear and Concise. This is important.

This looks over engineered and muddied, even a bit restrictive. I'm not trying to be insulting, but it feels like what you do, in order to "design" something that "different" than what you do not want to use from a previously working design.

Because, Different?

In what way shape or form is this different then lattice lines? and in what way does this have a function to avoid the stated reason for not using a lattice. IE: To many users in one location.

I currently look at this, see the same benefits and downsides as the lattice system, its just more muddied in its presentation.

I believe that's a fair critique.

Thing is this is presented in an area where the Terrain pretty much dictates the paths. The main diference to the current system is that bases which are not actualy linked to eachother (as in roads or at least normaly passible terrain) no longer affect any influence on echother. Otherwise i dont think it woud change the flow in that particular area that much. I think it should be less restrictive in more open areas.

For inctance in the desert at the north of indar you would pretty much have the same flow as you have now but moving further south would be more restricted.

For instance: Right now if you controll Howling Pass or even Abandoned NS Offices you can go straight to Crimson Bluff Tower and capure it despite the fact there is a freaking cliffside in the way.

In this system (at least i hope this is how it works) you would have to take NS material storage which would open a more logical link to Crimson Bluff.

Another logical path would be through East Canyon Checkpoint and the Palisade.

[MrBloodworth]

I get the influence thing, I do.

I just don't see why it matters. Removal of it is in effect, the same as the linear options the lattice provided.

Its the same thing, just, with a different presentation. The only real practical thing I see in this system, is it cares and incorporates outposts.

Outposts will never be anything than a steamroll if they do not change the base designs. At best, in this system they MAY be a speed bump to the cluster at the main bases. Instead of a Distraction FROM them ( Adjacent ).

*shrug*


Lets be clear, the Hex system as it stand, and in its wholly unpredictable nature has been stated as to be a major reason the servers do not melt.

This confusion of where to go is what keeps technical issues from cropping up in relation to population. Tech issue avoidance is reliant on confused or unclear data to the user.

How does this help that in any way that is different from the more clear ( IMO ) lattice system?

[ChipMHazard]

Originally Posted by capiqu

Why does higby do this to us? WHY, WHY?

Why?

That's why.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by MrBloodworth

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.

With "map" I don't mean continent. I mean base. With the lattice a play-session would be indistinguishable from playing, say a BF game, and getting a list of upcoming maps upon logging on.

Originally Posted by NewSith

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.

The question you are asking is completely and utterly irrelevant. Answering it serves no purpose. Further more, your question has been answered in extreme depth some weeks ago. There is even a thread in these very forums where you could discuss my ideas if you so wished. The link I posted in this thread will get you going.
I suggest we use this thread to discuss the lattice proposed by the community, propagated by Malorn and tweeted by Higby.

And of course I assume people are hostile. Imagine you had a favorite bar. Wouldn't you be hostile towards the people coming in and smashing it apart?

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

With "map" I don't mean continent. I mean base. With the lattice a play-session would be indistinguishable from playing, say a BF game, and getting a list of upcoming maps upon logging on.

Yeah, I see what you want to say. But 10 Years of <SHALLNOTBENAMED> has shown its not nearly as predictable as you imply. And that's with less bases.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The question you are asking is completely and utterly irrelevant. Answering it serves no purpose. Further more, your question has been answered in extreme depth some weeks ago. There is even a thread in these very forums where you could discuss my ideas if you so wished. The link I posted in this thread will get you going.
I suggest we use this thread to discuss the lattice proposed by the community, propagated by Malorn and tweeted by Higby.

Your next steps, from what I can tell from this very thread is putting a layer of some "strategical depth" (I imagine it is based on values of territories, since it is the most common suggestion). But you cannot take this step right after you implement a continent with capturable bases and nothing else on it.

Why so? Because such idea is based on the belief that people following strategy is a majority. That statement is incorrect, which is easily proven by checking out many objective-based modes in different games (be it BF3 rush, a typical CTF, or any take'n'hold type of game). Many people play just to shoot stuff, even in PlanetSide.

Example: Why should I go to base A that the strategy tells me to if I can go to base B, because I can?

The first step to take after what I put in my original question is to make something easily readable for people not interested in strategy. In other words, you need to put some limit to FORCE such people into participating in strategical play. If you compare PS1 and PS2 (and one core difference between having some uncapturable territories on a grid against plain capturable hex grid, essentially lattice vs current hex system) you will see that in PS1 zerg contributed to strategical gameplay, unlike in PS2.

---
TL;DR I'm not asking you to give me an elaborate design scheme. I'm saying that the third step after having land and bases is having some sort of limitations. What are these limitations you propose?
---

Because otherwise we're back to to square one, Closed Beta, where everything was capturable and people captured everything creating chaos, completely ignoring the adjacency system (strategy incentive), that by that time was only affecting the speed of a hack. Such way of things nobody liked.

Originally Posted by TheDrone

And of course I assume people are hostile. Imagine you had a favorite bar. Wouldn't you be hostile towards the people coming in and smashing it apart?

Nobody is "smashing your bar". One of the key strategies behind properly presenting an idea to sceptical people is to prove you are right, not to prove they are wrong. Otherwise the idea gets dumped. And while people will go away as if nothing happened, you yourself will not be so indifferent.

[Malorn]

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

[bpostal]

There is nothing about this that does not get my mouth watering.
From what I can see; this system stresses the links between bases, emphasizes the actual geography surrounding the outposts/towers/facilities (adding in, from my point of view, more unconventional lines of assault on a given hex) and just looks less cluttered overall.
We need a test server so I can play with this, like right now.