He's somewhat missing the ANT/Gen mechanics though. The whole 'appeal to PS1' argument is more pretty moot as well. The whole 'less is more' thing is a little mantry as well. AS i've noted as well, the issue might really come down to the fact that a large force in a given lane has no vulnerability, how is less ability to effect them, 'more' there?
"That's why I believe cut off bases need to flip quicker than non cut off bases, have spawn timer penalties, and eventually go neutral if no connection to the owner's warpgate has been made. Make those bad decisions really felt. Don't let a side easily recover from outfits failing to protect an important outpost." No I'm not. This is really the ANT/Gen mechanic, just greatly simplified and easier to implement in the meantime. Actually for this lattice system to work we NEED an ANT/Gen mechanic so that getting cut off really means something. It doesn't require new vehicles, new models, new mechanics. It's just simple timers until those things are added. I'm not trying to appeal to Planetside 1 as I'm trying to bring over the mentality and overall mechanics that made that game work to Planetside 2. Obviously things need to change and cannot be 1:1, but it's the ideas that are steady and work well. They obviously seem keen to bring those mentalities and ideas back to Planetside 2 in their own ways with this new lattice system.
Skimmed it, you may find this suggestion interesting; http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...attice-linking-sunderers.119128/#post-1618713 If you don't want to read, the core idea is "player-controlled lattice links". As for the deception which you seem to be fond of, the lattice system features a much more "bare-bone" hex grid, and the "ally//enemy" detection only counts what's actually inside the hexes - an army in neutral territory is not registered. I'd think that would improve the ability to sneak around, but perhaps you have some other form of deception in mind.
Not really, you've just reduced something to faster cap times, that previously that importantly had a layer of actual strategic vulnerability to it. As i've said elsewhere. I think with a actual logistics system behind the lattice and a few more links, it would be quite a good system. Resource revamp needs to be pushed to now.
"Eventually go neutral if no connection to the owner's wargate has been made" That is the NTU system right there without the ability to resupply. As I said, it is something temporary until a full logistics system can be put into place.
Yes, but you can actually attack the components of the NTU system. In most cases with the lattice as is, being able to cut a base off and begin this process will be incredibly rare. I'm talking an actual logics supply route, with real things that can be blown up, extending back through the lattice, from the 'actives nodes' to the warpgate.
personally i would take this a step farther and instantly force all territory with no warp gate link to go neutral.
Again to bring another (and important side to this). Population imbalances are a fact on any one map, let alone server. Larger forces need to have a vulnerability to smaller forces.
No, thanks, that wouldn't be fair to the larger force (your suggestion goes against the spirit of NC and their desire for a free market, frankly it sounds like TR speak, like subsidies or something). I play TR on Helios in case you were wondering. We had a wonderful time of defending Jaeger's Crossing for hours, against platoonS of VS and NC that far outnumbered us a few days ago (confirmed through the handy dandy new population percentage charts!). One of the FEW occasions I've seen a fight like this. If it truly is such a problem, map design should not be discounted, it is a major combatant against the ability of a force with superior numbers. I'd go so far as to say that numbers become less effectual after a point, and that smaller forces have some natural resistance to them. I for one am fine with being outnumbered as long as it means I get more good fights.
So the side with the larger pop on the map wins? That sounds like an engaging gameplay experience for everyone else. Whilst map design can play a certain part, at the moment its looking like the side that has more in a lane, wins the lane. Problem appears to come down to the fact that the larger force simply has no vulnerability within the lane. It has the men to check every possible move by a smaller force. Even if less organised. you also have the 'leapfrog' problem in virtue of the fact that its plainly obvious now where the next 3-4 fallback points will be and new capture mechanics meaning you only really have to camp a spawn. And if 'flanking' them through the lane system is the only option, then we have zergs dancing around each other in a different system. I intend to do more testing tomorrow with the help of the Miller community. Theres a certain point, in the regions of 100's of people at which how the lanes system behaves is completely novel. At the moment its worrying. People just seem to be chanting 'lattice will give me bigger fights' without actually giving it much of a whirl. The open air meat grinders the 'large fights' crowd seem to long for, is delivered patchily at best and requires a population balance, currently rare in game. If the only option is to encrust each base with defences to the point where the game becomes space WW1 simulator. There are reasons why there are so few WW1 games.
this is the crux of the imbalance problem. every pvp game ever made that allows players to choose a side has an imbalance problem, and no one to my knowledge has found a solution that still allows players freedom of choice. the mercenary idea ive seen posted looks like it could have potential but needs some fleshing out. that said, meta game and pop imbalance are seperate issues. you cannot design core game concepts assuming one side will be out numbered. thats like changing the rules of poker because one guy has more chips than the other guy. population imbalance already exists without the lattice. will the lattice make it "feel" worse? probably, but that doesnt mean the core game flow should be altered to assume the imbalance will exist. the meta game should assume continental population lock and be tweaked based on players preferences. meaning, to design it around having things for players that enjoy large battles, as well as things for small squads to accomplish that contribute to the continental strategy. the population imbalance needs to be dealt with separately because no matter what, no meta game changes will ever create a balanced population.
Yeah but think through the problem. If people are saying the fight is decided only by population, what happens when everyone has a balanced population? Absolutely nothing, that's what. The lattice system doesn't give players enough options for small fights to happen, there are so few choices that every fight is going to grow pretty large and slow down to a crawl.
the side with better tactics wins. or, assuming all things equal (skill/tactics/resources/terrain/etc... "closed system"), stalemate. at least until conditions change, such as reinforcements or part of the population breaking off to cap an adjacent lane to flank (weak point of current lattice implementation, it needs tweaking in this respect) correct, but that doesnt have anything to do with population imbalance. thats where the current lattice falls short and imo where lattice discussion really needs to focus. i saw a pic in another thread that proposed adding a few more lanes that made sense which would help... but without some sort of way to break the fight from the outside (think, blowing gens at a tech plant in ps1), the lanes will stagnate. edit: i used the gen blowing example instead of ntu's because gen blowing was recoverable and created very important missions that created small squad action. those are the kinds of things we need now. the lanes have funneled the fights, focus needs to be put on larger strategic objectives for organized small squads to make or break an attack/defense
Yes. It's engaging for me. Defensive positions are inherently advantageous in persistent games, the defenders get there first when it's predictable, this does not necessitate super trench warfare with 50+ turrets, and in fact there are no such bases on the test server and I have never been spawn camped nor have I seen spawn camping on the test server. We didn't defend Jaeger's (and quite a few other instances long in my past) for so long because the base was plainly defensible, we held it for so long because, even though we had a longer distance to walk to C and they had a larger force, well actually I don't know why, all I know is we did, and they had more people, and a closer spawn point, and more cover. I also don't understand your comments about 'leapfrog' and 'flanking', please define them for me, don't worry, I don't think talking semantics or defining things is patronizing in the least :3 And more on the spawn camp issue, lattice/lanes promotes more mobile spawns and sunderer placements, the new capture mechanics promoting spawn camping (in the live server) is a symptom of the absence of clearer pathways of enemies, clear pathways being to the advantage of the defender, and also allows for these dynamic and strategic placements of spawns due to the knowledge of where the enemy is going to attack next. Spawn camping would only come about when the attackers vastly outnumber the opposing force, by simple fact that a centralized force that has less surface area to defend will win more individual engagements. Also, what do you think about adding an SCU to more bases? Granted my observations about the test server in my first paragraph need more testing. I agree with the experimentation thing, and I hope you find better conclusions, and we will see. Amerish is great though, it has hex and very restrictive terrain, it's the best hex of the three, but hex still allows you to ignore many terrain obstacles and just galaxy drop across mountains, something I'm not too fond of (the ignoring, not the dropping, galaxies are cool). Also, on the potential slowness of battles. I've watched TE's stream for a long time, and am a member of a good outfit that does this occasionally, we already have in PS2's FPS system the potential to beat forces much larger than ours with incredible quickness, dropping into towers with the right proportion of classes in squads, with the right weapons. Destroying spawn nests with superior numbers by any number of means (some are quite hilarious to watch).
I disagree, there's no way that there will be a zerg at every lattice link and every continent. The game is not going to have a population to support that and I doubt even at a poplock an empire would be able to defend EVERY link with a sizable force. I doubt the current lattice link layout is set in stone either, I'm sure they'll add more links and more flanking options if it is needed. Just right now defending an outpost or a base is pointless in the bigger game. It's great fun to hold out and farm the enemy for an hour but currently you'll be gaining nothing for your empire, as the enemy can just walk past and ignore you. I'm in a relatively small outfit and I don't understand the complaints about the lattice being detrimental to small organized groups, currently we do last stands and outpost holds all the time and can kick the **** of a superior force but what do we achieve? Nothing, there's no point holding anything because the large zerg will just walk past you and cap the rest of the map leaving you to your little hex.
I have a bunch, its defeintely possible. This is why I want to do more testing. Both times I've been on during a large stress test, i've been in a lane with relatively few NC, against a large amount of TR, forming around a outfit. both times, the base has simply been overrun, and then the base im in, and the they next one we retreat to. Is just spawncamped for 10 minutes a pop. If you'd find being spawn camped for nearly 20 minutes engaging, i'd be really surprised. Well leapfrogging, is when lets imagine a lane is. A - B -C -D -E. Now the TR and Nc are fighting at D. the TR outnumber the Nc abotu 3:1. So they send a third of their force to C to camp the spawn whilst they overwhelm an capture D. Soon as the cap at D goes through the 2/3rds rushes to B and the force allready at C starts the cap. This is basically 'The' strategy to use in lanes atm. BRTD figured it out very quickly. I imagine others will now as well. As for flanking, my issue with the lanes system, is that in order to flank (that is attack the exposed side of an enemy force) you now basically need to fight your way up a lane in order to get to one of the 'base nodes' that conntects into more than just one lane (crossroads watch tower - for example). This either 1) Takes as long as It takes to cap all the bases up the lane, at least 20-30 minutes. 2) is not possible as another force larger than you occupies that lane. Why in a game that had massive issues with spawn camping for months - they put a mechanic in that makes capturing bases all about spawn camping. I ... just don't... anyway. Lattice changes next to nothing. Anyone who gets efficient tactics (which is not the same as being mensa smart that for sure) simply flips the point, camps the spawn and keeps on their toes for sundies coming in. Baring some massive organised counter attack of equal or more numbers. In the new system = base won. This whole 'predictability good' thing is a double edged sword. Honeslty, I should have noticed this as well given I PL a lot before even going into the test server. If the 'defenders' acn predict where the enemy will go next. The Attackers can just as easily predict most of the possible defensive positions the defenders might set up and send a sundy or more of people there to camp it. So a semi-competent commander with enough people to check the other sides every possible move in a lane, is perfectly capable of doing so. It then becomes no great battle of tactics, but a sheet ticking exercise. Surely, that would just make the camping just as campy, but you could ignore the spawn. Or even worsen the leap frog issue as you could just smash a smaller enemy force in a base, flip the point, take down the SCU, make sure there was no one in spawns of hidden sudies and leave the cap to the ghosts. Maybe this does all come down to mapping issues. At the same time, vehicles need some love and the more restrictive terrain is **** for tank battles. I don't think a system that enourages people to fight in a few battles, is necessarily a bad thing. I think however. There needs to be more to the strategic level of the game, than just these battles. At this point, I think the strongest argument for this is population imbalance issues. This is why I need to test more. But no matter how organised you are. There is a point when your outnumbered by a certain factor that your just not going to win. Theres only so much you can do against being spawned camped by even 1:1.5 or 1:2 your number as well. So much of this system has been sold as enriching the tactical level play in a given battle. Given the game mechanics still dictate the control of certain lanes by camping them. I really fail to see how this is true. In general the system needs a hell of a lot more thought and development.
The issue is less zergs. More population imbalance. LEts imagine a situation on indar at prime time. Its full ,so 2000/2000 people. Just talking about a map here, on which such imbalances are common, and made worse by the perception a side cannot win - not the server as a whole. 50% are NC. 30% TR 20 % VS. So NC have 1000 men, TR 600 Vs 400. Now atm, there are 3 lanes per front. So 6 lanes in total. Lets also make the assumption that people spread evenly as the system wants them to do, and do not bunch up in certain lanes. The Nc can hypothetically committ 166ish people per lane. A sizable 'platoons spotted' sized force. 'zerg' even. Tr can only commit 100. A force thats down a platoon and a half almost in comparison. A significant disadvantage. So in any fight against the NC, will be outnumbered. Likewise, the VS can at best commit 67 per lane. Two whole Platoons down at least from the NC. Infact outnumbered by over 2:1. Every. lane. An extreme example, but these population imbalances are seen. Less at primetime than offpeak. yet still, 1) PS2 has and always will have issues with population balance. 2) Implementing a system which exacerbates issues with this balance is a bad idea. c) This is a bad idea.
Agreed that population unbalancement can't be solved. But I don't get what's the worst system between hex and lattice. As it is today on live server underpopulated factions usually lose the continet: it's not about being bad or good players, you simply can't prevent attackers form surrounding you and ghost-capping all around. Engage a long hard resistence to defend a base and you're likely to lose the war because soon you'll be disconnected from the warpgate and forced to retreat. On the other hand current lattics system on test server prevents attackers from surrounding the defenders, actually forcing their forces into a massive battle where defenders are likely to be trumpled and pushed back until they get reinforcements. But this problem already existed in Planetside 1 as well, with the big difference that PS1 bases were easier to defend because they were really protected and "close" structures. Imho both systems got pro and con.
I don't think balancing for extremely negative 4am situations which are going to suck no matter what can really be used as an argument. Right now if you've only got 20 percent pop you've lost and you'll be getting camped at the warpgate or at the very best holding a couple of outposts just outside. Such population imbalances do happen at prime time too but that's why there are 3(4) continents and we have alerts to focus on one continent. If anything lattice will at least allow you to slow down the camping by protecting some of your territory and not allowing the enemy with superior numbers to just flood all your hexes. I've seen plenty of small populations holding a base or outpost for ages, with the lattice that means you'll be protecting other territory too.
