[Suggestion] To: The Developers (Possible replacement for Lattice system)

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by Destroyer0370, May 12, 2020.

  1. Destroyer0370

    Perhaps allow us to capture any region surrounding ours, as long as we are connected to the warp gate by way of other areas touching ours that leads back to it. This is to simulate, like in real life, an open corridor/supply line to not allows us to be cut off.

    The same idea of capture, as in if we already started capture we can continue it even if our region beside the region that we are capturing has begun to be taken by enemies( it is in game now).

    2. I was thinking also that maybe make planes, the empire specific fighters, able to drop their fuel pods/rocket pods/like attachments, giving them more maneuverability+speed as in reality. Just something for more depth of game play. Not sure if it is feasible though with PS2's program. You could put it in Planetside 3 if that comes around one day!

    3. Construction. With the construction system...it could be a better idea to split it into Permanent structures(building of tech plants, or so) and Tactical structures(destructible items from most enemy fire) . i.e. Tactical can be built anywhere, including beside/join up on the permanent structures. Tactical structures, need to be repaired if taken damage, still they have a fairly decent resistance. You introduced the cortium bomb, with howling mining laser...those are even more effective to taking down the tactical builds.
  2. FateJH

    Your first idea, that's just the Hex System with an unremarkable addition.
  3. Destroyer0370

    Hi. Nope. The hex system, even when another area is adjacent, can/does not allow in many instances for it to be captured.
  4. Demigan

    Could you explain that in more detail? The Hex system worked through adjacency: if you own the adjacent hex you can capture that base. The only change you seem to have made from my POV is that you cant capture it if said hex cannot be connected to the warpgate through other owned Hex's.

    2: would be nice but having some actual changes to the system is more important. Also you would need a way to regain your secondaries or it would only be useful if no-secondary ESF's are superior fighters.

    3: I would like it if players are encouraged to build a functional base that encourages fights instead of murder-holes that discourage it. You would have to make the (semi)permanent structures serve a purpose and have some rules/uses for their deployment to make players want to fight there. A place for an enemy Sunderer that the attackers can fight for, a few routes through the base to a certain key object that keeps the permanent structures intact. Maybe you can make the structures power nearby modules of the base? And some structures dont power nearby modules but offer local support, like firesupport or something? That way players naturally build their base:
    Step one, build the silo.
    Step 2, build semi-permanent structures radiating away from the silo. You want to space these out as far as possible to get the most surface-area for your modules.
    Step 3, build modules, walls and turrets thhat help defend the base. Some modules like the spawntube turn a building into a miniature spawnbunker if placed in a certain spot.
    Step 4, build larger semi-permanent structures. These can provide bonusses to the region. Placing Indar Comm array sensors could give more intel on spotted targets in the region and surrounding regions for example. Or simply placing one of those teleportation-houses often used to get into biolabs could let you teleport players long distances into other PMB's or towards special pads placed or captured inside bases in the region.
  5. TRspy007

    Post this on Twitter or the Planetside 2 sub-reddit, if you want the ever-so-slight possibility of a dev reading it.


    This lattice system was supposed to be a "temporary fix" while they worked on solutions to rework the system in detail. Obviously, that wasn't the case.
    • Up x 1
  6. Destroyer0370

    yes, that is it. But I do not see it as a "Hex" system, not like in the past anyway, since you must be connected to the warp gate.

    ..and for my previous post, I was thinking of lattice system with the reply, was mixing them up together, so oops!
  7. adamts01

    This game used to be that way, but armies never clashed the way they do now. We need lanes to create fights. That said, I hate the current system. Look up they hybrid hex that cyrius proposed.
    • Up x 2
  8. Blam320



    Cyrious has good ideas now and then, but ultimately he just panders to his YouTube audience of salty vets who hate the developers' guts.
  9. adamts01

    He's hit and miss. But I think he's right about the hybrid hex.
  10. TR5L4Y3R


    way i see it (and i may or may not have talked about it already i don´t quite remember), hybrid hex would have it´s own issues were theoretically a zerg could as well siege a base by capturing the hexes around it and just starve it without the attacking side needing to engage the defenders at all .. and the defenders would need to be more active .. .. defending in this game is already hard enough were the game is more about continueous basecapture than basedefense ... take the hard lanes away and people will always go for path of least resistance ..

    first and foremost besides having options of approach we want to have engaging fights, that is the number one priority ...

    the old hexsystem already cleary showed how players are willing to forgo active engagemeant to pressure the other factions to split manpower over the map .. and of course territorycontrol should be a priority .. but that way it caused too much of a cat and mouse play that isn´t fun nor engaging for your average player ..

    the other problem with the old hexsystem was how rather easy it was to cut off captured territory of the enemy ..
    that by itself is of course a valid strategy .. but again it has been exxecuted in a way to not engage the opponent directly or just meet minimal resistance while doing so ... ...

    take the lattice away and change the hexterritorycapture to be purely adjacent you still ,even if to a smaller degree than before, will bring the old issues back ... there needs to be a ballance between giving a faction the option to attack their enemy from various directions but also be forced into a frontline ... take the latice away you may open up to many directions were the enemy can be attacked from and that way territorydefense might be too difficoult again if not impossible ...

    so long the assets used for combat (infantry weapons, vehicles, aircraft and basefortifications) are not well ballanced then imho opening up the map in such a way is too drastic and detrimental to the game ...
  11. adamts01

    Surrounding a base should do something. Not cap it, but maybe half the cap time or remove turret ability? The thing I love about small territories up to and around bases is it gives vehicles something to fight over on the way to the next base, as well as around the base instead of being useless while infantry do everything. Give vehicles that mission and they can ease up on their ability to fight within the base, which I'm sure 90% of players would approve of.

    Removing the lattice wouldn't solve the problems of no reason to fight over non-base territory and won't give vehicles something useful in the meta.

    Edit: I've got this other crazy idea too. Bases are typically pretty ****, just 1 or 2 choke points you have to grenade spam or max crash through. And 1 or 2 power positions you have to hold. I think if they removed spawn rooms once a base is being attacked, then remove the capture points and fill the base up with a bunch of tiny hexes, as well as the hexes around the base for vehicles. The solves sieging a base without even fighting in it. It spreads the fight out over the whole base, and lets you fight over every inch as you clear a base. This would also require more places to park sunderers. Oh, and it fixes spawn camping, spawnroom snipers, and spawnroom burster maxes.
  12. Johannes Kaiser

    In theory it sounds good, but is just too vulnerable to exploitation. That would be a shurefire way for any zerg to make sure they come in 7/3 and win in a landslide, with no defender reinforcements possible.
  13. adamts01

    So, this crazy world working relies on a few things.

    Fights between the 3 factions need to be better balanced. The best way to do this is adjust XP relative to your target's territory held. So if VS owns the whole map, you'd get 100xp for killing a Prowler and 10,000xp for killing a Mag. Combine this with territory up to, around, and past a base mattering, this means a fight on a front will never disappear. Combined with an even split of every fraction fighting each other, tha js to the XP modifier, abandoning a lane to zerg another will mean as much territory lost as gained.

    The downside to this is balanced territory system is that most fights would be at the same central bases. But that's kind of the case anyway. At least there would be fights in the open instead of just at bases.
  14. TR5L4Y3R



    allowing vehicles to be capable to fight in bases is a matter of basedesign and vehicle vs infantry ballance .. it doesn´t realy require the latticesystem to be changed ... and again if you give vehicles the option to weaken a base with current ballance you again screw the defenderside over ..




    no, xp changes to territory would do squad for ballance .. infantry as a whole simply need more antivehicle options for one (maxxes need to be reballanced and vehicles themselves need adjusmeant aswell as more turretoptions)

    instead xp gain should be done simply by damage dealt, this is already the case for damaging Vehicles, it needs to be aplied to infantry as well, not just as killassists .. it would encourage players more to engage the enemy in fights than to only go for the clear kill .. but realy i don´t see how a xpincrease on enemy territory held should motivate a player or platoon in any way ..
    also once the faction that was on a territorial disadvantage then got the upper hand that xpgain diminishes, wouldn´t it? ... so on a ballanced popfight and territory how should that again motivate a group?

    rather in that case a XP increase should just be were opposing factions are the most active or were territorrial boarders are close together (were you have a clear frontline), better yet increase XP on a team/faction were planetmans can and go for deepstrikes to cut off enemy territory ..
  15. adamts01

    You can't ever balance vehicles without having an end goal in mind. What's the current goal of this game? The only goal? Killing infantry on and around a tiny point room. If vehicles can't do that, they don't serve much purpose. That's why adjusting the lattice system is critical. Mini hexes in between and around bases give vehicles something to fight over that isn't a point room. As long as a point room as all that matters, vehicles need to dominate infantry, as they have a cost and need to be a force multiplier.

    The idea with the XP thing is to keep the map relatively balanced. There's a terrible meta of one team getting dou letramed to their warpgate with no chance to win an alert, and they then chose who to screw over. Ideally every faction would have a chance to win, and encouraging everyone to attack the faction in the best position is the way to do that. Your XP thing is dealing with a micro problem, not macro. How XP is dished out on a micro level is an entirely different conversation.