We've had Lattice for about three days and the gloss is already wearing off

You need to stop. Your opinion that other people shouldn't have and express their opinion is like the worst opinion you could have. Make your predictions about people but don't try to force other people into those predictions.

Not true to be frank, Frank. The very heart of Planetside 2 is large-scale battles and manouvering, with the more coordinated team holding the advantage in nearly all engagements. If your coordinated group is not capable of combatting a force 25% larger than you that isn't coordinated at all, then that is simply not the fault of the game. If you and the enemy are equally organized, of course the larger force will win! Battle tactics are extremely important, and there are many big clans in the game capable of absolutely destroying their enemies trough coordinated action. It doesn't even require all that much effort to beat an un-coordinated enemy. Just some basic communication by the platoon leaders to their squads, and the squad leaders to their troops.

There are PLENTY of oportunities for manouvering. Actually, I think the game lends itself better to it now that the latice has been introduced. Before, manouvering ment "go ghost-cap some other base". Now the tactics of manouvering are focused on the next base. Opening up second and third fronts by sending a sizable force to attack a base from the side and rear, cutting off the enemies road access with AT installations so that armored reinforcements cannot reach the besieged fortification, establishing AA screens to prevent enemy airsupport, and many other perfectly viable and interesting tactics that can be performed by a single squad, sometimes just a group of 3-6 people!

No, if you tire of the big battles you can't just go somewhere else on the map to avoid them and still get capture points. With the lattice system, every facility will have some sort of defence going on. That is a GREAT move though, because ghost capping is the worst form of pointless grinding... There are PLENTY of tactical oportunities within the new system, it is time to open your eyes to those posibilities.

You're basically saying I'm not allowed to disagree. Disagreeing is not the same as "forcing" people.

People are free to express whatever they want. Even if it's a completely insane suggestion, such as that SOE will roll back the Lattice.

However, I should be free to disagree with insane statements.

Could you please explain to me what metric the devs are going to use? I mean, apparently it's not true that the majority of people supports the Lattice, even tho every single conceivable metric points to exactly that very fact. Number of players on continents and every online PS2 community.
The evidence may be paltry, but it's evidence nonetheless. The evidence for your position is simply not to be found.

I think you are under the quaint and mistaken impression that the developers will choose whatever option that is best for the game over what the community wants. If that were the case we wouldn't have a continent with the lattice at this very moment.

But. We. Do. They're showcasing other continents with the Lattice. They've heavily invested. There is no reason, whatsoever, not in the slightest, to throw away these investments.

"Every single factor that could be interpreted as an indicator as to what the coming changes will bring point unequivocally to a Lattice-only PlanetSide 2."

These words, your very own, bring to bare yet another reason why there is no chance, ever, that they will turn back. Suggesting that they would turn back now, is tantamount to insanity.

Do you understand what I am saying? All elements in the equation point to only one outcome.

While there are undoubtedly issues that have been around in Hex and are just now being noticed, so too are there fun things/tactics/etc good things that were possible already in Hex but which are now being attributed to Lattice.

edit:

I actually agree here, to a point (I think Lattice introduced extra problems on top, like the nonsensical links in some places where geography and player habits suggest a possible attack route but the lattice denies it)..
but:
If the game is still fundamentally the same, when it comes to the flaws, as before.. why did Lattice get introduced? It didn't solve the root problems but did take development time that could have been spent on fixing the game instead.

Yeah opposed to wondering around different bases that have smaller numbers then you and capping those over and over again for no purpose just like the lattice. The old system the enemy never knew where to attack and this whole game has always been about having a zerg bigger then enemy zerg with or without lattice.

To be frank, I do not know. Online players behaviors, gains/drop over time, continent usage, etc.
What matters is that it's online anonymous stats.
But again, what they see now isn't cause for success/alarm as such a system would have impact only on the long term.
When they'll notice trends/valuable data, it will be too late for the game.

That is the most demoralizing thought I've ever seen.
What am I supposed to understand is that "They will not choose what is best for the game, only what is popular."
I understand too that you believe as well that the lattice isn't what's best for the game.
They made a point about preparing to roll back, you seem to think this was only PR lies?

You are just giving up on what we should demand and expect from game developers: Impartiality and better judgment.
They should do whatever is best for the game and the goal they have set for themselves.
They have stated that there objective was to have this game last for years, so decisions improving the long term should be made rather than rash changes with only short term gains like the lattice.

Maybe I'm too much of an optimist, but you seem like too much pessimistic.
We should not surrender without a fight. Are you french?

I don't think that Amerish or Esamir need the lattice system - I've never really had any issues finding a fight appropriate to the numbers I've been running with during an alert (except near the end of an alert when the writing has been on the wall and the losing side(s) have abandoned ship).

Indar however is an aberration. It is constantly derided as being the worst continent, and yet consistently had the most people and fights - at least on Briggs. It also had double the number of bases to capture.

I think there are several groups of people here:

• those that want straight up epic battles over everything else.
• those that want to use the meta-game to pull off strategic feints and pushes to meet some outfit/platoon leader defined goal.
• those that want their side to win at the current goal (map bonus) with whatever it takes.

Each of these groups has a valid point and can be a lot of fun - and I'd wager that most people will have a favourite group/playstyle but will swap between the others on occasion for a change of pace. Two of these accept the possibility with occasionally having unopposed, or lightly opposed, bases to take in order to further their goals; for the other group unopposed bases are the anti-thesis of their goals. The whole delayed-versus-instant gratification argument.
I personally think that we should have stayed with the hex system on Indar until after the physical map changes had been in for a fortnight or month. Or that the lattice system when introduced, have it be an XP bonus for following the capture line, but still allowed for people to go 'off the reservation' and attack a non-linked zone if they desired.

And I do know which metrics they're using. The metrics that caused them to abandon the hex in favor of the Lattice.

There's apparently this lala-land where they will change their mind, for not reason whatsoever. There is NO, literally not a SINGLE reason why the developers would change their mind.

Nothing you have said indicated otherwise. You have provided no evidence that the developers are going to ignore every single metric they have. As every single metric, ALL of them, EACH AND EVERY ONE, points to them having to keep the Lattice.

Please, if you wish to disagree, you are welcome, to but please try to refer to things that actually exist in the real world.
I am constantly referring to thing that we both, you and I, can observe. There is nothing in the real world, not one single, tiny thing, that supports the frighteningly naive notion you are clinging to.

The Hex is DEAD. IT IS GONE. GONE.

THE ONLY HOPE WE HAVE TO SEE THE HEX REMAIN IS TO BARGAIN FOR A COMPROMISE.

I'm very much prepared to fight. But I would like to fight a battle that we can win.

I think you would be very interested in my proposal for a game that features BOTH the Lattice and an improved Hex. More information can be found in my sig.

YOU HAVE CORRECTLY NOTICED THAT DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAVE DIFFERENT TASTES.

in response to OP and anyone that agrees with him:

you're kidding yourself if you think the game wasn't a numbers game from the very beginning. it always has been and always will be.

After playing indar for a whole while, all I can say is that I am not a believer. The fights had lots of people in them, yes. But they were in the majority major clusterf*cks. And that doesn't sound like "fun" to me. Sure, I love an epic fight like any other. The desperate push, the dramatic 300 last stand.

But I also want to progress, if not me advancing, but me looking at the map and seeing that while me and my mates have been tying up enemies in a stalemate in this base, a group managed to flank and capture around the enemy and now they are left sitting in a cut off base.
The epic fights over some piece of land are epic for one reason. They are rare. And if something becomes common, it stops being epic. We know we've hit a strange part when the definition of "epic" isn't a 100 man battle, but a 10 man skirmish over some distant piece of land. A fast, bloody fight. Where the outcome is decided not by a half an hour strangle, but a the pull of a blade. Where one mistake by one man can lead to his side losing it's footing.

That might sound "CoD" to most people. But if this small spit of land can mean a foothold for the larger forces to push onward. If this little nook can be just what is needed for a larger force to go by unnoticed to hit with surprise, then I have done my job.
The lattice in its current form severely restricts options. I was open to it being more... functional, but it simply restricts too much, there is little room for creativity.

And as a second thought of mine. People bring forth that Planetside 1 as if the golden thing to strive towards. I don't believe that. In fact I strongly feel that any such decision with the mind to strive towards PS1 is to be taken with a very severe and critical look. Last I checked PS1 pretty much died. For multiple reasons. I don't feel that is an example that needs to be followed so adamantly.

I find it strange that regardless of how organized a number of people are, if it is about 2 platoons and your not part of them then they are a "zerg".

If that is the case, then frankly I play this game for the zerg. I was fed up of the zergs either avoiding each other or keeping each other busy while 10 guys captured the 70% of the continent because it is empty. I was fed up of feeling penalised on the meta game for doing the one thing the game advertised.

1:1.25 seems to be about the absolute limit of population imbalance that can be managed under Lattice. Once the odds hit 1:1.5 it turns into a steamroller in one direction or another. There's very little "Strategic Planning" beyond adding up the number of troops in the Hex and then determining what moving your squads there will do to the numbers situation. I've yet to see a battle, on any front, that wasn't ultimately decided when several squads or platoons came flooding in from elsewhere on the continent. There have probably been Battles in the 1:1-1:1.25 population range that have been resolved by superior play, but I haven't seen them.

What happens, most of the time, is that a platoon will show up at a mostly even battle, through the numbers off, and initiate a steamroll.

Even if a force is very, very organized they still have to get to a point and sit on it long enough to cap. Which means they have to survive, usually for 5 minutes or more. Unless that group can kill enemies at something ridiculous like 5:1 or 10:1 ratios or get reinforcements to the capture point faster than the other team they will, eventually, lose.

The AT nests and "flanking" look cool when the odds are in your favor. It looks like you're accomplishing something. But really you're just speeding up the inevitable victory. If the odds are against you then you might slow down your defeat, maybe.

But really, what will happen is that someone will eventually get a sunderer or two past your AT position and then you'll have more enemies per minute than you can counter. And once the populations hit critical density all force multipliers disappear - Battles are too chaotic and close quarters for squad cohesion or player skill to matter. Any and all complexity bows before the might of C4 and pump shotguns.

Most of the time, with Lattice, when you get the appearance of fighting beyond your numbers what is really happening is that you have an incomplete picture of the tactical and strategic situation - It looks like you're kicking *** on your screen. On the big map you've got the enemy outnumbered, often times substantially. And when an enemy platoon moves into your lane and changes the odds to 1.5:1 or 2:1 against you're going to get steamrolled no matter how good you are.

The TLDR is - Small scale perceptions conceal the large scale reality that force multipliers don't work and tactics other than "Run sunderers at it" are largely irrevelent.

Put beautifully into words.

I cried.

So much for lattice somehow magically introducing a metagame. Good map and base design is what this game needs.

Were you expecting unicorns? Teritorries are much more defendable I'll tell you that. There's your metagame.

If you are finding it hard to leave fights that pass down lanes... aren't you admitting that the battles do have meaning? Command and orders chat are even more important now as people request reinforcements in specific lanes or bases. Personally, I hated the hex system. If the continents were 20,000 people apiece with hex population limitations or penalties, then yes, hex would be great for a wargame like PS2. But it just didn't work, and ghostcapping was boring and unfun and just bad gameplay. Many of the lattice links are natural and logical avenues of attack that many people took anyways. It is also easier for outfits to coordinate, as the only spots for territory capture are the dotted yellow lines. It isn't simplifying the game as much as it is chopping just unfun parts of the game.

I am loving the lattice and a lot of people in-game are, too. The only problem is that PS2, like PS1, is way ahead of its time. With lattice and the Helios merger, sometimes a battle can get so big that it's a stalemate that's largely unrewarding to fight in due to engine limitations and current game mechanics. I'm all for battles that stretch for hours or even days, but the current state of PS2 is such that battles that are too large are no fun for anyone aside from the random infiltrator with a 12x scope.

PS2: The most linear RPG ever.

See, when we complained about the spawnroom design IN TECH TEST, we were told by zerglings that "we should just go somewhere else".

No, we should have a proper spawnbuilding and base layout. We also should have less vehicles available per player and heavy tank numbers should be brought down, but that's a different concern (cert system and driver -/- gunner respectively).

This complaint has nothing to do with the lattice and has always been a key problem in PS2, lattice or not. You just didn't notice it as much before if you played "Evader'.