Lattice flow mechanic details (not the actual link-count, for once)

Figment · 2013-02-05, 09:33 AM

You know how every time we talk about the lattice/hex adjecency system, we always end up talking about how many links, etc?

But what we're never talking about, is when a link that's available, is actually NOT available!

What's this nonsense you say? Well, this is about the conditions and details of link hacking rules that might prevent a link from being usable or not.

To illustrate I'll have to refer to a detail of the lattice system in PS1 that most people here seem to have forgotten about, but that actually dominated movement and helped focus battles as well:

Only one end of the link can be hacked at the same time.

With one exception: when both ends were being hacked at the same time. This rarely happened more than once or twice a month, since it meant people would have had to start hacking the other end's control console within the same 30 seconds. These situations were rare.

The consequence of a link being viable or not, is that players start moving to make the links viable. They can't after all, attack a link that's invalid for them.

If we look at this detail image of Cyssor for instance, (in this case from a Vanu Sovereignty perspective), we can see that the links available to the Vanu are yellow. Invalid links for the Vanu are greyed out, locked links between bases of the same empire, are blue, purple or red.

If we were to look at the same image from a New Conglomerate perspective, the link leading from Nzame to the northeast and to Tore would be yellow, the link between Leza and Tore grey and the link between Mukuru and Leza would be grey, since the VS hacked the NC link, after which the console console got locked.

If the NC would want to attack Leza, they would first have to resecure Mukuru, forcing a confrontation between the attackers and defenders. This mechanic was frequently used to stall an invasion force by the smarter teams. For instance, if a defense was under threat of crumbling, when an invasion on a new continent occured, but the opening link in question would not be hacked yet, a small force could counter attack and hack the link on the other end of the warpgate. This would force the invading army to either wait till the hack was released, or to go back and defend.

In PS2, such a rule does not exist. Attackers can at all times make use of links that have adjecency, even if there's a 95% hack on the other end.

The LLU Exception
In PS1, there was an even more rare exception to this rule:
The Lattice Logic Unit (LLU), for those unfamiliar with it:

It was a pulsating, glowy orb that had to be brought from one base to the other and would spawn in a particular socket inside the base (not at the CC). Think capture the flag, but only attackers could hold it. If the carrier was killed, the LLU would drop and would have to be guarded by the defending party. If the LLU dropped into water, it would be destroyed.

To capture the base, the LLU would have to be taken to the Control Console on the other end of the link (which shouldn't be hacked in order to deliver it). It was destroyed if the LLU either wasn't delivered in 15 minutes, or if the Control Console hack was lost before it was delivered.

Normally, the LLU would spawn upon a base being hacked. However, if there were no free links, including the situation where both ends of the only link was hacked, where the LLU base was hacked a few seconds later, the LLU would not spawn and the base would become a normal hack and hold.

The LLU itself would be an interesting mechanic for PS2, but here it's more about the conditions under which something is and is not possible and what kind of hold may occur.

The Capital Base Exception
The second exception introduced in 2005 to the link validity rules, was the capital rules. Continent capitals had a protective force field over them, which would deactivate upon 3 out of 4 (ie. 75%) of the links being in enemy hands. But the shield being down, wasn't the only requirement to hack a Capital: In order to make use of the link when the shield was down, an enemy had to have at least two of the four links.

In practice, in a two-way fight, it frequently meant that you'd need to hold three links. Till then, the keeper of the Capital would often simply use the capital for logistical benefit, but beyond that they could ignore it and completely focus on the sub-capital bases.

I personally found this to be a very constrictive rule for the original PlanetSide, because there were just three routes through each continent. In PS2 however, we have many more links and way more routes. So many that restrictions are frequently suggested. However, many also argue that the a fixed lattice with few links is too restricted.

What restrictions are in place in PS2 at this time?
The sole restriction in place today is having a tiny grain of influence. Influence is created by having tangent regions, which serve as links. The influence can be as little as 5% in order to create a potential link.

The influence also currently affects the capture speed. However, the speed continuously varies with the surrounding bases switching hands constantly.

Due to the lack of "you can't use this link"-type rules, the bordering regions frequently change hands without you being present to defend, often not even being able to get there due to being busy. This leads to frequent ghosting, unpredictable timers and other silly things.

So how can we apply these rules to PS2 with the current hex system?
Here's where it gets interesting.

What if we combine hex influence, with some form of link validity conditions as described above?

What if:

You need a minimal amount of 40% influence to start a hack on an adjecent region?
This influence is allowed to change without any effect on the timer or possibility of hacking once the hack is actually being started?
Capture times have set length with just the influence modifier?
There is only one Control Console per base to hack and hold?
A Control Console is hacked the region's influence on surrounding areas is regarded invalid, but still counts as the same percentage? (greyed out)
The moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the duration of the hack and hold timer?
- Standard timers for bases are created for set percentages of influence (up for debate):
- Base outposts:
  - Always instant capture
- Minor outposts (3 hexes or less)
  - 40% - 60%: 5:00 mins
  - 60% - 80%: 3:30 mins
  - 80% - 100%: 2:00 mins
- Mediocre outpost (medium region size):
  - 40% - 60%: 10:00 mins
  - 60% - 80%: 8:30 mins
  - 80% - 100%: 7:00 mins
- Major outpost (tower controlled regions and large regions):
  - 40% - 60%: 12:00 mins
  - 60% - 80%: 11:00 mins
  - 80% - 100%: 10:00 mins
- Main base:
  - 40% - 60%: 15:00 mins
  - 60% - 80%: 13:30 mins
  - 80% - 100%: 12:00 mins
A resecure doesn't require a hold, just hacking the terminal back to be under your side's control?
Influence doesn't determine the resecuring holding time (for abase that is yours, but hacked by enemies), but:
- The time it takes to actually hack the terminal itself (resecure time)?
  - The resecure times are standard for all classses, with the exception of the infiltrator (hacking certs)?
LLU's are reintroduced and the moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the time you have to escort the LLU?
- LLU links are always available for running.
- The higher the influence, the longer the time you have to deliver the LLU before it self-destructs.
The Remote Electronics Kit (REK) is reintroduced as an alternative tool in the Utility Slot (replaces Medkit, C4, Ammo Pack, etc.)
The certification for the REK allows faster terminal hack times:
- No hacking certs: no hacking speed bonus: standard 1:30 mins
- Infiltration suit: -10 seconds
- Basic: -20 seconds (infil: -30 seconds)
- Advanced: -35 seconds (infil: -45 seconds)
- Expert: -50 seconds (infil: -60 seconds)

You would still have the same adjecency options, however, at times you'd have to create links by capturing a bit more surrounding territory first. This provides a bit more focus, without forcing extremely specific routes, since influence could be terrain occupied on opposite ends. However, it allows some territory to be temporarily safe.

It allows players to actively deny areas, by attacking adjecent territory first and denying the influence. This forces a few more direct confrontrations as players would have to watch the map more and keep terrain secure from other empires, while also actually being able to keep it secure by smart target selection.

The most important thing is to represent this graphically and intuitively (tutorial on capture mechanics would be appreciated) so players would come to understand it relatively quickly.

The change in capture system and reduction of control consoles would allow single wave resecures to be succesful. That should for instance increase the importance of Galaxy Drops.

Rolfski · 2013-02-05, 10:03 AM

Sry, I have not played PS1 and have not the slightest idea what you're talking about. English please. For now, I can only say that your ideas sound way too complex to me. How do you expect an average player to ever get a grasp of these mechanics?

As far as this whole lattice discussion that PS1 vets keep bringing back: The last dev meeting with Azure Twilight pretty much made it clear for me that it's a dead end. Devs don't want bigger, focused battles that bring PC's to a hold and players apparently also (Indar being the most popular continent.)

ShadetheDruid · 2013-02-05, 10:20 AM

The LLU concept has always seemed really weird to me, from when I first heard about it (that's not long ago, I never heard about PS1 until I heard about PS2

).

I mean, from an "outsiders" perspective it seems really arbitrary, to the point where you might as well just call it a "flag" and have it flag-shaped. Seems like all they did was take a flag, make it glowy/spherical and call it an "LLU".

What would make more sense if the system was reversed and you had to bring in some sort of computer-related thingy from an owned base to the new one. For example, during the capturing procedure, someone had to go pick up a thing from an owned base (one of the larger ones) and bring it to the base you wanted to capture. Like some sort of mainframe link device to connect the new base up to your empire's computer mainframe.

I realise that's practically the same thing, just reversed, but has more of an in-world feel to it (at least to me). I also realise that I just picked out a tiny piece of your post and typed up a massive piece of nonsense, but hey.

Dougnifico · 2013-02-05, 10:41 AM

OK, the bringing back of the LLU is something that could be very cool but could be easily abused by griefers and saboteurs. You would have to have a system to manage that.

Making a mandatory influence level to gain access to certain facilities could be a great idea. You could do 40% for main bases, 20-30% for large outpost, and have everything else fair game. This could also give small outfits something to do by stealing away influence to deny a hack.

The REK is dead and will likely stay there. Its no fun to sit on one spot for and extended period of time and just hold down a button. The current hacking and subsequent tug of war system is a good one. Multiple points can also be a good thing. Look at bio labs. It prevents one giant clump with super-lag.

Also, remember that PS2 is made to appeal to a broader audience. It needs more depth, but it must have rules that can be quickly understood by newer and solo players.

Figment · 2013-02-05, 10:42 AM

On the LLU: The only reason the LLU worked was because you'd get a head start. It was a race against the clock with a hold and a stealing convoy part that'd take less time than a base hack (thus made it very attractive to reserve them for last stand enemy bases, making specific bases be captured faster and as priority targets to establish a larger foothold: you'd prioritise bases linked to LLUs, so you could quickly run the LLUs before the enemy could respond and thus expand your terrain and the base benefits your side held on that continent).

And yes, it is a capture the flag (LLU) type capture. However, it is tied to a king of the hill element: hold the Control Consoles (start and end point). There have been occasions where a LLU was thwarted by holding the LLU target base's CC without hacking it. It's far more tactical than a simple capture the flag.

But there's little point in a "bring to enemy base within X minutes" thing without first holding the other control console. Can you imagine how hard it'd be to get in if all air units on the continent converts on a position that hasn't been taken yet? There'd be no point in even trying. We've had such events in PS1 (Monolith event and rabbit), where you have to go into an area close to the enemy where they know it's going to be there. If it spawns in another base than the base under contest, it'd be logistically a lot trickier to ensure someone is there to pick it up (someone would have to want to wait over somewhere else where no fighting is occuring, meaning they can't contribute into getting control over the other base or they'd have double the travel time, which isn't exactly streamlined). It would also not be intuitive to a player at that base that they have to do something over at another base.

Now, if they see it appear on the minimap nearby, they'll instantly know this is something special. When they grab it, they get instructions on where to go (marker appears and text in screen). Hence I feel that from a player understanding perspective, it's better to do the PS1 style LLU, than to invert it.

@Rolfksi: please state the terms you don't comprehend. Everything is in pretty plain language, in fact, I think I've fully explained everything and the suggested rules are very carefully defined. If you don't know what the REK is, I suggest you look it up on the planetside syndicate wiki.

Figment · 2013-02-05, 10:54 AM

Originally Posted by Dougnifico

The REK is dead and will likely stay there. Its no fun to sit on one spot for and extended period of time and just hold down a button.

Kinda irrelevant and arbitrary, since we already do that as infils with terminals. The standing around in a random proximity of a terminal where everyone sees you're trying to hack it is IMO actually worse, because it makes a lot of people stand around the same point constantly, instead of tasking them with covering the approaches to it. The only reason we're all shown it's being hacked is because it's in a place you can't reach as defender and which isn't naturally protected. Which tbh, is simply just annoying. I'm quite annoyed with the location of the CC being always so far out of reach.

The current hacking and subsequent tug of war system is a good one. Multiple points can also be a good thing. Look at bio labs. It prevents one giant clump with super-lag.

Bio Labs are a giant clusterfuck of chaos that always leads to an eventual win by the attackers instead because the flow is bad and defenders have too many points they must control. If you look at my ideas for Bio Lab Flow, you'll see I've got some other things in mind there. And no, the Bio Dome is not properly designed, because it's very disconnected from the remainder of the base.

The multi-points design for most the bases guarantee wins for numerically advantaged enemies and don't task them with any bigger skill than farming an outdoor crossfire.

If The Crown was possible to take with a single incursion attack like a triple Galaxy drop and a one minute hold, it'd be over far more often than now.

Also, remember that PS2 is made to appeal to a broader audience. It needs more depth, but it must have rules that can be quickly understood by newer and solo players.

The current system is worse for understanding by the broader audience, especially because it's currently far too complex to manipulate for the average player that likes the RTS element.

Please don't pretend these rules aren't intuitive once applied or too hard to comprehend. In text it might seem complex, in practice it's really, really simple: you create a capture influence treshold by stating "you need this much" (could be a line, could be a green light next to a question: can be hacked?), show the influence each empire has, which are valid and which aren't and you're done.

In fact, that'd be more intuitive than the current system, which has no indicators beyond "there's some random percentage, but we won't tell you what it means in detail aside from more is good, less is bad". I mean, we're all over 16 here (and below shouldn't be playing due to rating). We're not in kindergarten anymore.

The broader audience doesn't all drool and if they do, they better find a leader cause they won't be able to lead anyway. Not in the current system or any other system.

And frankly, I get very tired with the argument that things can't be complex for "the broader audience", where the lowest 5% common denominator is usualy determined to be the audience everything has to be designed for.

Wide audience doesn't mean sanatorium audience.

ShadetheDruid · 2013-02-05, 11:42 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

But there's little point in a "bring to enemy base within X minutes" thing without first holding the other control console. Can you imagine how hard it'd be to get in if all air units on the continent converts on a position that hasn't been taken yet? There'd be no point in even trying. We've had such events in PS1 (Monolith event and rabbit), where you have to go into an area close to the enemy where they know it's going to be there. If it spawns in another base than the base under contest, it'd be logistically a lot trickier to ensure someone is there to pick it up (someone would have to want to wait over somewhere else where no fighting is occuring, meaning they can't contribute into getting control over the other base or they'd have double the travel time, which isn't exactly streamlined). It would also not be intuitive to a player at that base that they have to do something over at another base.

Now, if they see it appear on the minimap nearby, they'll instantly know this is something special. When they grab it, they get instructions on where to go (marker appears and text in screen). Hence I feel that from a player understanding perspective, it's better to do the PS1 style LLU, than to invert it.

That's true, though I was focusing more on the "LLU" itself than what you do with it. Just seems a bit weird from a "roleplaying" perspective to have something nebulous like a random glowy orb, when you could've had something that made a little more sense (like a computer mainframe linking device).

I mean, maybe that's basically what an LLU is, i'm not really sure. But it's like the difference between taking a USB with information to/from a computer and taking a glowing rubber duck that just spawns out of thin air to do the same thing.

Maybe i'm just being picky.

Figment · 2013-02-05, 12:06 PM

Originally Posted by ShadetheDruid

That's true, though I was focusing more on the "LLU" itself than what you do with it. Just seems a bit weird from a "roleplaying" perspective to have something nebulous like a random glowy orb, when you could've had something that made a little more sense (like a computer mainframe linking device).

I mean, maybe that's basically what an LLU is, i'm not really sure. But it's like the difference between taking a USB with information to/from a computer and taking a glowing rubber duck that just spawns out of thin air to do the same thing.

Maybe i'm just being picky.

Well the orb was pretty much that: A magical techno doohicky McGuffin substitute for a flag!

Eh. It made you and your vehicle light up on the map, glow in the dark as if you'd have car emergency lights and you'd be the target of all aircraft within a 5 mile radius.

Why do you think the fast and agile Skyguard buggy was typically used for this and the frantic calls for aircover filled the chat windows? xD

Attempt 1:
*Zergling hacks base*

Commander1: "Oh, base hacked already. Who got a Skyguard at Kisin?"

Commander 2: "Well duh, nobody, we wanted to get a Skyguard out, but we can't now the base is hacked as the base lost the Tech Link."

Commander 3: "-.-' Obviously... We and mankind are doomed."

Commander 2: "Zerg is still in tactical diapers."

Commander 4: *just arrives* "I got one!" *proud*

Commander 1-3: *pee in pants for great justice*

"Anything on us yet?"

"No. Don't see any..."

*BOOMbadaBOOMbadaBOOMbadaBOOM*

"WHERE ARE THEY!?"

"THERE'S FOUR REAVERS FIVE O' CLOCK!!! STEP ON IT!"

"I AM! I AM!"

"Mother of god... YES GOT ONE! GOT TWO!"

"SWEET?"

"SEVEN!"

"WHAT?!"

"SEVEN MORE!"

"AAACK!"

"Oh wait! 2 of our ow.... NOOOooOOooOOoooooo! He went down!"

"Got one! Another one making a pass! EVADE QUICK!"

"If I give it anymore she's gonna blow cap'n!"

*explosion*

"Quick! New transport! How's the CC holding?"

*etc.*

Aaah. Stress adrenaline rushes on command and driving level.

Kerrec · 2013-02-05, 12:47 PM

I think establishing an influence threshold for being able to hack the next hex is a good idea (40%, or whatever).

I do not think that having the hack timer change dynamically based on influence changes is silly. It gives smaller units, or people with less powerful computers a place to go to affect the fight without walking into a zerg.

I won't comment on the rest since my flame retardant suit is only so thick...

ShadetheDruid · 2013-02-05, 01:05 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Well the orb was pretty much that: A magical techno doohicky McGuffin substitute for a flag!

Well if they do add the LLU to PS2, I hope they do add it as a glowy rubber duck instead of an orb! Bonus points if you can put it in a vehicle appearance slot as a hood ornament.

Figment · 2013-02-05, 01:33 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrec

I won't comment on the rest since my flame retardant suit is only so thick...

Pfft, as long as you don't drop to conclusions "beyond doubt" without having experienced something first hand, there shouldn't be issues.

And yes, this happens to be largely PS1 inspired, there were after all a lot of ideas on many levels that worked. That said, it's not a copy, but a new alternative that happens to mix concepts and would hopefully take the best of both worlds.

The amount of influence is a bit arbitrary though (40% suggests it's reasonably available, but the exact percentage could vary as seen fit and could vary for various base types). Really depends on the hex layout and percentages after all.

Sturmhardt · 2013-02-05, 02:14 PM

I love your idea about hexes that can only be hacked if you own 40% of territory around it. It would slow down the fastcapping through single persons and battles would become more concentrated. With the Hex system I find myself too often capping territory with no resistance. Very good idea.

I also like the idea of fixed timers, because it would give you time to plan on and you could estimate if it's worth fighting back or not in a splitsecond. The downside: The current capture mechanics would have to change drastically. While I would like that, I don't know if there is any real chance at this time in development that this could happen.

Also, the LLU should return, it's just an awesome mechanic. Maybe the biolabs or techplants or whatever facilitys could only be hacked through an LLU or something... it would definitely only work for some huge bases because noone would fight for the LLU if it belonged to a small outpost.

bpostal · 2013-02-05, 04:38 PM

Interesting ideas here, par for the course I suppose. You do neglect one thing Planetside lattice has that PS2 does not. Drains. They were a pain in the ass to clean up if the enemy was really dug in but it added in the ability to create another front (even if it's just temporary) that could be exploited by a coordinated effort.

Originally Posted by Rolfski

...I can only say that your ideas sound way too complex to me. How do you expect an average player to ever get a grasp of these mechanics?

...Devs don't want bigger, focused battles that bring PC's to a hold ...

It can get really complex but once you've got the basics down the rest just falls into place. Understanding and recognition on the status and hackability of the bases comes easily and quickly enough. The depth that it added to the game, especially the global lattice, can not be understated.

As to your second point, these are true statements, but SOE's inability to deliver the massive gaming experience that was promised is not (nor should be IMHO) our primary concern. The fact is that as it currently stands the fight is typically spread thin over multiple continents instead of concentrated, via the lattice or similar mechanic. Once optimization and hardware come up to specs and the netcode (read: lag and rendering issues) has been unfucked I hope to see larger and more epic engagements, befitting of a Planetside title.

Figment · 2013-02-06, 04:06 AM

Well drains are a thing of its own. It is more a link generation thing, as you create new links gor everyone upon neutralisation and take some safety away, the problem is that currently bases are taken with such ease, a drain is simply too powerful.

If they can get defensibility to a level where a fight can last an hour or five, drains would be a worthy addition. In the current situation, anything helping the attackers strengthens the overkill of attacker's advantages.

Mietz · 2013-02-06, 09:37 AM

Originally Posted by Figment

If they can get defensibility to a level where a fight can last an hour or five, drains would be a worthy addition. In the current situation, anything helping the attackers strengthens the overkill of attacker's advantages.

PS2 will not have this level of defensibility.
The dev team repeatedly stated that they don't want the hours-long base assaults/defense from PS1 and instead want to have multiple moving fronts with quick assault and re-take.

I'm not sure you will ever see a defensible (PS1 defensible) base in PS2. The game in its entirety of design and philosophy simply doesn't allow for it.