A solution to the Lattice/Hex issue.

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by DramaticExit, May 29, 2013.

  1. DramaticExit

    Prepare for a massively long post. I'm sorry.

    We all know that there is a lot of disagreement over this on this forum. It's been filled with people ranting and raving on about it... The pro-lattice guys repeating the words "but it prevents ghost capping" ad nauseum, the anti-lattice people saying "but it restricts our strategic freedom and makes the game too predictable" until they're blue in the face. It's all very tiring.

    Personally, I'm no fan of the lattice system. It feels contrived and means people don't have to think as much. That's a shame in my mind. I liked the fact unexpected things could and did happen. I liked key points and large fights being defined by players strategic thinking, rather than a set of railroad tracks... But I can see why people found the hex system frustrating. Having one dude flying around in an ESF and flipping points is annoying... Sure. Platoon leaders who guide their platoon around and avoid combat at all costs are kinda boring... I agree.

    But there are solutions. Lattice and Hex are not the only two possibilities.

    __________________________

    Somewhere on these forums, someone posted something brilliant. This genius of a man proposed a way forward, something to break the stalemate between these two behemoths of map design and commjunity opinion. This man was so breathtakingly excellent that many ignored his words. His post was lost, burried under piles of ranting, raving and internet ********tery.

    His name was... Uh... Honestly, I forgot it. But the point is, I can't take credit for this idea... Or the original form of it at least. (Seriously, if you're reading this and it was your idea, lay claim to it, please).

    This excellent gentleman of fine standing and good breeding suggested a compromise.

    He suggested that continent resources are governed by Lattice, and capping is allowed by Hex/influence. This solution is so elegantly simple, such a fantastic compromise, that is hurts me to even think about it now.

    Beyond that, I can't remember specifics, but those few words got me thinking.

    Here how I see it possibly working.

    - Resources from owned territory flow to the warpgate and are distrubted back to players along the Lattice lines.
    - You can cap any territory connected by Hex to your warpgate.
    - You CANNOT cap territory which is only connected to "cut off" territory. So an isolated biolab could not suddenly have the defenders break out and cap the surrounding territory, unless doing so made a Hex conection to the warpgate.


    What would this do? Well... That's quite interesting.

    Lets take an example... Lets say that the VS are defending Allatum Biolab against the TR attackers. The TR own West Highlands checkpoint, Allatum Broadcast Hub, TI Alloys and Allatum Botany Wing.

    Allatum Biolab still has a Lattice connection to the VS Warpgate through Allatum Research Lab. The VS defenders are receiving resources from all the territories connected to the VS Warpgate via Lattice.

    The fight drags on and turns into one of those Biolab stalemates, where the defenders cannot break out of the biolab and the attackers cannot break in. It's a blood-drenched hell.

    Suddenly one TR commander has an idea.

    He issues an order for a TR force to attack Allatum Research Lab.
    Allatum Research Lab is not connected to the TR's warpgate via Lattice, but is connected via Hex, which allows them to cap it.

    They take the research lab and suddenly the situation in the biolab changes. The VS defenders are now suddenly only getting the 30 Infantry resources from the biolab itself, and are not receiving any resources from the rest of the empire. As their MAXes die, they find they are able to pull MAX units less often, allowing the TR attackers more headway in the Biolab, eventually taking it.

    In this scenario, the TR had strategic freedom of movement. They could cap any territory connected to their warpgate via hex. This allowed them to cut the VS defenders off from their resources, allowing the Biolab to be taken.

    This requires a little thought and good use of forces.

    It would mean that factions have to defend their supply lines, bringing a sort of logistical infratructure to the game, and meaning territory which is cut off from the Lattice will fall faster than territory which is connected to it.

    Empires would try to expand along those Lattice lines as a result, making sure they defend their supply lines (represented by the Lattice network). However, factions are still able to attack where they do not have a lattice connection, in order to "starve out" a defending force... Or cut an attacking force off from their supplies, slowing down the advance and forcing the attacking force to break up and deal with the problem.


    "Ghost capping" would be less of an issue than under the old Hex system, as there would be an incentive to make sure these ghost-caps are responded to quickly. Defensive and offensive actions of all sizes and scales, from squad to multiple platoon would be effective and legitimate within the faction's strategy, however more "ghost cap" attempts would be foiled, because those vulnerable supply lines would be more valuable.

    So, you would have some sense being given to the rather free-form strategic game that existed with Hex, without railroading entire factions down set and specific paths. Allowing players to use the Lattice as a framework for their offensive and defensive operations, without it being dictatorial and restrictive.


    I would carry on, but I think I've probably been typing long enough.

    If you were the brilliant individual that originally suggested this, please say so. You inspired a rather fun line of thought. I hope this gets some feedback and I hope people take the time to read it.

    If you've made it this far... Thanks.
    • Up x 52
  2. DramaticExit

    Just to note, this would have to come with a few changes to the resource system, which I'll explain when it's not nearly 3am.
  3. Salganos

    I think this is an interesting idea. There are probably many solutions for mitigating and preventing ghost-capping, ranging from requiring someone at the point at least once a minute to actually cap, to granting some kind of encouragement bonus for attacking a place connected by lattice. Such a bonus could be allowing facility benefits to flow along the lattice into adjacent enemy outposts to assist attackers, or requiring the majority of resource income to do the same, as a penalty for breaking away from it. Moving off the lattice would be possible, but inefficient without some sort of strong strategic benefit.

    But the second poster has a good point too.
    • Up x 4
  4. LynxFury

    Not sure if I'm who you had in mind, but it's similar to a system I proposed here:
    https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...ready-wearing-off.128990/page-10#post-1791590

    I particularly liked the additional restriction that once cut off you can't cap territories except for ones that reconnect to the warp gate...that's a reasonable limitation on backcapping. The example was excellent as well.

    Like you I'm sure there's are other ways to allow unit leaders greater tactical options that lattice--but lattice resources combined with a more hex -based adjacency capture model seems to make more sense than either pure system. I think it would also still drive a more concentrated front than the old system without the severe tactical restrictions, since at least on some servers, many players have noted they had trouble finding battles.
    • Up x 4
  5. DramaticExit

    Yeap, that's definitely the post I was thinking of.
  6. MrK

    That's somewhat similar to my stand also, though I'm not sure about giving free capping because this is the bigger bad point of HEx system : promote avoiding contact by having the GOAL of the game free 4 all and tons of choices where the best one is to AVOID the ennemy.

    But definitely, Lattice should have more meaning than a simple line on a map, and Ressources can give this meaning.

    Only cutting ressources while allowing capture, to me, is far from enough. This will again drive ennemies away from each others. People going on squads will again find themselves transported around by commander orders, hoping to find resistance. Worst, when sometimes resistance occur, they'll too often end up out of ressources because of lattice. While the commander still asks for Hex capture because it can be captured and it's the best move to cap ground and win.

    If I'm pessimistic, that's the worst of both worlds.

    So I don't think we should open up capture again on simple Hex adjacency.
    But how to re-introduce objectives on adjacent Hex then, to give back choices .
    We could re-enable Hex adjacency capture process, but the result on a non lattice-linked Hex would be different :
    * It would cut down the ressources flow on all the lattice down this lane
    * It would disable spawns and terminals for the Hex owners
    * It would enable spawns and terminals for the Hex attackers
    * The Hex would NOT change ownership (because the local lattice is unchanged), thus taking it doesn't grant new adjacency (so you cannot cut down entire empire by ghosting unopposed Hex)
    • Up x 1
  7. DramaticExit

    So... The changes to the resource system this would need...

    These changes to the resource system would be rather good anyway, for a number of reasons, but become essential if using this fsort of cap/map system.

    Basically, the current resource model has held territory that is connected to the warpgate, generating resources which are given to each player individually.

    With the system for capping I described above, in order to make those supply lines matter, resources would have to be generated in far larger numbers, then put into a faction-wide pool for that continent. Resources from that pool are then distrubuted equally among players who are within Lattice connection of their warpgate.

    This would mean the amount of each resource generated by a facility would have to be set to a large sum. So rather than a Biolab providing 30 infantry resources for each player, it would provide a few hundred infantry resources for the faction on that continent.

    At the moment, the amount of resources an empire has available to it, is defined not by territory owned, but by the number of players they have. This encourages one faction to get a massively bloated populaton, as the more players they have, the more tanks they will be able to pull.

    Under the system I suggest for resources, the number of tanks, MAX units and aircraft a faction can pull on a continent, is defined by how much territory they own, connected to their warpgate by Lattice lines.

    More players on one faction = proportionally fewer resources per player for that faction on that continent.

    In "cut off" territory (such as the biolab example I gave in my first post), rather than those resources getting sent to the warpgate, then back to the players for use, they are sent to a "local pool". They never leave the biolab, because there is no lattice connection back to the warpgate. This "local pool" is then distributed to the people who are there, definding this cut off Biolab.

    Because the amount of resources available would be defined by the amount the Biolab generates, and not the number of players there are to receive it, a biolab cut off from the Lattice network would only be able to create a certain number of MAX units before the players found they had run out of resources to do so, the meagre trickle of resources each of them getting from the biolab, split between all the defenders, only allowing them to pull a few MAX between them every ten minutes. The defenders would have to start being careful about using grenades, C4, medkits... Each living MAX would become extremely valuable to the defenders.

    Why is this essential to the cap/map model I presented in the first post? Because without it, the supply lines are still an irrelevance as they were under the pure Hex system. If resources are generated for each player, rather than for the faction as a whole before being distributed to each player, the need to keep the spice flowing isn't nearly as important.

    Suddenly, your comrade's resource numbers matter to you as an individual, just as much as your own.

    Most importantly, it provides a method of breaking the stalemates cxreated where an attacking team is unable to break a defending team, and the defending team is unable to break out. It would punish overpopulating cut off defensive operations, by providing each defender proportionally fewer resources the more defenders there are.

    I believe this would lead to more strategic depth, more even populations, more reliable hotspot creation... Small battles for minor outposts on the supply lines having an impact upon major battles at huge facilities.

    It would also help to even out populations. Nobody would join the most populous team, because they would be able to pull tanks less frequently. Instead people would be encouraged to join the least populous faction, as they would have resources in abundance, due to them being split between fewer players.
    • Up x 10
  8. DramaticExit

    I'd suggest you have a quick read of my last post, which I was typing as you posted. It clarifies the resource model that would go with this a bit, and hopefully gives an explanation of how it would generate conflicts, without encouraging mindless zerging.

    The point I'm making is that people could cap territory based on hex adjacency, but unless connected to the lattice to their warpgate, it would not provide any resource gain. With the system I'm suggesting resources are given far more value, meaning capturing along the lattice lines would be the most sensible option, unless working to cut off the enemy's supply of resources.

    Because resources have far more value, someone attacking your supply lines, is a serious threat, and one that people would need to counter, creating conflict and fights of all sizes. Large fights along the lattice lines to capture new territory and advance. Smaller fights along the supply lines and to defend the flanks against people looking to cut off an advance, or starve out a defense.
    • Up x 1
  9. Acuta

    Some outstanding suggestions here...

    Luperza? Where are you? You need to come read this...and pass it on.



    Along with resources, though:

    1. All large bases need to have a reason to want/hold them. Amp and Biolab rewards are weak quality of life, the only essential base to hold is a Tech Plant as not having one verges on game breaking for an Empire (ok, not quite, but you know what I mean).

    2. Continents need to have some greater reward and/or reason to be capped. Sooner rather than later. Tired of hearing "We're working on it!". This reward/reason NEEDS to include continent lockout timers of some sort.
    • Up x 5
  10. maxkeiser

    Good overall post. We can only hope the devs are reading and will look at some form of lattice/hex hybrid or even just an improved hex.
    • Up x 2
  11. DramaticExit

    Thanks for the input folks. I'm glad you took the time to read it. I have liked every post in here which has given feedback, be it positive or negative.

    I really am grateful to LynxFury for setting me off on this line of thinking. His initial idea was absolute fantastic, and really deserves consideration.

    I can't pretend that this solution is perfect, nothing ever is, but at least it is a solution which attempts to address the legitimate issues people have been bringing up with regards to the lattice/hex problem.

    One of the side effects of the reworking of the resource system made possible by the hex/lattice changes I suggested above, is that things purchased with resources, tanks, MAX units, aircraft and so on, is that they can be made more powerful to reflect their new higher value to the faction using them.

    I am an infantry player at heart, but the idea of more powerful tanks, MAXes or aircraft is not something I would object to, if they were also made more valuable due to resource changes. They would have to be used in a far more efficient, strategically and tactically sound manner in this scenario.
    • Up x 4
  12. Major

    I do not hate this idea, skimmed it as I am at work, I will read the thread tomorrow morning when I have free time, I would like to have this lattice supply line also be a physical object in the game, like a pipeline, if we cut it off from the enemy gate, there is a sexy explosion! There are substations built into the pipline at each connecting lattice node, a physical object that must be taken, destroyed, repaired, this substation can have a spwn unit in it, this seperated it from the hexxes, no influance needed to take it, which is a complaint of latticers. So you could have a massive gal drop here, take the point, build a strong hold while the area around it is capped.

    This is idea adds more objectives and strategy to the game, it give pro lattice a lattice, it gives hexxers their risk board, and it gives stragegy.

    This is one of the best ideas so far, better than rotating lattice maps and hexes, and better than segregatoin on different server rule sets, the drive to divide the community must stop, it's going to kell the game faster than the hacker attacks, :(.

    PS, bring back the oild SCU system!! :cool:
    • Up x 6
  13. DramaticExit

    Thanks for the input Major, that's really appreciated and I was hoping you would post here. I agree that segregating the community with servers having different rulesets and map arrangements would be severely detrimental to the game on the whole. A solution to this issue needs to be found. The hex system and lattice system both have major flaws which need to be addressed. While I don't know if the solution presented above is the right one, it is at least a suggestion.

    I'm slightly annoyed about the fact that I can't go back and edit the first few posts I made in this thread for the sake of clarity (and clearing up a few typos) as I think being able to do so would make it far easier to understand. I'ev thought of better ways of describing the idea since I posted it...
    • Up x 2
  14. Senor Remorse

    Sounds like an interesting and possibly better solution to the problems at hand. While I personally haven't had the pleasure to test the new lattice system that much it's certain that some sensible and completely sane to cap locations got locked simply due to the lattice.
    • Up x 2
  15. Luperza Community Manager

    We're reading and I'm reading, but I can't respond to every post in the world. :p

    WTB more nanites.
    • Up x 11
  16. Loegi

    It would have the same problems as hex, i.e. zergs taking the path of least resistance.

    I'd just let small squads be able to sabotage lattice links for some time, so they'd have their "spec ops" stuff behind zerg lines that evade the battles they want.
    • Up x 1
  17. DramaticExit

    Small squads do not want to "evade battle". This is something which has been repeated by people almost endlessly, and it is utterly untrue. Small squads most often wish to have the option of breaking off into smaller engaements. That does not mean they wish to stand around a cap point with nobody there while picking their noses. Everyone... and I mean absolutely everyone finds that boring.

    There is, to my mind, a difference between a battle, and two zergs meeting head on in some sort of blood-drenched endless meatgrinder, only broken by one side getting bored and going somewhere else.

    The current lattice system is prone to either one zerg rolling over small forces, or alternatively two zergs meeting head on in a meatgrinder stalemate that is extremely hard to break or turn into a decisive battle one way or the other.

    The idea I have presented is designed to give some sort of strategic framework, which will guide players along the lattice lines, as they will allow the zerg to have a steady flow of resources. However, when two zergs meet in one of those meatgrinder stalemates, it is possible for it to be broken decisvely by using tactics which under the current Lattice system are impossible. It also gives people a reason to defend the outposts and stations which are vital to supplying their front line... Rapid response becomes a necessity, not just a fancy phrase.

    It encourages large scale engagements, without the game turning into something with all the strategic depth of The First Day on The Somme.
    • Up x 6
  18. DramaticExit

    Actually... I'm sorry, I should have done ths in my previous post... I'll invite you to explain why it'll have the same problems, if you could, please.
  19. Loegi

    Simply for the reason I've already posted. With the zerg being able to cap according to the hex rules, they'll still be able to simply evade any opposition.

    Sure now they would have possible less resources, but who honestly cares about that? The zerg doesn't at least.
  20. Major

    I have a few snazzy ideas for this discussion, which I will post later Friday or Saturday. Still pondering my thoughts with what has already been suggested with possible rule sets. But lets see more ideas on this, it could please everyone without further fracturing the community, if you let it.