Are Devs ignoring the issues with how bad lattice has made the game?

Lattice needs tweaking but I do not miss the pre lattice evasive bs one bit.

Here we go once again.

PlanetSide 2 is a Massively Multiplayer first person shooter that delivers truly epic, massive combat on a scale never before seen in stunning, breathtaking detail.
That delivers truly epic, massive combat on a scale never before seen.
Massive combat on a scale never before seen
Massive combat
Massive Combat

mas•sive (ˈmæs ɪv)

1. consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy: massive columns.
2. imposingly large or prominent: a massive forehead.
3. large in scale, amount, or degree: a massive dose.
4. great in extent or profundity.
5. Mineral. having no outward crystal form although sometimes crystalline in internal structure.
[1375–1425; Middle English massif < Middle French; see mass1, -ive]
mas′sive•ly, adv.
mas′sive•ness, n.
Random House Kernerman Webster's College Dictionary, © 2010 K Dictionaries Ltd. Copyright 2005, 1997, 1991 by Random House, Inc. All rights reserved.

People can very well play Planetside 2 the way they want, but if you are here it should mean that you understand where the pedrigree, where the meat of the game is, and where its focus therefor will be.

@OP

They have tested recently the Conquest Mode, which also used Hex on its design, and it got bashed so hard and scrapped so fast that I hope the developers got a clear message.

We (by 'we' I mean the general populace that understands what this game is trully about) don't want this game to go back to the old days featuring all around 12x12/24x24 fights. Why we don't want that? BECAUSE THE MARKET IS OVERFLOWING, SATURED AND STAGNANT WITH GAMES THAT ALREADY OFFER THIS.

These come to mind; Call of Duty (pick one of the Lord knowns how many exist), Battlefield Hardline, Battlefield 3, Battlefield 4, Battlefront, Dirty Bomb, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Rainbow Six Siege, Squad, Team Fortress 2, Insurgency, Red Orchestra 2, Rising Storm, Verdun, Natural Selection 2, Interstellar Marines, Project Reality (Standalone now), ArmA 2, ArmA 3 and don't you worry, the next Call of Duty, Battlefield 5 and Battlefront 2 are already in production.

Some of these games are more arcadey, others more realistic, some offer small maps and others bigger, but they all share the same thing. Limited number of players in combat. Some of you want small scale combat then? Just pick one of those for crying out loud, there is more than enough options here for Christ's sake.

There is nothing right now in the market that comes near what Planetside 2 offers. Nothing, zero, nada. So why tha hell would some of you keep insisting in trying to transform this last bastion of large scale warfare hope into what already exists way, way too much?

Lattice does what it is intended to do, help sell the game the way it is advertized. I'm not saying however that lattice is perfect, because it is not, but when we get down to it the real problem with lattice is not actually lattice itself, not really - it is the base design. There's just too many bases grouped together, not enough space between them and some bases are too small and/or feature too many choke points - this is real problem.

When I log in to play Planetside 2 it is because i want to see CHAOS, an actual ******* battlefield, and that is exactly what I get with 100x100+ fights.

Honestly it is getting tiresome having to state the obvious for some, so don't even bother replying. Agree me with? Good, if not fine also. Just please, next time you download a game make sure you read its description and understand what you are signing up for.

Hey could you try and be just a little more condescending please?

^Listen to this guy.

Next time you want to respond to me, two things,

1. pull ya head out of your backside an stop trying to talk down to people as if your something.

2.multiplayer does NOT mean everyone has to play in one spot. Its designed for people to do what they want. The Lattice system came bout because all the little forum warriors screamed high n low that it wasn't fair a inf could make them miss out on point farming to take back points he had turned.

Enjoy your game "your" way...

Strawman, ad hominem and one lovely texas sharpshooter. Nice!

You known.. I honestly said to myself I would just post and leave but after such monoric post (I'm just returning the favor here btw) you Sir deserve a more special treatment. Let us begin then.

1) Nowhere in my post I direct some sort of insult or as you put "talk'ed down" on anyone. If you or anyone else felt insulted by what I wrote there it is because that's how you want it to be (if you plan on sticking around internet forums by the way you better make sure you have a thicker skin than this). I'm simply being very clear about what not only is of course my personal opinion but what are the cold hard facts behind the game ideas and creation (which by the way you completely decided to just ignore and go after cheap tactics, bravo).

2) What hell are you talking about? Did you even read what I wrote? "multiplayer does NOT mean everyone has to play in one spot? "Its designed for people to do what they want"? "The Lattice system came bout because all the little forum warriors screamed high n low that it wasn't fair a inf could make them miss out on point farming to take back points he had turned."?

What is this nonsense?

While you can of course do "whatever you want" inside a multiplayer game you are still somewhat bound by its rules and ideas and gameplay. The lattice system did not came to be due to "little forum warriors crying", it came to be due to the fact that the system we had before was resulting in gameplay that completely contradicts the very basic idea behind the game creation, nothing more nothing less.

And as a final note, you should be the one to take a step back and reconsider your "position" around these parts. You come in here after X time and start spouting on the forums your wrong "opinion" (yes, an opinion can be wrong despite what the current SJW's circles says) as if you are the holder of the truth and what you say is correct, while meanwhile showing complete ignorance on what trully happened with the game during the years and worst of all, what is the core concept behind Planetside 2.

Now I'm done, promise. Thank you for reading.

They're dinking around with these Victory points instead of even discussing K/D farmers, medals, & self destructive incentives on Zerging.

Infact they haven't acknowledged any of those things in the 2 years you've been gone, and Radar just started LOCKING certain discussions about how their systems were encouraging Team-Stacking & stale lattice flow

What does that tell you about the chances of it changing in the next month??

I had you ignored for some strange reason.... eh all good. I never expected SOE to ever take much notice iller. They really do. But you never know miracles could happen lol

I 100% agree.

Please do not put Arma 3 in that category though. That is a truly decent high quality game.

It is rare that games are of such high quality. Arma 1 and 2 were also amazing at the time and with really good campaigns and......look what you've done to meeeeee

That category wasn't in this case an example of "bad games" or low quality ones (although there is certainly more than a few there). It was just a list of some titles that came to my mind which offer a more small scale approach (player number wise compared to Ps2). I have over 200h in ArmA 3!

Also just a small tip here for you and anyone else that reads. When quoting a post that is too long like mine, create the quote, but delete everything inside and/or just leave the parts you wanna talk about. Otherwise the topic will look messy .

Ah right yeah. I was half joking anyway.


I tend to come on here to entertain myself while working. I work from roughly 2am-7am ish becasue i am insane like that.

I will do that though. It is pure laziness not to lol.

I believe the old hex map feature could work really well if this game had any semblance of logistics gameplay. With current way of easy redeployment, easy vehicle spawns from almost anywhere, very fast air travel across entire map with little counters (flying high is usually safe) - it breaks the potential strategic value of hex territory control. It makes random battles in middle of nowhere too easy

Of course making this game's logistics matter is much more difficult than creating imaginary restrictions on battle paths

The downside of simplistic solutions like this is more boring gameplay, less potential for player control, less emphasis on player decision making

Yeah I don't get how asking for a little freedom and diversity in where we fight means we're trying to transform the game into 20vs20 shooter. He just went WAY overboard, and his tone and statements are just way inflammatory and trollish. Basically anyone who doesn't have his opinion is wrong.

And if we used marketing materials to make game decisions...uhhh yeah, that wouldn't always be the best thing to do.

How about this.
Lattices are maintened by a building, overload that building, and the hex can be caped by the ones surrounding it?
In a way, if a hex is too hard to capture through lattice, overloading its lattice protector open it to attacks from all sides?

Once again, PlanetSide 1 has the answer. The lattice is for bases. Towers and other small facilities should not be part of the lattice. There should also be ways to capture bases without a link (ala base drain). That would give the game some much needed strategic depth (what n00bs call "metagame").

The frontline/flow of battle nonsense turns PS2 into a lobby game like Counter Strike. Now we load this map. Then the next map. There's no reason to have a massive open space if the space is meaningless.

I slightly disagree with there being no point in the bases currently not connected with lattice. Since we have infiltrators its a common thing for small outfits to go behind enemy lines to a base and pull armor to flank their armor or AA. Theres also some small strat to leap frogging getting people ready to start the next base cap. Tho i understand what your trying to say the fact that theres more than one lattice and your not forced in only one direction but a choice between few granted theres choice is just less than what some people want and theres some bases that hardly ever have battles as yesterday i fought at a base ive never had a fight at before in northern indar because nobody ever manages to push that far.

Personally i think the Lattice hex hybrid system they were testing for the battleground thing would be the ideal set up where lattice only goes between major facilities and then the small bases surrounding it are on a hex system if your touching it on the hex you can cap it.

yah ... well first ... like us here .... they have to be willing to open up the Dialog again.
Welcome Back in any case...

its' probably for some smack talk I was doing over FCRW or GlorinN the first year.
...all that bad blood is long gone now

I do know that, because that's how the game is marketed and sold. What you play it for and what the developers are selling are two completely different things. The developers need to make good on their product, not your individual desires.

This. The game is designed for massive combat first and foremost. If it heavily favored, encouraged, or unintentionally errs battles more towards the 20v20 bracket, players might as well migrate to Star Wars Battlefront 3 for a slightly superior experience. People coming in here with the intention of ignoring the meat of the game in favor of capping something without resistance or even light resistance? They're not the target audience. Not by a long shot.

The current lattice setup IS problematic in that terrain more often than not causes stalemates more so than the lattice. Quartz ridge is only impossible to take because it's a well designed choke. There ARE paths around it... but the fight isn't on those paths, and people do want to fight. Y'see, in the old hex, it wasn't that zergs didn't want to fight, it was that between herd mentality and the aimless, directionless morons running off in a tank acted as a leash for the rest of the zerg. Science has proven that only 10% of a crowd need to move somewhere else and the rest will follow without thinking about it. One guy is 10% for ten, and those ten are the 10% for the the other 90 in their zerg. Snowball effect.

We've been asking for a hybrid hex/lattice system for a while now though. Lattice only on bases, hex on towers and outposts. Lattice linked bases can take adjacent hexes, but hexes can only influence the capture speed or otherwise something important about the base.

Of course, this is DGC we're talking about. Anytime we come up with an idea and actually start to agree on it, they mark it off as something not worth even experimenting with. But then lately that's how all developers seem to make their decisions anymore - playing the ruin-a-wish game, only they don't seem to realize their profit margins are on the line.

back in the day was just a game where ghost capping was the biggest thing lol