Why so many lattice links?

If we compare PS2 to PS1 we see that the number of lattice links has multiplied something like 10 times. Yet the land area and the number of real bases is still roughly the same. This means that the space we used to have for different tactics is simply gone. We are forced to follow these unimaginative links from one small area battle to an other one right around the corner. It's like playing Medal of Honor or Call of Duty, but instead of loading new map after winning, we walk to the next one.

Can we get rid of the outposts and unleash PS2's true potential? Make Planetside what it used to be! Draw the links between the bases, not outposts!

I kind of agree. But then what would they do with the hex/resource system? That must be adjusted to align with this concept first I think.

Oh man a thread about Lattice. This is entirely new and original.

Ah i see what you mean
A lattice/hex system

I would say what he is asking for is not the normal "lattice is awesome/sucks" thread. I have always said Indar is overcrowded with facilities and this really hurts moving vehicle combat. Having extensively played both PS2 (sit on a hill and shoot the enemy sitting on the opposite hill) and PS1 (drive it like you stole it) vehicle combat, I really prefer PS1's moving vehicle combat. It's more fun for me overall to weave around trees and cover while my gunner blasts away. The part that sucks is the MAG went from a low armor speed machine (PS1) to a floaty slow moving strafe turd mobile (PS2).

Well, no you don't. I actually would love to see the hex system gone for good. It was a failure. I suppose SOE thought Empires would fight over the resources, but that never happened. The hexes filled the map with unnecessary outposts, which diverted the action from capturing bases to capturing useless little outposts. At the same time it killed vehicle combat, which is nothing like what we had in PS1.

SOE should get rid of the zones all together. They could leave the outposts in the maps, but I wouldn't personally mind of they'd take the most, if not all, of them away too. Maybe they could leave the towers in place or something. The point is that there wouldn't be outposts, which Empires could capture. There could be neutral outposts for sure, but the idea is that the Empire looks at the map and sees where the next enemy base is and then they can approach it from any way they desire. If they go head on then that's fine. Unless there's enemy waiting for them. In that case they could flank the enemy through an other canyon or use other tactics. They wouldn't be forced to follow the current unimaginative lattice links (routes) from one outpost to another until reaching the base.

Now you might want to ask what is the importance of not being able to capture the outposts. The reason is that if you can't capture an outpost, then you can't spawn into it and use the vehicle spawns for vehicles. This promotes team play and gives new meaning for vehicles. You would have to bring Sunderers and you would have to protect them. The outpost spawns would simply ruin the thing.

There's a lengthy thread on this topic on PSU if you care to read it. I've put my input the most when it comes to this subject. Plan C: We keep both, the Lattice AND the Hex

Because there are so many open fields!

... what? you can't seriously consider them scattered buildings and boxes bases can you?

Looks to me like they realised linking bases is hard when there are none, so they linked all the open areas...

Obvious troll became obvious when suggesting that less choice = more tactics.

Exactly how many tactics are there in Tic Tac Toe? One. Go first, go centre. How many are there in connect 4? Three. Horizontal fork, diagonal fork, a combination of the previous two+vertical fork.

I could go through game theory and explain more board games, but it's pretty simple. The more choice given, the more room for strategy and tactics in any given game.

So in basic terms, its like a linking lane to a base ahead of the one your team is at
Love it, however removing an outpost will be pretty annoying

Youll have more choice....
Flank the enemy via that lane or go head on
atm its just head on

Looking through the first page of PSU there, it's very clear why the lattice has been implemented, and also why the head-in-ground veteran community believes they're in a 'vast majority' (when it's very clear that this forum at least is on the fence if not anti-lattice)... Devs spend -way- too much time on PSU and nowhere near enough time on their own official forums. Sad, to be honest. Really sad.

What is the primary goal of PlanetSide? To have massive scale battles or to attempt to control players into tactically/strategically placed positions located across the map?

Smed at one point in time in the past said there would never be a lattice. This was after many submissions of great pro-lattice ideas were put forward by forward thinking players. He said NEVER. Wonder what happened to never.

I would say that the amount of bases and outposts is fine and could even use some additional squad level defensive bunkers along the major zerg routes to add in attrition to a moving zergs order of battle.

Otoh I think that yes the space between each base and outpost is a bit condensed and could use a fair bit more separation.

I suppose that could only be done with a complete redo of the current maps but then again with the plan of adding in more and more continents there could be the original smaller continents we started with and addition larger continents that make even esf travel seem a bit slow to get from one side to another. Those could be island maps and give a use for those awesome fleet carrier pics that are floating(har) around.

As an outfit leader, and frequent fleet commander in EVE, for me it's the same thing. A massive scale battle isn't a massive scale battle if it's not organised. Or rather, one side that is organised is going to wipe the floor with the other side.

Even on small scale battles this is very obvious; look at scrimmages between actual clans on BF vs a few friends and the randoms that frequent their servers. Scale it up and what you essentially have is a Warhammer 40k battle where -every- soldier is their own Tyranid Termagaunt that automatically fails its base instinct test and runs towards the nearest enemy until it dies. It's not fun for the termagaunts, it's not fun for the players watching them fail at doing anything interesting, and it's purely down to a dice roll who wins. Now let one side get some Synapse creatures on the go, and you'd better be ready to watch all your fellow termagaunts die to a force that punches at 4 times their weight.

Don't get me wrong, this kind of leadership does still exist in the lattice system, even if it's less necessary. The problem is that it's like a off-on switch. Without leadership, you'll lose vs someone with leadership. With leadership vs someone with leadership, no matter the relative ability of your leaders, because they're just playing Tic Tac Toe, it's back to that roll off, instead of having any real strategic/tactical depth to it.

Massive scale battles were lacking with the hex adjacency system though. They happen more often with the lattice. There isn't so much a need to micro-manage your squad/platoon (or other players in your empire) because the lattice naturally make the attack vectors less in number.

We currently don't have a continent domination (locking) mechanic because of the 3-empire footholds. Once they add more continents and an inter-contienent lattice, then they can have empire home continents and get rid of the 3-empire footholds. This will allow for the continent locking mechanic. That will give the commanders a better reason to form tactics. This will produce less 3-ways, which typically are stalemate fights that go no where. Then the tactics that commanders can use will make a lot more sense.

You know, I was just thinking to myself "PS2, with it's 2,000 players per continent, isn't mind numbingly restrictive enough yet! We should make it more like a game with 500 players per continent and rubbish shooting mechanics!"

Why not just break it up by into 100v100 servers, create a map rotation, and have done?

+1 for 40k
Anyway, I never played ps1, but basicly each continent was a fight between just two empires? Was it one long line of continents to the home continent, or several? I could imagine some continents never being used.

There were less 3-ways in PS1 due to the inter-continent lattice design and home continents. Not saying 3-ways didn't happen though. But due to the inter-continent lattice an empire had options to attack other continents to break up the 3-way stalemates.