A solution to the Lattice/Hex issue.

66 posts out of a 69 post thread? Right.

Also, a great many of the posts you probably read as pro-lattice, I saw in a far more ambiguous and unclear way... For example "better farming". I don't know how you would have regarded that post, but I would have seen it as sarcastic, ambigious, neutral or extremely vague.

Furthermore, I would regard the "it stops ghost capping" posts, as being largely incorrect in nature, as ghost capping (capping a base which is not defended using small numbers of attackers who rapidly move on, or with a vast horde of attackers who essentially end up doing nothing) has not ended with the introduction of lattice... This was very kindly illustrated in that thread, with a picture and er'rythin', by someone who takes a pro-lattice stance. Furthermore, there were at least two posts which were outright saying "anyone who doesn't like lattice must be hex fans and ghost cappers", which is an outright falsity.

I saw more or less 15 outright pro-lattice posts, and some 10 outright anti-lattice posts, with the vast majority being ambiguous or neutral in nature, and a few that may potentially have been sarcastic. But honestly... Getting into a pissing contest with you over the ability to count, the nature of perception of written word and proper debating techniques, seems pretty futile really.

Since you asked, I classified the "better farming" post as funny/off topic. I don't think they were giving a serious answer. I classified a post as pro or anti if it was mostly that way. As one of the posters stated, nothing is perfect. I knew that love of your brain child (or step child) would blind you to the content of the posts.

Anyone who cares can read the thread themselves and reach their own conclusion.

That's right... No need to address the majority of the post.

I dont know if you noticed this tread already has 7 pages regarding the problems.
But if that isent enough for you here´s a few post thats against it!

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...ned-by-the-lattice.143851/page-2#post-2018897

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...-at-soes-phasing-out-of-combined-arms.142757/

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...game-mechanic-fail.143888/page-4#post-2019693
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/people-are-getting-bored.143915/
https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...is-all-on-infantry.143749/page-4#post-2019283

And let me just point out these are just in the first 3 pages of the forum and there are more just not as directly linked to the lattice system as thouse.
Last and not least i started that tread regarding somethinh possitive regarding the lattice system lol.
So im perfectly aware what people wrote in it and it didten really impress me
In fact a few of them turned it in to a personal attack and im the king of ghost capping and all kinds of ********

apprently they dont like the discussion.

On a final, final note i dont think you read that post either since you didten notice i started it and about half the comment in it are negative towards the lattice system

Dramatic Exit: you are right, this is turning into a spam fest of who is right and who is wrong, as the OP you should try and keep on topic as much as possible without argevating the other posters. You are better than this.

Betelnut: Your comments are appreciated as they provide a point of veiw that is necisary to progress the thread and cover all bases, although they could stand to be more constructive

I have read through the thread linked by betelnut and while i agree with dramatic for the most part, there were a few posts that required serious consideration and thought.

I think i have identified the core ideals of the hex and lattice systems.
Hex was designed to favor an attacking playstyle, the ability to flank and surround enemy forces is invaluable and can be used to great effect although it was often misused to avoid fights which lead to the term 'ghostcapping' being generated and lead to a game of whack-a-mole and stoping backcappers which i think everyone can agree are annoying. (note: i didnt say they were not useful or not legitimate, people should be free to play their own way).

Lattice was designed to favor a defending playstyle, Clear lines that must be followed with minimal point to capture and limited options on pathing. This system provides both the clear pathing, allowing defenders to get into position, knowing that the enemy is garentieed to come. It also allows the defenders to push forward and become the attacking force while simultaniously defending the previous point by making it non-contestable. although this goes a long way to minimizing 'ghostcapping' there is no way to stop it entirely, this system also puts an enphasis on numbers with zergs and platoons often wiping the feild until they meet a force of equal or larger force. While small squads can skermish around the outside of these large battle or even make mini-objectives for themselves like setup a striker squad on that hill or defend this generator, these objectives are not as effective as capping a region and cutting of resources that was avaliable with the hex system (note: These mini-objectives can be extremly effective and battle changing but more options never hurt anyone)

In order to attend to both these playstyles, we need top create a system that catters to of them. The ideas presented thus far have gone a long way to doing as such, but still need more work. Positive comment promote the sence that the community is happy with this system, Constructive critisism help grow the idea to cover everyones needs. We are already responisble for a complete rewrite of the resource system, which i believe was the side of this post that would have been harder to implement. Now we just need them to grab the old code and modify it a little to get our new system.

My next post will be a recap and collection of everything that has been said and every idea that has been presented in this thread thus far. We can then use it as a reference point in moving forward.

https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...ative-to-lattice-hex-adjacency-system.107317/

Ill just leave this here

Interesting idea, but the cap system itself is what this thread is attempting to address. Map redesign is something we can look at, at a later date. Still constructing the recap

I suggested that one must remain in an area around the cap point to fully flip the base, so if ghost cappers want to ghost cap, they have to be in a specific area for the duration of the cap. This area would be larger than the capture point area itself, but not encompassing the entire hex area. If no enemies are present, it quickly reverts back to previous ownership. Ghost cappers would be discouraged from flying an ESF from base to base starting caps.

Great idea, very cool but if you read the thread carefully, this idea has already been generated and included in the design. This is why i'm creating a recap, so people dont miss things

RECAP

This post is a recap of all ideas presented thus far within this thread and can be used as a reference point for further discussion

This system is designed to have the resources based off and capping is based of the Hex system. NOTE: This system is designed to only work with the proposed resource change by SOE, which was originally suggested in this thread. For those who are not familiar with the changes to the resource system, check the roadmap for full details. The part that impacts this system however is the idea that resources flow along these lattice links to soldiers on the front lines, you must be within your territory or within the next territory along the lattice link in order to gain resources.

Due the the way the resources are distributed, players are heavily encouraged to move along the lattice line without the strict limitation of the lattice. Any lattice link connected to the warpgate is considered a 'powered' link. Players can expand via the hex system 1 region away from a powered link. This means if a lattice line gets cut off, no further caps along that line can continue until connection back to the warpgate is restored. Time to cap is governed by influence.

Influence to regions is being reintroduced, the larger your influence, the faster the cap. However, a powered link to a base, no matter the adjacent territory is considered 100% influence and results in the current cap timers. This means that going off the hex not only incurs NO RESOURCE GAIN but also results in LONGER CAP TIMES. This means that if you attempt to go off and cap a region that is only just connected via one hex, its going to be a extremely long cap with no resources being earned the whole while.
Another addition to this is currently being discussed, Instead of capping, the attacking force attempting to cap a region not connected via a powered link can only cap it to neutral. The current discussion on this is whether to include it or not, here is a quote from one of my proposals.

The actual cap:

Capping a lattice connection will remain as normal, 1 person required to flip the point then you can go anywhere in the base you want. However, attempting to cap a region not connected to a powered link will be somewhat harder. Every soldier caries a transmitter, its what allows the player to flip a point and start capping. A powered link provides extra power to the next region along the lattice links, allowing a single soldier to cap as normal, then it uses the links 'power' to maintain the cap. Without this link, a cap point is somewhat more resistant to the point being flipped. 3 players are required to flip the point but once flipped, only one soldier is required to 'maintain' the connection to cap the region. The maintain area will be slightly bigger than it currently is, to allow that single player to hide in a corner somewhere but this forces players to stay throughout the cap and defend the point, while staying in range. No matter whether it is a normal full cap or a neutral cap, they will take the same time as a full cap.


This system is designed to give attacking forces the ability to cut off entrenched defenders and whittle away their resources while still allowing defenders efforts to quickly recap lost connection and restore links.

Additions:

This is a list of additions i have thought of since my last idea post.

One of the main features of the lattice system is the ability to secure the previous cap point by attacking and starting the cap on the next. I believe this particular feature should stay. I have thought of an idea for major facilities although smaller ones need to be hashed out.
A major facility (Bio Lab, Tech Plant, Amp Station) all have 3 'surrounding caps'. These surrounding caps give power a transmitter blocker that covers each surrounding cap and the facility itself, stopping any cap via hex only. A direct link by a powered link is required to cap any surrounding caps, however once any of these surrounding caps fall and get capped by an opposing faction, power to the transmitter blocker fails and hex capping is enabled for the other surrounding caps.


Well that's the wrapup, hope i didn't miss anything. Discuss!

Great idea OP or the person who originally came up with it i hope SOE consider it. I really hate the current lattice system.

We've had dozens of these kinds of responses to this thread, i wonder.....
SOE, you recently became more active. What are your thoughts on this thread?

Would you ever consider incorporating any of these ideas into the game?
Have you already taken content out of this thread? (thinks of resource system changes)
I'd be interested to hear from you.

A couple of thoughts/options in random order as they occur to me on the capture transmitter thingy:

- Uses resources over time. Since you're outside lattice, you're not gaining any. This value of resources spent over time can be tweaked to balance the time or the amount of people (each with their own supply of resources and the transmitter thingy) you're expected to bring for a succesful capture even if defenders don't react. When defenders react (early enough), the defenders should not be unduly stressed because of capture timer, having the option to both remove enemies and their spawn solution or just keep on destroying the transmitter thingies, slowing down the capture and maybe even clawing some progress back whenever a transmitter isn't in use.

or, and I prefer this approach

- Uses resources up front and works for x minutes afterwards. If it is destroyed by the enemy during that time, all of the resources are obviously lost. This method gives the defenders the option to just "starve out" the attackers by destroying enough of their transmitter thingies in case they're having trouble destroying or finding the enemy proper. The position of these transmitter thingies has to be fairly close to the points and reachable by all classes (no transmitters up in tree branches, thanks).

And of course a player still needs to stay nearby or the transmitter ceases to function - No dropping off transmitters everywhere and flying away with your ESF

- Destroying a transmitter could cause an instant x% capture timer setback unless another transmitter was already deployed. Multiple transmitters at the same time don't improve the capture speed while still using up their normal amount of resources.

---

I'd actually prefer it if the capture was outright impossible without these Transmitter Thingies™. The progress of a capture should not be canceled when they are destroyed (or the player who planted them runs out of resources), but the base would start to revert to original owner (or neutrality, depending on if full captures or just neutralizations are possible, and whether neutralization was achieved yet).

---------------------------------------------------

I always thought of the transmitters as being part of every classes suit (except the max). What you seem to be proposing is the creation of a new item, presumably taking up the utility slot. Interesting.

This might be a nice way to balance it out. The transmitter is required for off lattice capping. A new cert for the universal slot or perhaps an infiltrator only tool.

It has merit but I'm not too sure about it. Does anyone else have any thoughts?

Edit: damn editing, doesn't show properly on my phone

was a pleasure to read newset posts! lots of ideas

Any thoughts on these new ideas? Expansions? Notes?
I can't always be the one coming up with the new ideas

Haha... Yeah.

I would really encourage people to say why they think it works, or why they think it doesn't.

Ideas onlyu evolve and grow by getting picked apart by people. Saying "yes" or "no" to something while in reality it's still pretty embrionic as ideas go, without providing any critique or explanation of the yes/no reply, isn't actually that productive or helpful...


I do have a few modification in mind and perhaps some better methods of explaining the whole idea. If only SOE would allow me to edit that first post.

at work right now ill come up with something constructive once i get home

Well, you have my recap post now. Hopefully that covered everything up to that point

Great, I suggested it months ago. Glad others think its a good idea too.

Also, I dont see that anywhere in your OP.