A solution to the Lattice/Hex issue.

A reasonably compromise but i think normal caps should be left alone. I could walk away happy with 75% normal XP for a neutralization, keeping in mind all previous reasons (time, effort, resources) and the fact that it fully caps with enough influence through surrounding territories anyway.

Jump Bridges

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/index.php?threads/meta-jumpbridges-yes-eve.127580/



So in eve they have star gates which are straight lines, and these connections are natural and cannot be destroyed.

The green curved lines are jump bridges, player created, require sovereignty, and can be destroyed.

Jump bridges have an entrance and an exit and I think they would work well in this new lattice system and add a new opportunity for teh meta-game / logistics / whatever the kids call it.

How this would work? Well first you'd need some way to limit it. You wouldn't want it spammed like you can vehicles. If you could spam jump bridges in EvE they would be OP. EvE limits this with sovereignty, which requires holding the system or a group of systems for a while, not 100% sure how sov works.

But, lets imagine a good way is thought up that allows you to open a jump bridge at a facility. There can only be one of them. They must be in a very visible spot at the facility. Able to be destroy, probably like a turret.
So yeah maybe after taking a facility, a giant jump bridge starts spinning up, and it takes a long time for it to establish a connection with the faction warp gate. Maybe like an hour or two. Once its blown up, it must be repaired, and takes another hour to establish a connection.

Once a jump bridge establishes a connection with the main warp gate, it acts as a direct lattice link. Once its blown up, that connection is lost.



In this example:
If the Zurvan amp station and Tawrich tech plant had fully repaired jump bridges, each with established connections to the warp gate, they would each have direct lattice links to the warp gate.


Additionally I was imagining a vehicle that could establish a connection with a facility's jump bridge, but must be within a certain amount of hexes of the facility's jump bridge.

Maybe a sunderer or a galaxy could get a different kind of deploy, where the vehicle itself is consumed and turned into a mobile jump bridge. These mobile jump bridges once deployed cannot be undeployed but can be destroyed, and I mean destroyed permanently not like a facility jump bridge.
Once deployed, the player loses control. Essentially they cannot be owned by players, but instead belong to a faction. The only way it can be removed is for it to be destroyed.
Mobile jump bridges show up on the map globally to all, like a facility. They must be deployed near one of the capture points of a base in order to open a lattice link to the base.

These mobile jump bridges would link directly to the facility that they are within range of.



Using the above map example, assume the rashnu bio lab has a facility jump bridge connection established with the warp gate, and a mobile jump bridge establishes a connection with that facility jump bridge.
This opens up a new front for the TR, but it is a delicate front. There are two points where the enemy can quickly close the front, either by destroying the biolab's jump bridge, or by destroying the mobile jump bridge.

So the lattice system is sort of a heavy handed way to force "zerg lanes", and believe that something like a jump bridge logistics system would make it more interesting and strategical. While a jump bridge network would be powerful, they also would need to be well defended.

But plz before ******** on this, its just a copy-cat idea i came up with in 5 minutes, the details and ins and outs are arbitrary, so instead judge the idea on the concept.

Hmmm... a fourth, completely new cap system. i dunno... what rules for deployment would there be? whats to stop some one flying to the other corner of the map and deploying to create an artificial lattice link or 'jump bridge' and pushing out from there? Would enemy forces be able to see enemy jump links on the map? What kind of bases would support these jump bridges? just the big ones or anything?

This ability would have to be seriously limited to stop the map going crazy with jump links everywhere and with it severely limited, i don't see how it could be used as effectively as a hex/lattice setup or how it improves upon the ideas presented in this thread so far.

Don't get me wrong, it sounds like an interesting idea, i just think a defined set of rules are needed before i can cast my vote.

Like I said the subtleties are to be hashed out by somebody willing to spend more than 5 minutes with MS paint.

I did mention limitations. The links in the chain need to be defended, meaning it'd be much more vulnerable to go on the offensive with a deployed bridge link because of the multiple points of failure. In the example picture of indar I drew 2 stars that would need to be defended in order to keep that bridge lane operational.

In this imagination of a jump bridge, compare the weaknesses to a non-bridge lane. A non-bridge lane cannot be destroyed, only cut off by zerging from a completely different lane.

I think jump links might not be the way to go, especially with whats been laid out in this post already. One of the concerns raised by one of the posters here has that the ability to cap via hex would allow enemy forces to bypass defenses and cap around them, this was countered by the introduction of cap range limiters in addition to already denied resource gain. These jump links effectively allow you to completely bypass defenders while maintaining all benefits of a normal lattice link and even though they can be destroyed i don't think it would be the way to go.

Looks like you have your own thread for this, hash it out there, perhaps bring it into the gameplay discussion area and then we'll see if it could fit, ill certainly post there if i can think of anything constructive.

For now, im going to put a copy/paste of my last post of the current idea status of this thread.

oh yes sorry, i overread that part.

fact is, the lattice needs a change, for example it would be a huge step if all territorys next to a Warpgate would be linked to eachother, so its possible and to lock a a WP, and so it makes sense to push strait to a warpgate.

I quite like some of the suggestions in this thread. I think something needs to be done to discourage zerging (which lattice definitely promotes). I have a couple of thoughts to throw into the mix.

How about being able to capture areas that are adjacent to an area that is currently capping and connected via lattice, albeit at a much slower rate (i.e. it would take 3 times as long to cap them). For example on Indar - if Zurvan Pump is held by the VS and the Crown is held by TR and the VS attack the crown - once the Crown starts to cap, the VS could send part of their detachment to, Ceres Hydroponics and Ti Alloys (both held by TR) to start capping them too. Of course - any resources from these areas (if captured before the Crown) wouldn't make it back via the lattice until the Crown was taken. If the Crown was successfully defended by TR - then these areas would be cut off and as a result, it should be easier for the TR to recapture them (say 50% faster). Hopefully - this would help disperse big zergs into the adjacent areas by effectively allowing "scouting ahead".

Also - how about reducing the XP gained by capping a base based on how long you have been participating in the capture of it (kinda like what they implemented for Alerts in GU13), or share out the resource amongst the attackers. This would mean capturing a small base with a zerg would be unprofitable, as would joining at the last minute, but fighting a long battle or capturing a biolab or tech plant with a small force would be highly rewarding.

No clue if it would work! But it does sounds as a very very interestning idea!

will have to think about this

But so faar its by faar the best attempt on a doable solution i come across!

Sp thumbs up!!

I personally like this compromise a great deal. I believe Lattice was a bit heavy handed, and quite frankly I haven't had a desire to play much anymore within the mindless zergs that have been created.

Ugh, it legitimizes ghost capping. No thanks. Play on Amerish please. I never go there.

I really have to wonder why people get so uptight about ghost capping.
You realize we got entire ghost capping outfits now since they dont stand a chance vs the zergs.

So yea ghostcapping was replaced with ghostoutfit capping
And if the Lattice system was just made to fix ghostcapping thats kinda sweeping the floor with a nuke!


Just make the continents lockable so when you lost on a continent you will leave it instead of last desperation that is ghost capping.
Since you dont want to face the Zerg. So atleast you can bother them with ghost capping and make some kind of XP for youself.

I really think there are better ways to stop ghost capping if thats all pro lattice people want.

Also im fairly sure you didten read anything of previous post in this thread if you somehow got to the conclusion that this would support ghostcapping.

the issue is the current system not allowing you to cap a territory if you have one neaby that is contested. if you remove the lattice capping then that means every territory you own is contested always.

My favorite moment in planetside came from the lattice system our outfit platoon(48+) orginized a gal drop on a biolab satellite base but by the time we landed at our target our base nearby got attacked we had to break off 2 squads to go back and try to secure the adjacent base against a ZERG (100+) we knew the odds was not in our favor but since the attackers just started the offence we only had to hold the point for one minute so that or forward two squads could start the cap and cut off the zerg from being able to attack the base any longer.

our mission was successfull and by the time the enemy realized what was up and provided heavy resistance we was already dug in because they had to turn their vehicle zerg around it took them awhile to even realize what was happening we had a close call with a wipe at the last few seconds but luckily some brave medics got us back up and we flipped the point and imediatly maxed crashed the biolab through the teleporters. again before the defending zerg could set up a defense.

It was a moment of brilliance showing the strength of our outfit and how a well orginized well oiled machine can put a hurt on the zerg and demoralize them we was going up against twice sometimes three times our numbers. Without the current system the zerg would have just continued their advance and ignored us and either we would get a free biolab without having to work for it like they made us or we would have no choice but to disengage and redeploy and face them head on wich would have probably netted a different outcome.

You clearly didn't read everything or understand how it works. For example, you have not understood the limitations on off-lattice capping, nor have you understood the effect heading off lattice has on your resources. You have also not understood that the current lattice system does not "fix" ghost capping.

I don't have a congratulatory song for you, but if I did, I'd sing it.

I expected an insult from you since you have spent an amazing amount of time trying to sell your idea and therefore must be extremely emotionally attached to it. I'm not sure YOU understand how your system would work if put into practice. You are only wishing and guessing how people will actually play under it. It's OK with me if they replace the hex system on Amerish with your system. Have at it. I never play there, BECAUSE IT HAS THE HEX SYSTEM. I have noticed less ghost capping since the lattice system was implemented.

There is a 4 page thread of reasons that people like the lattice system more than the hex system. I doubt you will read it. https://forums.station.sony.com/ps2...thing-possitive-that-works-in-lattice.143768/
You are wrong. I did read the whole gawd awful post. I'll bet it was made so long just so the criticism of not reading the whole post could be tossed at opponents.

Under the proposed system, "ghost capping" would now be legitimate and could be called something like "resource denial".

Well, you certainly didn't read my own neutralization idea on page 5, which deals with ghost capping by removing the "capping" part.

Really wish this forum didn't put a time limit on edits. A lot of ideas evolve quite a bit in the course of discussion (including both of the suggestions linked in my sig), and it would be much more convenient if these improvements could be edited into the first post so that people can see them immediately.

In that case than you failed to understand the idea that ghost capping, as you like to call it, would be more easily contested, due to the fact off lattice capping would deprive the attackers of resources for the duration of time they are in regions which are not connected by lattice to their warpgate... You also failed to understand that capping off lattice would be limited to one territory in depth at maximum, and actively forces people to attack the chokepoints by ensuring that progression cannot continue without lattice connectiveity.

Those huge battles would be a certainty, yet stalemates could be broken, and defenders would have a method of depriving an attack of resources as well, allowing defense to become far more viable than is it under the current lattice system.

But this has clearly flown past your left ear... Or maybe not. Who knows. I ain't no mind reader.

If you want a critique to be listened to, it'll have to have more depth to it than "it's **** because ghost capping hurr."

Now, do excuse me while I go and read that thread you linked, if I haven't already done so.

Edit:

Having read the thread you linked, I have found that far from being four pages of reasons people like lattice, it is infact highly polarised in opinion, with a great many arguments from both sides consisting of vague terms such as "predictability", which could be regarded as both positive or negative... Or even more vague terms such as "battleflow", which doesn't even seem to have been defined at any point, ever, by anyone.

One person has actually said "it adds mass zerg versus slightly smaller mass zerg". Do you regard this as a positive or a negative? One person has commented "it makes forumside better", which is entirely irrelevant to the subject matter.

A great many people in that thread have said things which are actively and outspokenly anti-lattice.

The thread you linked is far from four pages of reasons people love the lattice system. If you added up the comments which aren't one-word throwaway posts such as "battleflow", it barely adds up to a page and a half of positive comments, with roughly the same amount being either highly sarcastic posts, or outspokenly negative towards it.

I don't see how ghost neutralization is going to be way better than ghost capping.

A previous poster said something about wanting to do surprise attacks on people. This is the essence of why I personally don't like the hex system. I want to engage the enemy when I am ready for them. I want there to be somewhat secure lines. I don't like spawning at a base to get a vehicle and running into an enemy platoon that I could not have predicted would be there, and I have no need to do that to other players.

Some people's immediate response will be to say that I shouldn't expect perfect safety anywhere but at the warp gate, AND I DON'T. I like the level of uncertainty that we have now under the lattice system.

Increasing your "freedom" will cause me to have to more often engage the enemy unprepared. Not fun for me.

On the note of your post about neutralisation, I really do like it a lot and find that the idea of it works rather well in this context. Thanks for your input.

I counted the pro-lattice, anti-lattice, neutral, and funny/off-topic posts. I got 35 pro-lattice posts, 11 neutral, 6 funny/off topic, and 14 anti-lattice. Several of the anti-lattice posts were by the OP Midnightmare. Nice try DramaticExit.

Devs, please think long and hard before you institute this unholy spawn of the hex system. Thank-you.