A solution to the Lattice/Hex issue.

This original idea has been rewritten throughout the thread, bits and pieces added. I suggest reading through them all before jumping to conclusions.

An idea of a territory cap limiter from a currently control lattice node was introduced on page 3. That and he specifically says cutoff hexes would not be able to cap out. Everyone here doesn't like rampant ghost capping, but people should be given the opportunity to surround an enemies position and cut-off their supply chain.

In reference to my post #76. Sections not linked by the lattice could also suffer a cap time penalty, giving plenty of warning to defending forces that their supply route is being cut off.

I think you might of came across my posting about this issue to, it sounds a lot like what I was saying.
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...e-hex-and-lattice-system.129776/#post-1786907

Take a read of the thread, particularly page 3 and 4 where i tried to some up ideas presented in this thread. what do you think?

Just to get your attention

Thank God sort of a constructive discussion.

I´m a huge fan of lattice, but its strongest benefit, is its greatest weakness.

Maybe you guys are interessted in this one:
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/lattice-needs-a-change.134741/#post-1868977

basicly it combines all three systems. Hex, Lattice, Influence, without restricting one more then another, nore allowing or provok the weaknesses of the systems.

I like the main point of your Idea OP, BUT its to open. The reason why chockepoints excists are gone, because you can simply bypass everything. It benefits the attackers in a great way, but it allows althoug stuff like. "Rofl, just cap down to skydock mesa" "Lafmo they try to defend quartz ridge. Just bypass it by and invade their land easily."
Your system remove the reason to defend a chockpoint or Bigbase for some parts. Big bases are only worth their benefit, but nothingelse. It doesn´t matter if you own a huge facility in a region, since you are cut it of, its quite pointless to hold.
What might happen with your system, that for example, two zergs just run around circels at a biolab. not facing eachother.

NExt Problem is: "Ok Guys, lets defend Havr Techplant, so we buy our forces the Time to group up at WP and form a Push.
"****, they just bypassed Hvar and camping our WP, and we cant do anything about here, but if we leave its lost emmediately."

What I´m Trying to say is, your system makes defending a point quite sensless, because bypassing with no consequenz (besides resources"wooohooo") is possible. By passing should be possible yes, but only in a certain way, and to a certain level, so it should not be possible to hack WPregions, without having Hvar. Or not taking Skydock,(if you had from the north) with out owing, crown, allatum, zurvan, crossroads.

Have a look at my systems, I hope you can understand it, then post your opinion on it. An PLS PLS PLS, bring your own ideas and suggestions.

That's alright. I can understand that the majority do not want to have to engage their brain. That's fine. The people who don't want to think will be led by those who do wish to think. That is something that happens at present and will continue to happen regardless of what form the game takes. With regards to that, it is best that we develop all aspects of the game, strategic, tactical, and individual/skill based, to the absolute best they can be.

Making the strategic game better does not have a negative impact on the majority who do not wish to consider the strategic game. I fail to see how this provides a criticism of the idea present, or how it is relevant to discussion.

You have not noted the core of the idea, which is that off-lattice capping would be crippling for the attackers in terms of resource, rendering large scale off-lattice capping impractical as soon as it is contested... Without adequate planning and ability, that is.

Furthermore a simple mechanic such as point-flipping requiring more than one person to achieve for the attackers, or something even more simple like a cap point reverting to the original owner if no attackers are active within the base (as in actually the base, not just the hex/region), then you can eliminate the thing people raged about so much, without introducing big signs and arrows saying "go here next, because you can't do anything else".

The one-man-in-an-ESF issue becomes a total non-issue with the introduction of a simple mechanic to deal with it, which does not have an impact on the larger scale operations which we all love.


You do seem a little angry about something though, and I can't help but wonder what it is. Your response was kinda indignant or resentful, or something... For your information, I play on Amerish as frequently as possible as I find it generates some of the best fights the game has to offer... When the continent is populated. When it is empty, it sucks... Like every other continent regardless of what stupid and poorly thought out capping/map system exists there. I believe Lattice is as broken as Hex and neither fixes the problems with the other. Please actually read posts, including the entire thread where this was thrown open to discussion with the community, before getting your panties in a twist over it.

Ghost capping is only an issue when nobody is around anyway.

The map design causes conflicts to happen without it feeling contrived as a result of a game mechanic telling everyone where to go. When the continent is unpopulated, it is boring as hell with nothing but ghost capping. Lets just remember that if Indar was unpopulated, it would also be boring as hell with nothing but ghost capping.

I posted my stance and proposal since this thread came up :
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/evolving-lattice-toward-hex-freedom.137862/
Apparently not interesting enough.
I really need to update with pictures to explain, and probably get it done on Reddit to get better feedback

Thanks for your feedback, it is much appreciated. I will give your thread a read later today.

I'm wondering if you missed the section which said that you can only cap one territory deep, off-lattice... This is in order to prevent people just totally bypassing chokepoints and just taking undefended territory in the opponent's rear (pardon the innuendo). Instead, the chokepoints and major facilities would still have to be fought over in order to carry on progressing, as you cannot cap more territory from terriroty which is not connected to the lattice.






This is possible, because Mao Southeast/West are connected by adjacency to NC owned territory, and that NC owned territory is connected to the NC's gate.

However...


If you are trying to cap FROM territory not connected to your lattice, you will find it impossible.

I hope that clarifies the limitations on off lattice capping.

I'm not against this suggestion. The current lattice is very limiting.

Did I get this right? You only get resources from hexes connected to the warpgate via lattice but you can conquer any hexes connected to your warpgate?

In your biolab example the attacking TR forces don't need to attack the biolab once they've cut it off. They can just wait it out as the VS defenders are unable to capture any adjacent hexes because they are cut off.

But the TR would have to make sure the biolab has 2 or more hexes between it and the VS warpgate so I don't oppose this is it would require some strategical thinking, time and effort.

edit:
nvm. I read your post about not being able to conquer hexes 2 or more hexes away from controlled lattice. But wouldn't that also mean the attacker is unable to cut off the enemy base?

There is no need to make strategic game better as it is right now. What you trying to bring up is the same old "While those zerging morons fighting at the base we're all sneaky-like will capture everything around". That how was with Hex system and it was terrible.

Have you played PlanetSide 1? Fights over a single base waged for HOURS if not days. And there was lattice system. Yet this lattice system provided benefits, not resources and "smart" outfits used it to turn the tide of battle as they want, dragging enemies or capturing vital points. You can do this all the same in PS2. Yet there is no "vital points" in PS2 yet. There is no places really worth fighting for except for exp, certs and kills. So your idea is nothing but trying to bring hex horror back.

Don't break things that work and worked for more than ten years!

Not quite.

The defenders in the biolab can cap any territory, so long as it reconnects the biolab to their warpgate via lattice, or the territory that they cap would be connected to their warpgate via lattice once capped.

Please see the example I provided, which includes my totally awesome paint skillz, a couple of posts ago. It should clarify how attackers can cut off a base (although in that example it still goes wrong for the attackers).

Yes, many many years ago, although not for long as my internet connection sucked badly, and I was a 16 year old with limited cash.

Everything is always open to improvement. The only way of improving on something is by changing it (after thinking through the ideas, obviously) and seeing if the change works. Remember, changes can always be revoked or rolled back if the experiment does not work. Static and conservative thinking never made any progress.

Changes worth money and labor. It's not that easy "Let's try it out", devs with swing a magic wand and there it goes on test servers. And devs don't tend to "roll back". If they brought something live - deal with it and adapt. No turning back.

I looked at your pics above. Maaaybe that system will work. But... Resources system will be reworked. And I'd rather like to see armored reinforcements coming from those outposts. Because if you will take all outposts around base you will put defenders into unfair position where they can't fight back and surrounded. You suggest defending those outposts? Well forces will be scattered too much and again base will be easy to take too.

So no, I still don't support your idea. Base fight is where combat and command skill must work, well planned assaults and teamwork, not territorial advantage!

Very good idea.Remove lattice, at least for capping. We need to attack where they don't expect us to !!!

If they want to be 100% safe they should set up patrols at every (front line) outpost they have.

To clarify... The NC that have taken Mao Southeast/west would be operating on next to no resources, so would have a tough time of holding on to southeast/west... Just as hard a time as the TR defenders would have in holding people off at the main point.

It is also worth noting that you probably did not read the post in this thread where I detailed the resource system changes that would have to go hand in hand with the capping system change.

Interestingly, the ideas which I proposed in there are somewhat similar to the ones which are likely to be implemented, if you look at the recently edited resource overhaul thread in the Roadmap.


I appreciate that such work is not free of cost to SOE. However, people are already employed to look at and deal with changes to game mechanics. I am aware nothing happens instantly, and there is no dev magic wand. This is posted here not as a demand, but a suggestion and as something that could be looked at and considered. I do not expect nor demand that this is implemented in any form. It is an idea. Something for discussion and consideration.

How about instead of being able to completely cap off-lattice, you can only reduce an off-lattice base to neutral?

This would have several effects:
1: Neutral territories cut lattice links for all sides.
2: Neutral territories deny adjacency to all sides.
3: Neutral territories deny spawn points/terminals to all sides.
4: Neutralizing a territory does not grant cap EXP, because you didn't cap it.
5: A base goes neutral at 50% cap. Thus, neutralizing bases takes half as long as capping them, and capping neutral bases takes half as long as capping owned bases.
6: Neutral territories do not generate resources.
7: Neutral territories do not count towards any faction's territory control, they have their own category (Nanite Systems would be a good candidate).

That is a pretty damned good idea. I'll have a think about it this afternoon and evening.

You should still be able to hack those terminals though, else it would be strategically better to just leave the base in enemy hands, hack what you need, destroy what infrastructure you don't need, and spawn camp the spawn room, ideally having someone (... some BR1 alt) sit on a stealthed Scout Radar Flash hidden between the spawn and the capture point(s).

Hmm, interesting idea..... maybe.

One thing we haven't really addressed so far is the third system people are bringing up, Influence. We should incorporate this into our design and add the neutral cap to the mix.
My suggestion would be to treat a lattice link link 100% Influence, keeping the current cap times as they are and use that as a starting point for cap time increases off lattice based off surrounding territories. Only territories linked to the Warpgate would count towards this influence and obviously with 0 influence, you cant cap.

Territories require a minimum percentage in order to cap fully. In DramaticExit's example lets pretend Crater Firing Range is owned by the NC. By owning a significant amount of the surrounding territory, the NC have the ability to fully cap Mao Southwest Gate, Gaining all the normal benefits from a capped region except anything that requires a lattice link, which would be resource income to the warpgate and supplies to the NC soldiers fighting in Mao Southwest Gate. This cap would be bound by the rules of influence, having about 50% influence (rough guess) the time to cap would be 150% (50% extra).

On the other hand, Mao Southeast Gate does not have a significant amount of NC influence, as a result although the NC push through and take the point, they cant completely cap the area, their efforts only deny the TR their resources. The TR on the other hand still have 100% influence over both gate, given by the previous link allowing a quick re-secure.

I think this would be a bad idea, players are going out of their way, fighting over and increased cap time in an area they are no longer earning resources with the pressure that their work can be undone much more quickly than they made it. The idea that they would not earn XP for the cap seems wrong to me.

Well in the form I suggested it, neutralizing is half a cap anyway. So if you got EXP for neutralizing, and got it again for finishing the cap, you'd be getting double EXP. I guess technically the reward could be considered split between the two stages (one for taking it away from the enemy, another for securing/re-securing it).

This is actually a pretty interesting idea. I hope that the current power system the devs are working on could be managed into the idea. I hope that this post is at least looked at by the devs.

Overall very good post.