If devs did not want to create the game as we have it now, which is zergfest, they would create another Dust 514 with arenas of 16 vs 16 players.
ok then, what is your definition of a zerg? a random amassment of random players moving in the same direction, or an outfit's squad(s)/platoon(s)? because theres a huge difference. also with hex, one can divide his squad/platoon to cover as many bases on the front line as possible, only coming together when heavy resistance is met. with lettuce, such a thing isnt possible
That little drop in july has more to do with summer vacation than lattice. People play less in summer, it's a common trend in all MMOs I've played so far.
And that's why Hex system is terrible. This is ghostcapping. Right now you don't have to split up to find resistance because you have it all the time. Huge amount of players at the same location.
You are incapable of doing this with the lattice? Does no one in your squad possess Spawn beacons, the ability to pull transports, or legs? Here's the thing, tweaking the hex system to work was going to be difficult. Devise a system by which the freedom of the hex would allow for defense and reducing the avoidance of combat and ghost capping... now don't use the term: "Boost XP" while you are at it for extra challenge, because that isn't fixing anything, that's simply bribery. Now lets look at the lattice, how do you add freedom to the lattice to allow for more strategic decisions: A system by which lattice links are removed or added. This kind of system would not have worked in the hex, because with unrestrained movement any preventine measure would be as meaningless as any defense. Conversely, on the lattice if you can deactivate links or use a router to Add links between adjacent territories... you now have a system by which the lattices's channeling and the Hex's mobility are both there. And what is the difference between this proposed system and the proposed hex fixes? Well for one, it's already been discussed and approved by the dev team. We have already had confirmation that LLUs will be part of the game, this means that we have the potential for base captures being done via the removal of a computer core and it's reprogramming... potentially at bases that are not connected to the front line even.
People can't even agree on the definition of "ghostcapping". To some, it means capping a base with no defenders, regardless of how many attackers there are. That is not the fault of the attackers. And for that matter, this still happens in Lattice. To others, "ghostcapping" means flipping a point and leaving, letting the hex flip on its own. This wasn't possible at all originally. Everyone that remembers [1/6] will understand what I mean. That functionality was removed because PS1 fanboys wanted "predictable" countdown timers so they knew how much time they had left to re-secure a base (like ASAP wasn't good enough!?) So this definition of "ghostcapping" was not even possible when I started playing PS2. It was a mechanic introduced to PS2 because it worked so well in PS1 and for no other reason. But as we can see with all the crying about ghostcapping, it broke more than it fixed. And let me state that this form of "ghostcapping" still occurs on Lattice as well. So Lattice didn't fix any form of "ghostcapping" and blaming "ghostcapping" on Hex is becoming cliche. And shortsighted of those that bring it up as reason #1 for getting rid of Hex.
BullSh!t. You can not make a statement like that and expect it to be true. Fixing hex was never tried, so you can't possibly know how hard it would have been. And something that is hard for one person, is easy for another. All SOE ever did was slowly break Hex to implement PS1 mechanics Look at what I underlined. THAT is the problem with PS2. With Hex, there was no reason for a Platoon commander to throw himself at a dug in enemy when he could split up his force and take 5 or 6 times more territory in the same time it would take to dislodge said dug in enemy. And the REAL problem is that there is no reason to take any particular base. And this still applies to Lattice. For example, my outfit runs 2 to 3 squads on Op nights. If we fight on Indar and move up a Lattice line and reach a split, our decision process is this: Where do we go now, so that we aren't bored, adequatly challenged but not facing impossible odds? So we look at populations in bases to decide where to go. We don't look at what the base provides, or takes away from the enemy. THAT is what is broken in PS2. Defenses in Hex never happened because there was NO MEANING to a defense. And this still applies in Lattice. Our outfit will jump Lattice lines or pick our next objective based on not overpopulating a fight or not letting ourselves get ROFLSTOMPED by a massive enemy zerg. The bases themselves HAVE NO MEANING! I enjoy PS2 for the FPS so I still play it. But as far as meta-game, whatever that means to different people, PS2's strategic decision making process breaks down to: "Where do I go so I have a chance to win?". That's IT. In Hex, which is not perfect and a shadow of what it once was, this still applies for people that just want FPS. But for people that want more, Hex offered more. Do you have a source for that claim? That LLU's are a done thing? I keep up to date on these forums and on PSU and I have never heard anything of the sort confirmed.
That was the challenge, devise a system. Fix the problem. You have a brain, mull it over a while. And this goes back to the fundamental problems of the hex I discussed in post 1. How to make a meta for PS2: Add a meaningful resource system and add a intercontinental lattice. There we go. This is unrelated to the system by which territory capture is determined. As to "Checking populations" yes, you check populations on the lattice to see where you will be able to contribute. Yet here is the thing, in the hex people were able to, and did avoid fights all the time based on that. Because of this, unless you were limited to just a few territories, you would have a spread out battle line that was only coherent if you were on a server large enough to pop lock a continent. The way this was countered was 100% of the time: Going around the line. The 1 time out of 100 that it worked and people would punch through the line it was nice, but that was by and far the exception to the rule. Why do that, when you could simply go around people? And again, with fights much more spread out, and combat pretty much REQUIRING an outfit, people without outfits would just go find reliable easy fights... crowns, biolabs, and sit there for hours... reducing the population around the map and making captures meaningless. Check the MLG videos. I think it was Day 2 with Clegg, following his reveal about the infiltrator updates, though back in one of the FNOs (I THINK it was 33, but I'm not 100%) the subject was brought up, and Clegg talked about it for a couple minutes.
I dont get the hate. Before i tried it, i thought the lattice was going to be horrible! i made a number of post saying how bad it was going to be. Now i'm excited for it, the gameplay is so much better. I really dont understand the problem the detractors have with the lattice. Most complaints i read seem superficial and based on theory than actual gameplay. I'm sure the devs thought th ehex was the best way to go to, but obviously they were proven wrong. We have no one to blame but the playerbase for the failure of the hex. We just didnt play it the right way. From "return to warpgate" commanders, to cert farmers- we didnt play the map to conquer it like the devs thought, so they had to change it.
And I'm saying that giving bases importance would have made Hex work just fine because people WOULD fight against defenders to obtain or deny the importance of said base. Instead of what we had, which was nothing. Territory control alerts on Hex maps (Esamir, Amerish) proved this time and again. You can't go around a line. You go around a POINT. That is what people fail to understand. Defenders would dump their population in one base and then cry foul when the enemy flowed around it. It's like throwing a rock into a river and then crying because the river didn't stop because of the rock. People played dumb defense and then cried when it failed. Now we have a game mechanic that forces dumb defenses to work all the time. If you can't see how that is a travesty, then I don't know what to say. Captures are meaningless in Hex. Captures are meaningless in Lattice. Everything is meaningless. Lattice didn't give anything meaning. You are putting Lattice on a pedestal made of smoke.
Why? They could just go around the well defended ones like always and go to the less defended ones that were of equal importance. Why would that problem disappear in this utopian hex? Your straw man binding skills are very good, but that doesn't mean you've actually stated anything of value here. You could go around a line in the hex. How: The battle lines formed in the hex, along the boundaries of enemy territories were only going to be as good as the population density of the map. If you had a high population server, enough people could be crammed into a continent that it became pop locked. At this point you would maybe have enough people to form a cohesive boundary. Even when this did happen though, there would usually be one edge territory that were either undefended or less defended than the others. Rather than go through the line, fight through people, the common tactic was to go Around the battle line by attacking these outlying territories with one organized outfit who had enough people to overwhelm that single territory. Then it was a matter of using that point to spread out behind all the work being done at the front line. As territories were surrounded, it became harder to hold them and they would fall. Now if this were some kind of tactic you see happen every so often it would work.. but this is universally how every fight in the hex ended. It didn't matter if you defended a territory, you would just have people go around you and ignore you to capture everything where you weren't. It made delaying people in fights the thing to do, because it meant more territory could be captured. It was and is the inception of ghost capping nonsense. You delayed people defending so you could capture more undefended territory. I have not once said that the systems add meaning to anything, the debate about the hex and the lattice is about the merits of the system. Again I have said multiple times: the intercontinental lattice and the resource system are meta game adding systems... the lattice and the hex are just territory acquisition. When I said: "It made captures meaningless" you are well aware, that I mean that the captures were made easier and thus the skill to capture the territory is less. It had nothing to do with saying that the lattice makes things more meaningful. Difficult maybe, but not more meaningful.
No need to dramatize the issue by adding things like "utopian". If you can't defend with facts, then don't bother with drama. As for "importance", you can't have something be important if everything is equal. If that was the case, then nothing would be important. By making some bases more important than others, it gives the options for those outfits that want to sit on a base and let the enemy come to them to happen. And it will, because that base is IMPORTANT. The other bases will get their battles, or not. The predictability that people crave from Lattice will exist AND the ability to play armchair commader will exist for those that want that too. Your strawman binding skills are equally very good. You imply that the problem with Hex is people aquire territory too easily, without fighting for it. By imlying that, you imply that Lattice is the opposite. Which is quite the strawman. The lattice is a yo-yo of color as faction populations push up and down various lanes based on how easy it is. What I observe on Lattice is a particular lane will get pushed until it gets way past the "middle", then an enemy faction will build up forces and resist it until the attackers give up and go fight on some other "easier" lane. The defenders then become the attackers and push the lane all the way back to the middle (or further) with little resistance. Lattice doesn't make taking territory harder than Hex does. Lattice doesn't prevent zergs (lets assume that means 2:1 or 3:1 numerical advantage) from easily taking terriory. It just doesn't. All I see is zergs hitting zergs then going to another lane. Or farming certs with no intent to actually push an objective. In other words: - Taking base 1: This is boring, there's no resistance. - Taking base 2: This is boring, there's no resistance. - Taking base 3: This is boring, there's no resistance. - Taking base 4: Ahh, finally some resistance. Starting to have fun. - Taking base 4 (5 mins later): WTF, whe are outnumbered 3:1. - Losing base 4: This is stupid - Losing base 3: Screw this, lets switch lanes. - And loop back to the top to repeat the process over and over and over and over and over. BUT! Give bases meaning, like a facility alert and the battles get INTENSE. But why is that? Umm, because bases have meaning, maybe? And when those facility alerts include Esamir and Amerish... are they less fun than Indar only? Nope. Just as fun. Just as hard. Just as meaningful. Because it all has meaning. A timed objective with a big fat reward if you do well or squat if you do poorly.
SOE added in ghost capping on hex and it could be removed just as easily, ghost capping is still done on lattice and virtually anyone who uses it as an excuse to defend lattice is less than smart, its just a soundbyte they throw out to distract us from discussing the real issues of lattice vs hex ignore them, they have nothing else to argue with.
Like using "Bullsh!t" as your first word of a response, is that dramatic? I've presented my points, I'm challenging you to come up with a system if you think that is something that can be done. Regardless of your points you, as of yet, have even mentioned one. I mean "Make bases important" That's not very useful. For the 3rd time now, the importance of base capture is something that will be covered in the resource revamp and the intercontinental lattice. Well no, a straw man is ignoring the core of an issue to argue some small part of it. By misrepresenting your opponents position, you then refute what isn't the actual point of what someone else is trying to say and declare victory. Like say for example: When I said that you could go around the line you said: "You can't go around lines, you go around points!" which makes positively no sense when you put that out in the open, all by itself, as you seem to be stating that we're talking about the mathematical definition of a "Line" as in, an object that extends on into oblivion, and not the "Battle Line" which is what it was actually referring to. Me saying: "The hex was a mess of back capping and combat avoidance" isn't a strawman, because I'm not misrepresenting your side of anything. I'm stating my opinion. You also take plenty of time to assume my implications... I am not implying that territory capture on the lattice is easier or harder than it was in the lattice. I am stating problems with the hex system. For the 4th time now, meaning to bases is the resource system and the intercontinental lattice. Alerts are a stop-gap between these more substantial systems. It's a bandaid that should be pulled off the moment something more substantial is put in place. As to the quality of "Fun" on esamir and amerish in alerts... well you can't really quantify that. I prefer alerts on Indar. The only reason I go to Amerish and Esamir these days is for a change of scenery. I find them less fun than Indar, because it's just ghost capping and fight avoidance, unless you are hit by overwhelming numbers. Plus, beyond the facility capture alerts, when you get to continent capture alerts, it's going to become a mass ghost capping festival, so why bother? And as to preventing zergs... no the lattice doesn't prevent zergs. Neither does the hex. Neither does any system that works in territory acquisition that I know of. That comes down to weapon design and organization. Again, unrelated issues to the territory acquisition system we use in the game.
Thats why I won't be playing anymore. I bought my annual Auraxium based on hex gameplay on Esamir.. Now with the changes, and nerfs to gameplay style choice, the addition of alerts (which concentrates Zerg as well), the lattice will be the final straw. I'll only play off and on now, when I get the urge to FPS something, and then get bored and log out. Soon after, I'm sure it will be uninstalled. PS2, much like PS1, could have been my stopgap between TF and TF2(re PS1), or the Team Fortress sequel that should have been (sci-fi based), or what ET: Quake Wars could have been but had no numbers. People just like deathmatch, what can i say..
Probably is, and you have a point there. I did intend to be dramatic because I wanted to point out how your statement was a flat out lie by ignorance. As in, you can't say something is impossible when it has never been tried. I could come up with a system. It would probably be flawed, but others would add to it to fix the flaws. And so on, and so forth. If you look at my posts, you'll see that I wail at what could have been. I am no longer saying, "get rid of Lattice", because I am observant enough to know that will never happen at this point. Doesn't mean I am not going to play forumside and point out all the flawed logic that led to this point. Such as... Will intercontinental lattice give meaning to base capture? So when 2 or 3 factions are fighting over a map and they have the option to go left or right, will a particular base have a priority because of intercontinental lattice? No, that is wishful thinking. An intercontinental lattice will only allow factions to lock out other factions from certain maps. It's like keeping score... I have 2 maps, you have 1, I'm winning. Problem is there is no end game, so a week later the tables turn... You have 2 maps, I have 1, I'm losing. For now. The lame thing is, bases, tanks, aircraft and so on are not force multipliers. What that ultimately means is, the faction with the most population gets to win. Until they lose the population advantage. Then they get to lose. How will intercontinental lattice change that in any way? Oh, I'll have 2 continents instead of 2 bases. Yay... big difference. What if I really LIKE Amerish, but my faction has it locked so there is no enemy there? I'm forced to fight on Indar? Or Hossin? Or whatever? So if I want to fight on Amerish, I have to make my team lose? Or I faction switch to the team that is closest to contesting Amerish? Boy, sounds like fantastic gameplay. Moving on... will the resource revamp give bases meaning? Maybe, if SOE learns their lessons. Or maybe not at all. Regardless, the point I want to make is that a resource revamp that DOES affect bases, would work equally well in Hex. I was not referring to a mathematical definition of a "line". I was referring to a battle line, as you define it. Let me ask you, "If you have a battle line that goes from border to border, how does the enemy go "around"? Do they have access to out of bounds hexes in order to gain adjacency and avoid your forces? Where I said "point" you could replace with "base". One base is not a "battle line". That is what I was trying to make you understand. Holing up in one base with your entire outfit and watching as the enemy goes around you means you were NOT forming a battle line. If you did have a battle line, then it was either incomplete or in the wrong place. And that's how battles work. When you have something like Lattice, you no longer have battles, you have games, matches, tournaments. Except in games things are made fair. You get 2 players, I get 2 players. Etc... In PS2 with Lattice, this is ignored. "Here, we'll force people to go thru a series of matches. If one team doesn't bring enough players, tough. Har har har derp." So what I am saying is, all the "problems with the hex" that you explain..... still exist in Lattice. So how is that a fix? I am not trying to advocate stopping zergs. Not at all. I don't know where you get that. If that is what the majority want, then by all means, go for it. As for Esamir and Amerish being a game of fight avoidance and backcapping... that says volumes about how the game is played. I played on Esamir last night. There was a reputable NC outfit that was trying to cap bases and my outift did nothing but follow them around to stop them, or die trying. We chased an outfit that tried to "go somewhere else" and forced the fight. Over and over. How is that fight avoidance? And it was a heck of a lot of fun. "Where are they now? Where are they going?" "Hurry up, we have to get over there before they finish the cap." I don't know where you get this "fight avoidance" thing from. I'd be questioning the leadership of my platoon/outfit if that was typical.
I've reiterated my same points to the point I'm tired of retyping them. We're arguing parallel points that are in no danger of intersecting anytime soon, most likely because of communication issues. So, Sure: Your absolutely right. Good show. Every one of those implied insults. The overt ones. The fact that I have squirrels in my shoes that tell me what to do. The things that didn't make any sense. The logical fallacies used to cover logical fallacies. All of it. Mission accomplished!
First of all, thanks for that image. Would most likely not be able to see the intricate shades of blue if it wasn't 1,8MB. Second, it's still possible to select a battle based on enemy presence and make strategical choices to block or to let go in Lattice. You just have less options to choose from. Not to mention the "dynamic" you seem to imply is to only choose between the 2 factions, which obviously is still possible, even if it was a lattice of 3 links.
