Sneak peek of new hex adjacency graph for Indar and a bit more!

Hopefully the devs will look at the criticism of this system and at the very least increase the number of links/bases you can take. It's far from clear cut that the community wants what they propose.

After almost 6 months we FINALLY get a test server!!! No more big patch hot fix, hot fix, hot fix!!

Lets be fair, I think a majority, prehaps a slim one. Wants lattice. I think this is largely borne out of frustration with the game and desire for a change than a careful consideration of the alteration of game mechanics and whether it'll improve the game in a medium to long term.

At the same time, I think, what the dev's should take away from this thread. IS that its time to seriously pony up what they meant by 'cont lock' and 'resource revamp'. As simply going down the lattice route without some sort of metagame development, will on a basis level just make the game simplier and has been noted potentially throws up other problems with game play. In light of greater simplicity and predictability in large scale player movements across the map.

Now larger battles, indeed engendering larger battles is fine. But to again condense the concen down. The worry is that all that the strategic play of a map will consist of (at prime time on a busy server at least) will be these battles.

I am however fairly confident even his higbyness himself will likely read these comments and that a fairly good case has been put forward for this.

hahaha, wins thread.. Thanks good sir.. Made my day

That post is just so completely wrong that I had to put my forumside hat on to deal with it.

I put my hat away, I was just quietly enjoying the game. But this silliness has to be nipped in the bud.

I'm going to have to be brutal for the sake of brevity. But let's just go ahead and discount all that waffle about wars pre WW2 shall we? Planetside 2 does not simulate brodudes with swords. It's combined arms warfare, it is essentially modern warfare. So everything related to pre-1940s warfare, that's out.

Modern warfare is about roads. Roads dictate the movement of supplies. Without supplies you don't move. Maybe in Planetside's universe there is an alternative to road-based logistics, but in real life there never has been. History is littered with the bodies of armies who lost their supply line. Armies who moved off the road. Armies who thought you could get supplies in by air. Never going to happen, either you have a road link to your supply line, or you die.

Ergo having armies fighting along the length of the principle Main Supply Routes (MSRs) is absolutely consistent with modern military doctrine and is in no way limiting to what we can do from a strategic view point. This is known because the only limitations in PS1 were good ones, that shaped the game.

The lattice is a great idea because it means that you can actually fight with a smaller force against a large one. If the larger force has to follow a given route, great, I know where to fight them. If the larger force is spreading out like an ink blot there is no counter for the smaller force, you're just nailing jelly to the wall.

This system is the one viable counter that the developers can play to unfettered Zerg warfare.

To chuck a clever quote in for good measure, Bonaparte said, "He who defends everything defends nothing." And he was right. As it is you have to defend way too much in PS2. By allowing defenders to rally at a succession of points a zerg can be viably engaged. By the current system you block off a Zerg it just spills across the map and captures everything against little or no resistance.

I find it interesting how some players seem to define "ghost capping" as "capping an undefended base". Should we, then, ignore a base simply because the enemy has chosen to ignore it too? That would be chivalrous, certainly, but strategically unsound.

This plan claims to add ways to cut off areas, but as far as I can see it removes them. Since the lanes are so long, it's impossible to cap behind the lines without first capping an entire other lane and possibly a major facility - hardly a tactical move.

The more I think about it, the less I'm sure about the good it'll bring to the game.

Maybe, Lattice should only drive the benefits you get from the base.

Example : if you own a base without a lattice link toward your Sanctuary, no vehicle can be pulled there apart from Flashes and Sunderers. Or you can pull only common pool vehicles without ANY of the upgrades you may have with it. OR simply, not spawn mecanics work there (ie you need AMS). OR you cannot get any new resource costy equipment (that includes vehicles)
I don't know, plenty of possibilities. Just something that has a HUGE impact, but without removing the freedom


Since I've seen the hex system at work and its shortcomings, but its benefits, compared to lattice of old, I keep thinking that lattice should not be a replacement of hex grid, but working on top of it

The thing is, in PlanetSide2's universe - as it currently stands - something has replaced the need to roads. We can spawn anywhere we control a spawn point, either a facility-based one or mobile. We can spawn almost any vehicle at the right terminal, we don't even need to control the territory to do so (MBTs are an exception, they are somewhat more restricted). There are no supply lines, there are no roads you have to follow.

I wish they'd add them, but they need to add them before they mess with the map connectivity.

This looks so cool.

Thing is though that as it is the only thing that can stop ghost capping is literally sentry duty. You up for that? You happy to spend your hard won free time guarding a checkpoint in case somebody might at some point show up? No. Nobody is. Hence ghost capping.

By directing proceedings with a lattice you can increase the likelihood of attack at a facility, in face you can practically make it a certainty, and this means that people will want to be there to greet an attacker. Everybody wins.

That's it's own problem and I agree. There seems to be no rhyme or reason to the system and maybe they should have some before starting out. But the first priority has to be to fix the major game-knackering map-splatter warfare that has so limited and damaged the game thus far and build a sensible structure. It's a much lower priority to fix the details.

More long-bridge battles would be helpful. In general, troops enjoy fighting on the very long bridges because it negates a lot of vehicle influence, there's a defined front line, and it's a very tug-of-war meat-grinder.

Hmm.First off I would have been a lot less dimissive, why? Buddy you might want to look into John Churchill a bit, also WW2 post Phony war becuase you try and histograpthy off, at least in this case. If you really examine the cases he's presenting, you'll find that the elements of logistics in case study format in a lot of the example he's cited.

Anyway, having MSR's would be nice. However, Lattice as present is not that, its having a series of active nodes, from which the battle spawns either from the base itself or the attacking elements. The only part of it that might engender MSR like behavior, is if the active node in question has no ability to spawn vehicles or aircraft.


Its the point a lot of us keep brining up, and frankly the fact we are being dimissied on our own grounds, justs gets more and more frustrating.

Lattice brings logistics you say, great. I'd love some logistics me. Where is it exactly?

Indeed, part of his point is that, some sort of MSR compnent, would introduce flanks and vunerable logstics networks on a operation and strategic level, and thus, have something to manuver against.


Even if that were the case, as i've noted, one of his strongest points regarding the nature of predictable troop movements and entire empires simply quitting a map if they 'perceive they cannot win' has not yet been addressed by anyone.

Yes, sir. I'm up for that.

In fact, this constitutes a good portion of my play time. After all - I don't play for myself, I play for my team and it helps my team.

If Lattice means logistics, then let it drives only logistics. That means Lattice is the only way you bring the Nanite Tech of your empire to the place.

We should be able to stay with the current scheme, but with a lattice on top of it, bringing the logistics aspect. In the form of the total inability to pull out empire specific stuff and any upgrade without a lattice link, and no "advanced" vehicles. You can take any place, including non lattice-linked ones, according to current rules, but be prepared to face the consequences.


It would mean that large zerg/groups would follow lattice just for sustainability and ability to reinforce on the move, while less big forces, less reliant on big arsenal, would be able to make unexpected moves out of lattice links.
In turns, this would enhance the potential of cutting of a portion of the map from the warpgate, making nifty quick moves by medium sized forces impacting and usefull.
Last, this would end the "Biolab of last resort" effect where a single hex Biolab completely cut off the rest of the empire territory is sucking all said empire population for its defense, because said defense would be far more of a challenge when completely cut off

This goes back to the problem that most bases are not defendable. The change to Instant Action (IA) drops will help, somewhat, but we still need base redesigns that:

- Control of a location should not progress unless someone is actively standing on a point.

- Any major facility with a single control point needs to be reworked into one with a few 2-person points, a smaller number of 3 or 4 person points and 1 or 2 major 6 person points. A major facility might have half a dozen control points with a person-total of up to 15-20.

- Major facilities have a hard outer wall (infantry porous, but not overly so, blocks vehicle ingress completely, is not overly vulnerable to air attack, has plentiful turrets, plus stationary turrets that function on their own at reduced capacity). There should be minor 2-person capture points on the walls. Maybe two or three scattered around (total of 4-6 person-points). By taking and holding those points, the attackers can start to shift control of the facility unless the defenders camp an equal number of people on the inner control points.

- Most facilities should have some sort of inner perimeter / courtyard where vehicles can assist, but it can be a kill-box if one side holds a high ground. Secondary control points should be placed in the courtyard (3-person or 4-person points, total here of 6-8 person points). Courtyard should also be where nanite generators/collectors are placed as well as the generators for the wall shields.

- An inner barrier, powered by generators in the courtyard that prevents all ingress until the courtyard is controlled. Inner sanctum where the final major control points are located (4-6 person points, possibly two locations), as well as the spawn tubes. Inner sanctum should be almost 100% infantry exclusive.

Most of these points have probably been hit on, but here is my 2 certs

Point 1: Awesome. So I am assuming this links to the adjacency rule too, so that you -have- to have one of these outer territories in order to capture the inner base... which is good. Means you need to have a foothold to get the interior facility. 100% support

Point 2: Not crazy about this. Forcing people to stay on point isn't a bad thing. The way the points are designed now, with little protection to them, out in open, it could be a problem. If the points are no longer needing people on point in order to flip, could we at least get the points to be less open? Would rather see some kind of xp bonus to encourage people to stay on point. But, I'll see how it works on said test server.

Point 3: Okay, this and the prior point raised a question with me. My understanding is that you no longer have adjacency effecting the speed at which a point flips. So, if I own 3 of the 4 connections to an area, and someone gets one person on one point of a 3 point location... with the current system, that isn't enough to flip that location. With this system, will it be enough? Will that one point starting to flip, mean that it is possible for the enemy to flip the base with One point of Three, despite the fact that they only have one line of adjacency?

Point 4: If this works, I will be buying more SC. Amp stations are USELESS. Is there going to be any link between the new resource system and the existing facilities? I will say Biolabs aren't as much of a problem though. The longer I play, the more I appreciate that biolab bonus. The amp station bonus though, is totally useless. And do we get any word on how Interlink will factor into all of this?

Additional points: Any word on SCUs on all facilties? Quite a few people advocating that... might be something good for your test server. Will the test server be Amerish/Indar/Esamir, or will it be someplace smaller that will owe itself to ease for testing (Smaller, more controlled enviroment, etc).

Planetside 2 is about numbers, so I'm going to assume that people who play this game, play it because they want to experience combat on a massive scale. You don't have that now, at least not as often as it should be, or in the right way. What happens right now is that enemy zergs often occurs in completely different hexes, erasing progress made by the other factions with no effort.

What Planetside 2 needs to become is a clash between these zergs; huge battles in between bases, which turn into a battle of tug-of-war, until one zerg succeeds in capturing the base that sustains the enemy zerg.

These battles should be long, and the capture of even a small outpost should feel rewarding. However, sometimes there will be stalemates, where the zergs are equally matched - and this is where the outfits can really shine. With their superior communication, organization, and speed they can have a more conscious impact on the battlefield; they can see what is required, and they will actually have the resources (organisation, man-power, etc) to accomplish that.

In this format, outfits and organized groups will become the architects of the battlefield, and they will essentially fight another battle -parallel to the two zergs - and this parallel battle will exist between enemy outfits, where each is trying to give their own zerg the momentum to push forward.

That's at least what I think Planetside should be (and I think most would agree with me). I think this system of micro-hexes is the best of both worlds.

It is that hard to notice the base being flipped on a map and send a few guys over to resecure it? Do you have to stand there for the entire night? No. Just keep and eye on your territory, use your brain a bit, and move forward.

The sandbox is great. With a few exceptions, I can't say that my squads route around Indar has been the same on any night. Now I will know exactly where I have to go, and so does the enemy. Yay.

The logistics is, generally, bringing up vehicles from bases behind the line. That line between your point of contact with the enemy and your warpgate, that's the logistics, the tanks, Sunderers and aircraft moving into and out of the fray are the logistics.

Remember these vehicles are now extremely valuable kills. Taking five guys with AT turrets and mines to set up an ambush on the road, will pay out big time in certs, not to mention it'll cause disruption because of timers and whatnot.

If an empire quits a map because they can't win, you know what that is called? That's called losing. Losing is an essential component of winning. You can't win if nobody loses. The game really needs a large win state that can be achieved. Not for any material reward, but just because otherwise what's the point? A game without victory, or defeat, is hollow. A traditional three way fight nobody wins. It's a grind, territory changes hands freely, far too freely, but there's little sense of victory or progress. If we reach a point where successfully clubbing a faction down actually caused them to leave, I'd say that is progress.

If a faction does leave it just means they'll have numbers in a different fight elsewhere, no harm no foul.