Lattice System and the Value Proposition of PS2

I made this thread because I saw that there are several posts complaining about the lattice system killing "strategical ghostcapping" and small squad sized play.

First of all - I do not agree with that notion!
Yes the lattice system promototes bigger fights - but this does not prevent smaller squads from flanking the enemy and disrupting it's attack from behind for example.

What I do not understand is what people not happy with the lattice system think of the Value Proposition of Planetside 2?
For me it's the possibility to take part in huge fights containing several hundred participants over extended periods of time in a permanent enviroment.
The Lattice System promotes exactly that and that's why I am in favor of this system.

If you do not like the Lattice System may I ask what you think of the value proposition of PS2?

That's the issue.

2 options:
Be a part of the zerg, or poke the zerg with a stick.

Until we get the alternative, "magic mechanic" that allows to win a fight without having to carve your way through by repeatedly shooting bullets in other people's face, lattice is a no-no.

I am here for the sandbox style huge map, pick who and where I want to fight...
Being funneled down rush lanes where I will be out popped 11% to 60% does not sound like it is going to be enjoyable.

Disrupting the enemy by flanking into a territory you can't take?
Why would the enemy even bother with you.. you cant take it!
You will be behind enemy lines twiddling your thumbs.. that sounds like fun to you?

Maybe you should go read the last nights test server flow thread... it was a 2 1/2 hour steamroller..
What good is your squad behind enemy lines when your team is being pushed back at every base.
Outnumbered 2 to 1, they tried lane switching, got steamroller again, with 2 choices.. steamrolled or steamrolled..

When enemy zerg can't take a medium outpost but caps all small outposts around it for further ghostcapping, it's hardly enjoyable either.

I don't need to read about last night - I played through the whole alert.
There were good fights around TI alloys and you even had ghostcapping around tawrich...

What you want is to cap hexes without ever seeing an enemy? Obviously, that doesnt work in a Multiplayer Game.

If thats what your taking my my thread I suggest you give it another pass.

In fact this is a massive strawman. At best a minority are worried about this. The majority of concerns about the lattice are not 'pro-ghost' capping in any shape or form.

It's not about you or your thread - it's about this "massive strawman" you can witness in this post for example:

Furthermore this thread is about the unique value proposition of Planetside 2 as I see it, which consists of large scale and persitent battles. This value proposition is going to be emphasized by the Lattice system and therefore I'm in favor of it.
I'd like to know what others people idea of the unique value proposition of PS2 is and why they are against this new system and prefer the chaotic nature of the current system.

Edit: and as you mentioned the opinions of minorities and mayorities - the large mayority is in favor of the new Lattice : http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...mprovements-now-on-public-test-server.106337/

Strawman ?

There are NO GAME MECHANICS in the current Lattice build.
Hard fact.
So the only thing left to do is shoot people to prevent them from reaching control points


Objectively, I've observed one concerning fact concerning the Hex system:
PS2 had more strategy back in beta for two simple reasons

-Facilities had external control points
-Captures froze with 0% influence over an area


The former played the role of a NTU-defense breaker
The latter played the role of an alternative defense strategy
It feels like I'm circlejerking around those two concepts, but it's unbelievable that SOE got rid of them in the first place.

Anyway, back on the topic of "Value Proposition", I've never, ever, found myself looking for a big fight for more than 10 seconds. Open the map, press instant action, drop into Red territory.
The game does not fail to offer large scale engagements (whether they are satisfying/balanced is another topic). However it fails at offering alternatives from the massive, chaotic blob that is a zerg.

This wasn't directed at you but at LordMondando who argued I was using a strawman by bringing up ghostcaps... that's why I put "massive strawman" in quotation marks - I meant no offense!

I'm sorry but you are, your saying 'either you support the current lattice system as is, or you support ghostcapping.'

Its a strawman (because its not even my position, its a position your just attributing to myself and others - this is what a strawman is) and a false dilemma (the are more options to take and the debate is currently a lot more complicated than a simple either / or). Indeed, as you detail in that other thread. You appear to see it as a dichotomy between either being for 'PS2's main selling point as large battles, or against it and why are you playing PS2?'

I want more large scale battles, I also find ghost capping boring and tedious. My entire argument, from the get go here, has been very clear. The new system, thats on the test server. Does not even necessarily achieve this goals, and in the 'large battles' (which I might note, we have under the current system also, so it at best engenders them perhaps, slightly more often) who wins each battle and each 'lane' appears to come down to weight of numbers and little more, in a manner that appears more pronounced than the current system, and a fair few people are noticing it now.

something is going wrong, its bringing out the underlying game mechanics in a way that makes large battles, sure. But it makes them hugely deterministic. The side with more people in the lane, wins the lane. And as I noted also. pretending population imbalances are not a huge problem in PS2.. what game are you playing. As such, system needs work and a fair few suggestions as to why and how are being thrown around at the moment.

So please, either engage with that or not. but im tired of knocking down strawmen with 'y u no liek large battles?!?!?!111' written on them. I do, not trying to argue against them and its getting boring to even pretend thats a side in this debate. Everyone likes large battles, ok?

Frankly, I think i've been pretty damn clear about my position as well. Hell, question am I even saying 'don't have a lattice system at all'?

Am I? Have a careful re-read. My position on this has changed quite considerably over the months. But I know what I've been advocating here and elsewhere the last month or so.

Again, to pull this back to the point I think needs discussing. My biggest issue with the new system, is that it, by itself. Does not give a large force you are facing in a lane any actual vulnerabilities. It has more men, even not lead at all. It will wear you down.

And I'm just not sure (though please continue to try and convince me otherwise) that just buffing every bases defence would do more than make attacking a frustrating endeavor and create a whole new set of problems.

"I made this thread because I saw that there are several posts complaining about the lattice system killing "strategical ghostcapping" and small squad sized play."

1. I am arguing against these notions - if you had read the op carefully you maybe would have noticed this.
2. This is not about your thread - as I explicitly stated after you asked

3. "who wins each battle and each 'lane' appears to come down to weight of numbers and little more"
In an open battle on even terrain this will always be the case if you assume both sides are equally skilled and have balanced equipment - to tip the scale in favor of the smaller force you have to introduce external factors like terrain advantage or a defensible base. Both have nothing to do with the lattice system per se.

As I stated before - The lattice system will not fix all the problems of PS2 - it's only a step in the right direction.

Sorry, but no ones really aruging that. There was some silly **** about ghost capping being akin to paton a week or so ago. the real debate now is actually about how the lattice system engenders battles.

Its a strawman, it is. I'm sorry. None of the debate is actually about ghostcapping. I'm not even sure it was ever more than trolling about ghostcaps.

That makes battles a mere expression of statistics with no space for tactics. This what worries me. I've only really fought extensively during tests where people have actually turned up on around Tawich/crossroads/skydock and briefly around Hvar. In both cases something was lost. Pre-existing population imbalances simply meant, the platoon or two of one side could be as tactical as they wanted. They would simple be buried under the 3 or four platoons of the other side (for example).

Prepahs its because vehicles are too gimped, perhaps its because bar turrets bases offer little defensive advantages, prehaps its because small arms combat heavily favours CQC as opposed to combat at range. But from what i've seen, side with more men, just win. Defenders just get overwhelmed, spawn get camped. Base lost. Moreover, if your up against a large outfit, next base in the lane also has its spawn camped.

Something is going badly wrong - With the large battles in this new system.

thats the real debate buddy. Its the only debate.

There need to be other changes in concert with it, which need to be tested before they go live. Most of the ideas right now are floating around resource changes and logistics. given this was always on the cards. Leave lattice as is, and push these forward. As i've said elsewhere, something that makes a large force vulnerable is needed badly.

I think you're right, but I don't see that as a problem with the lattice system so much as with the rest of the game. CE is too weak, armor is too easy to pull, revives are too common and bases are too easy to camp, to name a few. All of these things make a larger force really difficult to stop. Like you said, just buffing defenses is only going to change the problem to a different, equally frustrating one.

At the same time though I'd be careful making changes here. We should stop and ask ourselves why a larger force should be stoppable in the first place. Or more importantly, when should a smaller force be able to gain the upper hand? Because if you make it too easy for organized outfits to stomp zergs many people in those zergs may end up quitting the game. It's a delicate balance between two very different play styles, both of which are valid in this game.

Really - so the post I quoted to make a point has nothing to do with ghost capping?

"Until we get the alternative, "magic mechanic" that allows to win a fight without having to carve your way through by repeatedly shooting bullets in other people's face, lattice is a no-no."

I'd argue this is the case with the old and the new system - it was a numbers game and will remain this way - the only question is the "defence factor": how many people do you need to capture a base (relatively to the defenders and absolutely when you just can spam every inch of the base with HE)

You are neither my "buddy" nor do you get to decide what I want to debate

I have nothing against this - as I stated multiple times now - I'm arguing against people who prefer to ghostcap and avoid the enemy at all cost and think they are "paton" like you have put it so fittingly.

Look pal, you want to shadow box with this notion that some people are actually trying to direct development in a manner that protects ghost capping. be my guest. the actual debate going on right now, has jack to do with that. How about getting more involved, as its easily the most important debate on planetsides game mechanics yet.

Well, its certaintly there in the current system, the main problem being in the current one, the zergs tend to avoid each other and so theres just a section of the map nothing can stand in its way.

My stance is this. I don't think this necessarily has to be the case. IF we are going to make the path ofthe zerg more linear predictable and static. Fine, make it obvious to the average player where 'most of the fighting' is and have him go at it.

I think people are also right when they say the apprent, let call it 'relative population size in lane>1.5:1' issue, is being brought out by a bunch of issues.

But untill theres something else in the game (and I don't think the system is that magic, have the back bit of each lane, trailing from the tip fo the zerg back to the WG some sort of vunerable logistical network that slows the zerg down in some manner if not protected) I don't think this can go live.

It was really pronuced last night. Once you get into the platoon numbers on both sides. The side with less men is pretty much predetermined to loose. Again, as noted I was up against BRTD they manged to figure out pretty much instantly, bases could be leap frog camped as well.

Massive, and actual issues with the system.

Again - you are not my pal and I do not need your permission to have a discussion about things that I find interesting.

And as I had enough of your condescending tone our conversation ends here.

You don't need my permission, no. Haven't suggested you do. So the whole 'your not my mum' thing is pretty moot.

What you do need, is for people to actually be seriously advancing it which *look around* - nope don't see. You had some trolling in the general forum about it awhile ago, but that lulz mine clearly ran dry quickly and that died out. I see the fallout fans repeat it as a mantra whenever anyone speaks against the lattice, thats about it.

Seriously 'ghost capping' taking a base unopposed, is not a serious position. There are legitimate tactics, like attacking a base on a flank of something with the intention of drawing forces away from a large base, that can look a bit like it. But thats something quite different in intent and methodology.

And if you want to take every post that's not singing the new systems praisings and begging for it to go live tomorrow as defence of ghost capping - then you are dancing between a false dilemma and strawmanning your opponents, which is fallacious.

Finally a legitimate argument against the Lattice, I'm tired of all those "I CANTZ KNOZE HOZ I CAN BE TACTICOOL WITH LANES" complaints...

...And an equally valid Counter Argument, is this Number's Issue truly a symptom of Conquest Map Mechanics...

...Or perhaps a sign of deeper problems with the Meta Game?

I'm going to say that LordMondando's statement hints at the latter rather then the former; Zerg Tactics provide no real downsides at the moment besides a lack of direction at the Continental Strategic level.

Surgical Precision is rather pointless against an Unending Tide after all, so we end up with Factions floundering to take Continents without large scale organization on the parts of its various Outfits.
This is probably because the Zerg's Hive-minded nature, while too slow to react to the Scalpel that is Organized Small Operations, is only inconvenienced by them when the results become too obvious not to notice.

Now I don't think the Lattice is a bad idea for the Conquest Map layout, as it does give a purpose to Strategic Defense, but maybe we should now be looking into how Resource Mechanics work?


Back in Beta, I had an idea for a Lattice-map where the Lattice itself was made up of a massive Nanite Pipeline Network, which was the thing responsible for moving Resources back to the Warpgate.
It would crisscross Auraxis, with nodes at each of Base responsible for producing that Territories' Listed Resources as well as valves that controlled where those Resources were flowing.

Expanding on this, perhaps such a system could be dynamic, where players would only gain Resources depending on how much of the Pipeline their Faction controlled and they had access to.
So even Soldiers in cut off sections of Territory would still gain Resources, but only from those Nodes they have a working Connection to.
Those Connected to the Warpgate would work in the same way, but they can also draw a small bonus depending on how much they have Connected to their Warpgates on other Continents, while Valves between Nodes could be Sabotaged to Break said Connections.