[Feedback] Lattice

I have been putting off commenting on the lattice system, but here it goes:

Planetside:

In PS1, the addition of the lattice system is the primary factor that caused me to quit the game and never look back. Back in PS1 beta, I found the game to be extremely fun. For months I was completely hooked on playing Planetside beta. I never knew what to expect. Sometimes I would find myself in small scale battles (10 people or less). Sometimes I would find myself in medium scale battles. And once in a while I would find myself in massive battles involving hundreds of players.

And then the lattice system happened, near the end of beta. I begged the devs not to do it. It was a BAD idea. Suddenly the small and medium scale battles were gone. 100% of the battles I saw were massive scale zerg fests. I no longer got the opportunity to shine, show my skill and sometimes be a hero. After the lattice system, I felt like I was just another zergling mindlessly rushing toward my death.

But the worst part of it was that population imbalances became enormously more apparent. When VS is fielding a zerg force of 60 against 100 NC, we lose. We lose often, we lose badly, and then when the 120 man TR zerg shows up, we lose even worse.

This drained all the fun out of Planetside for me.


Planetside 2:

Lets be clear about something. As I recall, PS1 had MUCH smaller maps, with far less capture locations. Not having a lattice system made the game more fun. In Planetside 2 however, the maps are far bigger and have about a billion little capture points everywhere.

When I first started playing PS2, I loved the design and concept of the Hex map system. But once I became more experienced with the game, the flaws became apparent. The primary flaw with the PS2 map system is that there are simply way too many little capture points. We can't possibly guard all of them against ghost cappers. Something needed to change here.

So, now SOE has implemented a lattice system into PS2.

I am so far undecided. I can't say that I love or hate it in PS2.

Unlike PS1, the maps are far bigger and more complex, so the lattice system may not be as detrimental as it was last time. But I may be wrong on this. I do like the fact that the new Lattice system does a much better job of locking down the territory that we rightfully control. This was a much needed improvement to the PS2 warfare.

I think my biggest concern is population imbalances. As VS on waterson, I have already been fighting a lot of up-hill battles against superior numbers. The only way we can even win is when we completely abandon two of the continents and focus all of our manpower on just one. And that's just to make things somewhat even.

The new Lattice system is going to funnel greater players into every battle. Imbalances in both population and weapon performance will become much more pronounced, and the underdog team is going to suffer for it.


Conclusion:

As I said in the beginning, I quit Planetside because of the lattice system. My continued play in PS2 depends heavily on how well balanced the lattice battles are.

Lattice is here to stay, get over it. Now is time to give meaningful feedback that can make it better. Genuine feedback, not the kind that is loaded with false information to diminish it on purpose so we can have a lousy hex system again. This forum is infamous for that.

I love how people say there is an issue with vehicle spam. You have up to 600 players on each team with 1200 being your enemy, even if only 5% of them pull vehicles you're looking at 60 vehicles on the front line against you. Even 3-4 tanks can feel like a spam against you if they are all shooting in your direction. That's going to feel like vehicle spam to weaker infantry.

You will only not see vehicle spam if you limit it down to less than 1%. If it's up in the 10-15% of players then you're looking at way higher numbers.

this

Yes, because the space between the "lanes" cannot be passed... The limitation in movement is already inherent in the chess pieces. Because players in Planetside 2 have no limitations on their movement then the developers need to apply other limitations. Limitations are not a bad thing, see Chess again, they add meaning to choice. The new Lattice system is not perfect, but far better then the clusterf*ck of hexes and "strategic" commanders we had before.

The funny thing is that Chess is a perfect example why the Lattice system is a good thing, and all these numb nuts try to use it against Lattice.

"Lack of depth".

If you think pre-lattice had any depth you're just fooling yourself. It gave the illusion of choice. You had only one real way to play, attack. Defenders would be bypassed by enemies going around them.

You don't need to own adjacent territory to flank or play with tactics. Last night we were doing more flanking and tactical maneuvers than we ever did playing whack-a-mole in empty territories. Our decisions mattered. They were smaller scale and more important. We didn't look for ways around the fight, we looked for ways to win the fight.

The three zergs moving around uncontested territory before one of them gets caught in a biolab grind for 2 hours isn't depth. The old system didn't reward smart tactics or strategy. You could constantly outflank your opponents as the terrain never stood in your way and the gameplay mechanics allowed you to attack from any angle ever.

Even in real life this isn't the case. You cannot magically attack over mountains, through cliffs, valleys, or anything like you can here. Defenders would be static and populations wouldn't just shift all over the frontline allowing you to attack a completely undefended outpost.

Lattice hard-codes in barriers and limitations which increases the magnitude of the choices you make. The rewards for winning are greater and the punishment for making poor decisions much greater. That's much deeper than your decisions meaning nothing and the territory you fought over 5 minutes ago flips back to the enemy because you've moved on.

This is exactly what I have been saying. I'm glad somebody else gets it.

I love the rework of the lattice on Indar and hope for good changes to Amerish and Esamir's too. Great work on it! It is a step in the right direction with more steps to come i hope! This kind of setup was one of the fundamental things in PlanetSide im glad this first part is in i never thought you would do it.

Not going to argue the points for ''the lattice'' or against it. That has been done enough already. Everyone has their opinion. Not read the entire thread(s) but i get the feeling people are moaning about how its changed the effect they can have on a continent using the only limited factor the game provides - capping a base. What was wrong with the hex layout was blatantly obvious, on a per continent scale and in the future, globally. I highly doubt they will revert this lattice change now and i really hope they don't.

So, stop moaning about it and lets have more discussions on what can be done beyond link changes to improve the game if you please! If enough ask for what should happen next, going by the devs record it will happen.

While its true it may hinder small squad ops etc, this is not specifically down to the way the map is networked rather it is down to the lack of objectives and ''metagame'' as people call it. I do however agree, small groups should have their place, this is PlanetSide is it not? Small squad objectives in the hex layout were short sighted ones in the scheme of things, it could be done far better.

Hex system, ''lattice'' system both are currently limited in scope in this regard. The 'point' of battle was less on the hex system, short sighted, short lived. It is still limited on the ''lattice'' system as is stands, though the short scope of the hex system has been extended to a point. The game involves three empires, as such 'winning' can for the most part, always be a persistent futile effort, continentally or globally. I've seen years of the 3 way game on PS to know exactly how things pan out in that setup, which is where we might be headed? I'm not sure you can ever win without a population imbalance

To improve the system as a whole I would suggest looking into (as its been discussed already so no need to go into detail at this point):

Altering population limits for the continents. Dynamic or fixed?

Create a 'logistics' factor in the game - NTU/Improved Resource system or similar. Something for small groups to impact upon ala PlanetSide.

Improve facility design and function - Main generators, benefit disruption, better internal layout, tighten them up etc. Outposts have been done, why not these?!

Let us in the spawn rooms, and earlier - Tiered level of generators that ultimately allow you into the spawn room and allow you to drop the spawn tubes. (scroll to Spawn room changes at facilities in this thread thats what i would like to see in some form)

More continents ASAP.

Global lattice or ... something else.

Ability to have empire v empire fights on a continent, not forced three way battles.

More equipment, less weapons.

That for me would set the game up and i think it would solve a lot of issues. Then on to other stuff!

LATTICE CONS:

• Performance hit
• Less strategy (Squad and platoon leaders do not direct the battle, the lattice does)
• Sandbox aspect of the game nullified
• Monotonous repetition
• Resembles Rush mode on BF3 too much
• Boring (fighting the same battle over and over)
• No freedom
• Hinders small squads
• Less options to attack (11 -6 bases linked)
• Mindless or dumbing down the game experience (predictable)
• Capturing bases are meaningless
• Certain bases should be linked that are not
• Not enough cover
• No flanking
• No small battles (meatgrinders)
• Getting steamrolled
• Resources get depleted
• Fights are too linear
• Cannot attack adjacent bases
• Choke points
• Vehicle spam
• Every battle is static
• Lattice too cluttered

I had no (performace) drops, some of you people are so OCD about your FPS its ridiculous.

(Less strategy?) In fact, i think there is MORE strategy now. Since you have more organization from the lattice, randoms are contributing more and squads/outfits can now use their battle tactics to overcome the enemy more effectively by making use of chokepoints, strategic vantage points and lots and lots of new cover. Vehicle denial and so on to make infantry battle tactics more important.

(Sandbox of the game nullified?) What are you talking about? This game is about conquering Auraxis, that's the point to the game. This is not Minecraft.

(Monotonous repetition?) Oh, what about repetitiously ghost capping? What about repetitiously getting vehicle spawn camped because nobody came to your defense, because theres 20 different places for people to go, which spreads everyone thin and defense becomes impossible. For a game that requires you to repetitiously shoot people over and over again, I find it hilarious that you cry about repetition.

(Resembles rush mode), probably the best mode on BF3. Attack and defense gameplay is FUN. Conquest is boring because people just run around all over the place with no coordination unless you're a hardcore group on voice communication. Which is what happens on the OLD system of PS2. Everyone just runs all over the place, making defense FUTILE and pointless. Attack attack attack because you aren't getting reinforcements. With lattice, YOU DO.

(Boring, fighting the same battles over and over.) HAHAHAHAH. You serious? You are playing the WRONG game man, WRONG GAME! If you hate fighting battles in the game, just uninstall. No battle is the same. So what I think it is, that you just hate the gameplay of fighting battles because that's a ridiculous thing to say.

(No freedom?) You can choose from MULTIPLE fronts. Since when does even the real military allow service members to just go wherever the hell they want? No, you are sent to a base and can request to move, but not just willy nilly. Lattice is a sort of security network that creates a stronger foundation for the game. Now players can be more organized without being forced into an outfit.

(Hinders small squads?) HAHA......No. Small squads that had no skill or tactics to begin with, will do poorly.....lattice or no lattice. What....did you think your awesome ghost capping tactics were amazing? Take your small "tactical" squad to ghost cap a base against 3 helpless defenders? Seriously? Fun fun? There are plenty of open spaces and cover for plenty of tactical play. You just lack imagination, skill and leadership ability if you say otherwise.

Yes, (less options to attack), that's the whole point, meaning less points of entry but not limiting your tactical choices as much as you make it out to be. It provides security and chokepoints. That's a good thing. That's what any REAL military would do and if you are going to make a FPS with 3 military factions, it should be no different. Game or no game. But like I said, there are plenty of open areas in those lanes, to give you plenty of tactical choices.

(Mindless dumbing down of the game experience)? You mean ghost capping, zerging empty bases, pointless defense and having the faction be spread thin all over the continent? Oh what an amazing game experience that is.

(Capturing bases are meaningless.) That's a metagame problem, not lattice. But the whole point of the game is to conquer Auraxis, so I think you're pretty damn clueless.

(Certain bases should be linked that are not.) Your opinion.

(Not enough cover), that's a base design problem, not lattice. And they did add alot of new cover and vehicle denial in certain locations with the new changes.

(No flanking).....are....you....serious? You have many options to flank and if you are in a tactical squad, you can make use of that galaxy ship to flank enemy locations that are otherwise unassailable. You can also get a sundy through and set up a front on the enemy flank. You may lose a couple sundies, but that's the whole point. They aren't going to just LET YOU do it. Plenty of opportunities to flank in this game, don't expect the game to hold your hand to let you know when.

(No small battles) I call ********. On Matherson, I had a ton of small battles yesterday in addition to BIG battles. 48+ battles and 12+ battles MULTIPLE times throught the day. I got my *** kicked and I also kicked *** myself. Now if your server is just really messed up in terms of population, that's a population mechanics flaw, not lattice.

(Getting steamrolled) Either you are bad at the game and are surrounded by other bad players, or you have a population problem. That's a population control mechanic problem, not lattice. Lattice actually makes it better by increasing the likelihood that you will get help during a defense or attack because players will know where to show up and won't be overwhelmed by too many choices. This problem existed way before lattice.

(Resources get depleted) What? My resources were just fine, I don't get this part.

(Fights are too linear) Militaries fight in a organized and disciplined fashion. They don't just run into a battle and do a dice roll tactical maneuver. If you want chaos, then don't call it a military faction....call it a gang. A gang of idealogical maniacs that want control over auraxis and have zero discipline or organization to EVER conquer it. Lattice creates a security network and a conquest path so players can be more organized in taking Auraxis. Fights are NOT linear but discipline and order are the fundamentals of military, your perception is the problem. Every fight is different, its how YOU perceive it. Lattice doesn't make the fight linear, it provides a better, organized approach to attack and defense.

(Cannot attack adjacent bases). Yes, that's the whole point, its a security network. You can still cut off bases though.

(Chokepoints) Those are a good thing so defense is actually feasible. Any military worth its salt uses chokepoints to stop a superiorly numbered enemy. Since the update yesterday, I have never had a zerg actually stampede over a base. We stopped a greater zerg with a smaller force, just like any military installation should. We had the tools and the tactical terrain and we prevailed. Battle lasted for quite a while and was intense, which is what PS2 is all about.

(Vehicle Spam) Why is this in your list? Lattice is not the cause of vehicle spam. Ridiculous. Vehicle spam has been going on for months. The lattice system actually mitigates its effectiveness because bases are more defensible now.

(Every battle is static) WHAT? HUH? NO! Battles are never static. Every fight I've had was with different people using different classes, different assortment of vehicles at the time against an entirely different army of classes and vehicles. One battle you'd have multiple tanks and harrasers against a infantry force with aircraft support, and the next you'd have a bunch of libs bombing a vehicle column. Every fight is different. Lattice doesn't create static battles.

(Lattice too cluttered) I don't see any clutter whatsoever. In fact, I think it looks really nice on the UI and makes good sense.

Anyway, I don't agree with your assessment and I think most of your cons are caused by other things. Lattice is a step forward for the game, not a step backward. If this had been released at launch, I think people would be singing a much different tune. You have become comfortable with the old system that ANY change is threatening and unwanted. This is very common but you can't let it cloud your judgement. Lattice is good for the game and should have been there from the beginning.

I think one thing that the map in general (not just the lattice) can do is have "tactical situation" overlays with known units, but with some sort of delay or error so it isn't a totally accurate view of the map at the time. Have it be something like the orders channel where you have to pay the certs to get the info in the first place, and certain things like scout radars, infiltrator IDd units, and the like give more accurate numbers / positions of enemies. Perhaps even add "satellite uplinks" to some of the bases along lattice routes. The bases are not necessary to take the next base, as they aren't in the lattice network, but they have the uplink nodes that allow for commanders to have more accurate information.

So I'll try to think this out to make it clear.

Commander positions:

• Based on cert level.
• Higher cert level is more likely to command in a region. People with higher cert level AND rating can request to take command in an area.
• Certain cert level required to take command of larger facilities / regions
• Higher cert level can only be purchased by reaching a certain rating with players.
  • Rating players must be minimum time played / battle rank to prevent rigging of system.
  • Each player only able to rate a commander once per time period, replacing their previous rating of the player
• Commander takes command of an area by getting into a command chair in a base.
  • Smaller bases only convey orders to their region
  • Larger bases control sub regions.
  • If sub-regions are controlled by lesser-rank commanders, higher rank commander could start vote to kick sub-commander or issue their orders to subcommander, with scaling XP rewards for players following them.
  • Continents can be commanded by highest ranking / rating players, potentially outfit officers though that probably wouldn't be necessary.
• Commanders can see top-down view of map with more detail, like map from Natural Selection and RTS style games.
  • Units on field wouldn't be 100% accurate. Regions of "tank activity" would be shown as a blob-like area, for example.
  • Actively spotted units / squads / platoons by Scout Radar, Infiltrator Sensor, and Infiltrator spotting would show up in real-time, with increasing time since spotting causing the location to become more uncertain over time.
• Commanders can issue missions to squads / platoons
  • Units could be told to
    • advance and hold (or defend) a location.
    • destroy X number of unit type (armor, transports, aircraft, infantry)
    • escort other unit (minimum amount of unit alive at one time).
      • Used for things like defending AA units from ground assault
      • escort mission ends when escorted unit completes their objective or a certain duration lapses
    • scout target area (deploy sensors / spot a minimum number of unique players / units in an area)

This would allow the front-line chaotic battle lovers to have their huge battles while giving those that love small units the ability to have a role in larger battles without losing the identities. It might even give RTS lovers a way to play. It has been a pretty successful mechanism in Natural Selection, and as soon as one side starts having effective commanders the other side will need to start cultivating them as well.
Maybe even have enemy commanders in regions potentially visible to the other factions. "Oh carp, it's that commander! I hate fighting against him!".
Auxilliary map nodes:

• Nodes (sub-bases) are not a part of the lattice system and are not required for base capturing.
• Do not provide forward spawn points. Combatants must bring their own.
• Provide control of facilities that give benefits to regional troops / commanders
  • greater accuracy of unit movements from regional surveillance array.
  • greater hitpoints / armor / firepower for units in your outfit / platoon / faction
  • reduced spawn times
  • Artillery facilities that control orbital bombardments in the region
  • Allow attached facilities to spawn certain vehicles. For example MBTs from Towers can only be spawned if the attached heavy-nanite facility is in your control.

Your argument is circular. If there is the illusion of choice then how does removing that make the game better? I never said that. Please reread my post. Hard coding limitations doesn't create depth it takes it away.

Lattice removes the depth of being able to choose many different ways of doing something vs ...." limitations" less choice = less depth. My only asking is that more depth be added. Removal of sandbox, addition of lanes.

Just because you were playing whacka mole doesn't mean the whole population was. I was enjoying a deep game. One that my choices helped dictate the flow of battle. and the choices were endless.

The lattice as it is now actually does the opposite of what you say. your choosing tactics, not strategy. You seem to be confusing the two.

"Randoms" contributed just fine when people communicated what needed to be done.

I strongly believe that nearly everything that was wrong with the hex system was a failure of communication. We've all seen organized outfits move around from territory to territory. The hex system hardly seemed a hindrance to their performance. Why? Communication. Someone knew where they needed to be and how many needed to be there, and they said so. Someone else made a decision and said, "Make it happen."

No, adding limitation does not remove depth, it removes the illusions that your choices meant something. You believe you're playing a deep game but in all reality no choices by anybody pre lattice meant anything. Holding territory meant absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things. You've convinced yourself it does somehow.

There is no "strategy" in Planetside, never was. You cannot win the war, the best you can hope for is pushing your enemy back to their warpgate which was impossible during an even fight because you could never successfully prevent your enemies from breaking out. There were too many connections, too many players moving in too many directions.

Now they cannot attack in illogical routes over a mountain or down a cliff. They have have to follow lattice lines that natural contour to the environment (more or less) and force you to work within realistic boundaries and develop actual strategy for beating your enemy. Unlimited opinions is not strategy like you're making it out to be.

This system does exactly the opposite of what you say it does. It adds depth to your choices by forcing you to weigh the pros and cons of each decisions you make and then deal with the consequences. You can no longer erase bad mistakes by a quick redeploy and attack an empty territory like you could before. Losing territory has the potential to really mean something and shift momentum.

Lots of choices do not mean depth. Not at all. Depth comes from the consequences of the choices and the changing game environment as a result of those choices. Lattice improves on that greatly.

You couldn't be enjoying a deep game because Planetside 2 wasn't a deep game, at least not in comparison to the first. It still really isn't. The lattice system is only one step towards a really deep and rewarding experience. EXP grinding and fighting over arbitrary territory as the battlefield shifts all around you is not deep. Now you can have impact that lasts for more than a few minutes on the battlefield. Beating an enemy doesn't make them just disperse. It allows for deeper, much more meaningful and rewarding fighting.

Aside from confusing tactics and strategy, some players seem to be under the assumption that avoiding confrontation was a desirable choice.
Attacking empty territory never was the optimum choice, it wasn't even a viable decision..

Kills are what net you xp and fun, The flow of those two "resources" is what keeps up the morale of a platoon.
The optimum choice was always to try and fight a force roughly your size.
Large enough to not compete for kills, small enough to keep the force multipliers roughly equal(no steamrolling) and enough skill difference to grant you victory.

Essentially, a pretty interesting decision to make that did add to the game.

We were pushing Broken Arch from Crossroads Watch Tower. We had them on the ropes after suffering through tons of ravens and phoenix missiles. Mags were covering the flanks by scaling up and down the cliffs while sunderers, lightnings, and infantry made up the middle. We were just pushing into the front door when suddenly a force of about 12 NC came up over the ridge with anti-armor and a Sunderer, and tore us to shreds. By the time we realized we were being flanked, 1/3rd of our force had been devastated and by the time we responded to it we were down to 1/3rd. Our forward spawns were gone and we limped back to the Crossroads in something between a fullout rout and disorganized fighting retreat.

As the forces were crumbling, those of us that could set up a defensive line at the top of the Crossroads ridge and tried our best to slow the wave of blue and gold that came rushing up to meet us. Rocks turned into choke points as massed anti-infantry fire forced back the majority while a few brave souls ran well around trying to get into firing position to dislodge our defensive line and roll up our ranks.

The battle pitched back and forth for hours, even despite the server kicking practically everyone out at one point. The battle was immense but it definitely felt like the major changes in tempo and direction happened because of perceptive individuals / units and a lot of guts.

It honestly felt like the most sustained leve of awesome I've experienced. I've had battles somewhat like this before, but they were for short periods of time.

So far I like the new lattice system, but I do think it can make smaller outfits contribute less (though I never thought ghost capping was good, but those rare times you'd get mini-battles going was fun).

I think the system should be thought of to accomplish two things:

1) Facilitate continuous big battles at important locations where big battles are unavoidable
2) Facilitate smaller battles at important locations that are important but won't attract quite the size of battles at large locations

How do you do that, I don't know... but at a higher meta level PS2 seems to be all about progressing your lattice... or distilled...

capture the next base that will grand you the next point... so it's all about the base points. I think adding more than just that to the strategy of PS2 in a way that would facilitiate #2 would be good, again I don't know how but it might involving adding more than just pure base capture to the game.

Where are these 500 man 2 hour long stalemates?

I need to get me some of that action.

I really like the lattice but it needs the other things that the lattice system had in ps1 to be perfect.

More continents
Links to far away bases/outposts to facilitate more movement
Metagame that allows you to bypass the lattice to help your empire (significant benefit denial / base drains / links from other continents).

Right not it is just the hex system with slightly less links and a block to backhacking (i do really like that you cannot hack something that you have lost the link to or some one is currently hacking your link).

Keep it its good but also improve the metagame before you add it to esamir and amerish. People need to learn new approaches and it will come good.

I warn against stepping back SOE as that will imo experience and opinion kill the game.

Longest i've seen is an hour and it was far from stale.

There was just a 3 or 4 hour battle at miller in indar at one base. TR won though.