The state of PS2 and what I feel must change.

The hard caps alone matter less than the local density of a fight.

I suspect renderside kicks in in fights as small as 80v80. The servers will probably cry if 2000 people decided to fight at the Crown.

Conceivably one could merge regional servers provided enough fights were available to disperse the fights across three conts. Otherwise server merges would just lead to terrible lag at the usual suspects.

If the lattice system funnels everyone into a single point for a giant zerg vs zerg meatgrinder then no. Maybe the hex system isn't working right but it can be modified. Everyone in one spot promotes the sort of mindless overkill of human waves and saturation aerial bombardment that many dislike.

Also one thing to remember in all the arguments is that something that might be wonderful for global strategic play might be extremely negative for local tactical play (ie the actual combat) and vice versa

Every base that gets ghost capped is a wasted opportunity for having fun.

I'd like to see a window of opportunity for the previous owners of a base of about 5-15 minutes.
Once a base has been captured using the existing system the capture rules would slightly change for that time.
The primary control point (A) would now be hackable by infiltrators like a turret (requiring some 30-90s) when that happens it reverts to the previous owners. I'm not sure what would be the best way of dealing with the third faction in that situation. I'd asume it works best if they have to capture as usual while still having to defend A from the previous owners reverting the capture.

The result would be that ghost hacks can be very quickly countered by other ghost hackers, infiltrators get something to infiltrate and attackers can't just move around as quickly anymore without leaving some defenders behind for a while.
Organized groups would also have another objective they could set for themselves.
Slowing down the attackers would also make it easier to react and lead to bigger fights.

If that is not enough, then either the number of outposts has be reduced or the distance between outposts increased.

Oh and PS1 had something very similiar to this

but clearly that is incorrect since the majority of pple I see take nanoweave over flak armor, therefore it is NOT needed. Instead that only shows the the Mid to short range TTK in this game is far too low for most players, and is something that should change (like PS1)
Yes an explosive grenade should clear a room, that is the whole point of a grenade. Softening up targets is meant for flash bangs, EMP, and stun nades.

I also like how you snipped it and had no response to where I talked about the OPs desire for buffing shield regeneration, and how that would also break the game further.

So again, I agree with everything in the OP EXCEPT the Flak armor, and shield regen.
If you want to buff shield regeneration and flak armor then, simply hit reg has to be fixed first, bolt action snipers have to 1hko to body OR lose the sway... and AI mines have to kill no matter how much flak armor someone has

There is a cap on per faction in PS2 and it's 666 players. That was set in place near the end of beta although there is hardly ever balance between faction due to the servers not ever filling up entirely.

About the FPS problem. FPS is a problem completely seperate from lattice/hex. FPS will go up as they optimize this game and should NEVER be used as a reason to avoid improving the gameplay and the size of the fights. This game is supposed to foster large fights and it's the selling point. All of the people who want small fights would still get them with a lattice system. Unfortunately you didn't get the opportunity to play planetside 1 so you really have no idea how the lattice system played out in reality, but it was FAR FAR better than the hex system we currently have. Now, I'm not saying the hex system can't be better (it can be better), but it will never work as well as the lattice system. FPS will absolutely improve as this game ages because they will optimize it and people will slowly upgrade their computers.

ATTENTION: To all the people concerned with SCU's ending the fight!
1) They would take 5-15 minutes to overload and destroy (Causing a long fight to keep it down or bring it back up)
2) Defenders would still have defensive AMS set up
3) No deploy zones are important. Do NOT let attackers set up AMS 50 meters next to the SCU. If the attackers can spawn closer to objectives than the defenders then there is NO chance to defend.

I hope this cleared up some of your worries about the SCU suggestion.

Lattice tells you where to go next. The high xp per base cap instead of making all your xp from kills makes base fights more attractive than PvP.

I think moving the SCU near the main control center might change how base fights are done. Bring down gens, rush CC/SCU; decisively end the fight.

I figured that they could come up with something better than the lattice. I think the hex is a good place to start, but a combination of the other gameplay elements really hamper its potential. BuzzCut did mention flat cap timers, which would help quite a bit. An introduction of a generator an SCU at each outpost and the elimination of ghost capping would all help as well.

Those things, or versions of those things, should be implemented into the game as I can see a positive impact on the whole metagame without a major negative. The only problem I can see with the SCU at each base is that small groups of infantry could deny defenders before a defense could be mounted. That's the only issue with that I see that would have to be worked out.

Flat capture timers would work much better for the reasons he stated. This is why the hack and hold of the CC in PS1 was so effective. When the hack started you knew exactly how long that base was going to be contested. The various mechanics were much more clear and easy to plan around than they are here. This hurts teamwork and the overall game in general.

The hex system also tells you where to go next, you just have to use your brain a bit more. Don't insult my intelligence by forcing me down a single path because other players get lost because they can't read a simple map.

But that's the issue. You might be intelligent, but the casual player (The CONTENT) of this game generally don't know enough about the game and don't care enough to figure out where fights are. They need obvious guidance so that the fights can have a better flow and be larger and more fun.

Strange, PS1 had cloaked AMS's and there was plenty of armored and aircraft combat. I remember that clearly, because I played that game for years.

PS2 tries rather hard to emulate (not simulate!) the realities of real-life operational warfare. One of the most important such is: No plan survives the contact with the enemy. Consequently, base capture shouldn't be something which runs on a predictable timer and shouldn't be something to easily plan around. You should be forced to think on your feet, be flexible and alter the objectives as the old become unimportant, too costly or impossible.

Maybe you answered it somewhere already, but in 6 list items, how do you envision it? I mean, the hex system is no different from lattice system, in its basics, at least. The only real difference is the amount of links.

I'm surprised these casual players can even work out how to turn their computers on or use a mouse/KB. They appear to be confused by even the most simple things.

This - the Lattice would just dumb down the game. We do not want it.

You underestimate casual players. They don't lack direction like you may think. Why do massive zergs form?

It's not a problem with direction, it's a problem with base design, capture mechanics, and bonuses. We're in a constant 3 way struggle over 3 continents that have no real bonus for conquering outside of bragging rights and a minimal resource reduction for certain items. Capping itself is flawed in many ways because of too many uncontrollable factors that lead to unsatisfying base captures. The bases themselves still need work. While the last patch made them easier to defend, there are still a lot of improvements that could be made.

Among other things the problem with drop pod spam, instant action, and AMS deploy zones really ruin what could be great fights and overall diminish everybody's fun.

I would agree with that if the system hasn't already proven to only ruin what could be fun base fights. Right now zerging is just too effective and the ability for one side that grossly outnumbers the other to control all aspect of base capturing is only taking from the experience.

What's good in your head or in theory isn't great for this game.

This game also has to be fun ontop of being challenging. Predictability has its place. This isn't war. There should be some big base battles that have real meaning. Sometimes funneling isn't a bad thing. While I'm against the lattice, I'm not against the idea of what the lattice did for PS1. That's what we need to emulate here in PS2, what the lattice accomplished, only not using the same methods.

All a great read and great idea's. I saw a wall of text but I stuck with it and read it all, great stuff.
SoE should take you on even temporarily and let you work with them to improve the game for the greater good.

A lot of good stuff, and I commend the thought you have put into the post. I certainly agree with a lot of it.
But I simply can't agree to all of it.
If there's no reason to stay at the capture points, no one will, and it's ghost capping in smaller scale in a large base.
If the SCU goes down and the defenders are all ejected, there is no point in trying to push the attackers back anymore and repair the generator, which is always a blast in Biolabs, as no one will be there anymore to help when you do that.
If you force random players that just died to overwhelming numbers to face the same zerg in the next base down the line, they will simply leave, because numbers are everything in this game and you had no chance once, you'll have no chance the next time, either.
While we're at it, I absolutely loath frontlines.
They are nice for one of those rare combined arms pushes that I'd like to see more of as well, and they help new players; Strategic frontlines are fine.
But on the tactical scale, in a base, I don't want line combat like it's 1850. I want to have to expect enemies at every corner, and from above and below, preferably. I want to flank and be flaked, and Tank combat where the opponent can actually emerge from an unexpected angle without introducing smoke rounds for the Zephyr.
Sure there can still be frontlines, but they should have a fuzzy line, with 100m that are the furball inbetween. Large enough to encompass medium bases.
And having no reason to ever cap the areas around the large bases will make those battles even more boring. I want a reason to go around and cut off a large base, and I'd also like a direct assault on a large base to take up to a few hours. Gradually working forward, or galdropping in behind to shut down the defenses.

Oh, and I also never use Flak Armor unless that loadout is specifically made to fight vehicles. If I survive a Grenade with 50% hp, the player that threw it will still cream me if he follows up, and if he doesn't, I'm fine with 5% hp, as well. I don't see how that specific armor is mandatory, if my opponents constantly spam grenades, I'll just run into them till they run out of resources.
Btw, I personally fight on Indar because it's the only continent with a useful Lock bonus. It also doesn't have white plains everywhere that make my IR scopes useless.