Do you hate the lattice itself, or simply its lack of the "magic mechanic"?

Alright, so everyone must by this point realize theres ALOT of hate for the lattice system. However, in almost every thread i've read against the lattice so far, theres also someone mentioning a vague "magic mechanic" which would, if added, supposedly save the lattice system from a certain zerg-related doom.

As to why its apparently popped up to absolutely NO ONE to actully describe this mechanic besides for saying magic/



is beyond me.

However, if a mechanic were to be added that would allow small, yet *cough* intelligent *cough* squads to pretty much stop a massive yet blind zerg in its tracks (even if just temporarily), would you still hate the lattice system or be fine with it? And if the answer to this question is yes, can you please stop just screaming about all of the lattice systems failings and actully think of ways to fix it?


Oh, and on a final note - can we all keep in mind that very few to none of the devs have actully played PS1? I say this because atleast a few people here have vaguely referenced PS1's ant mechanics and pretty much said "thats how to do it". And if the devs never seem to consider implementing a system they dont understand - i think we all know whos fault that is.

Primarily theres. WHO creates a sequel to a game they've never played? WHO?

But no matter how stupid it is that they actully DID do that, the sooner we accept it and start explaining things to them the better off we'll all be.

Nothing wrong with a lattice that funnels benefits from base to base. But telling us where to go? Even before the latice theres already tremendous zerg traffic jams and other bottleneck issues. Lattice will just exacerbate that.

The "magic" solution is to have the lattice act like powerlines that convey benefits from hex to hex, but let us choose how to conduct the war ourselves.

The Hex is a blob. The lattice is a tunnel. We need a web.

A system with the benefits of both. The hex is too difficult for defense, the lattice is too easy for defense.

The Hex is too unpredictable. The lattice is too predictable.

The Hex lets you cut off territories and flank easily. The lattice all but prevents it.

Make a system where it is easier to transfer from lane to lane in the lattice. Make choke points where multiple lanes collide, but allow alternate roots for bypassing (albeit longer). Create more branching territories that allow the attackers to occasionally make the defenders commit to the wrong location. Make it possible to the defenders to lure attackers into traps.

That is what we need.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...tion-lattices-lack-of-strategic-depth.118877/

The earliest draft of what I've thought should be done as well has been in my sig for months.
http://www.planetside-universe.com/showpost.php?p=897526&postcount=190

There are several other fairly well thought out competing suggestions floating around as well. UberBonissuers for example has lots of nice pictures.

Pipelines/ants should probably be reversed though.

There is a more indepth version being worked on.

I hate Lattice itself. I am opposed to any system that constrains player choice and reduces player control over the flow of battle. I have no problem with incentives, but I do not want a straight jacket.

I called it magic because it has yet to be pulled out of anyone's ***.

Basically, PS1 had the lattice and worked around links
PS2 will have the lattice and work around __________

Fill the gap.

Higby went on the premise of:
Lattice = Awesome

However, lattice =/= awesome.
Lattice + something = awesome

Thus the "magic" something.

So you think the introduction of the adjacency rule made the game worse? Should every territory be capturable again?

So basically... a denser Lattice?
That's kind of what you're asking for here, a Lattice with more Nodes or Connections between Nodes...
...But too many Connections and we end up with another Cubic Lattice AKA the Current Hex System...
Aieyiayiayiayai!

My main problem with the Lattice as it is on the test server is the map was not designed for it. Sure if they could come up with the "magic" mechanic that justified it that may change to a point where the system would be worth implementing despite its current limitations but until then the sudden lack of variation imposed by the predetermined and limited paths is a downgrade from the current hex system especially with the abandoning of bases and the somewhat non intuitive choices made for laying out these paths.

The perfect example of what I am talking about is that Crossroads is no longer connected to the Crown. There are half a dozen of these instances where current popular invasion paths have been taken out but thats the one that stands out most in my mind since it is the second most popular invasion route to that base after TI Alloys it is also the first I noticed when I looked at the map.

I have no problems with the lattice as such I just think it should be used on new maps designed for it instead of trying to adapt it to existing maps. They should put the lattice on Hossin if they really feel they need to completely reverse their stance on the lattice system.

There is nothing wrong with having different layouts and capture mechanics on different continents it would add verity and might even increase the appeal of the game over a larger audience.

It's Lattice + Resource System

I don't know why people say it's magic, it's pretty much what you have been talking about on Gameplay forums, and what various other contributers have put many many hours into.

Yeah but there's no sign of it yet.
Lattice is still in its infancy after 8 years. That bothers me.

If we're lucky, the magic thingy will be implemented on the test server in a month, require another month of test, and depending on its success or not, another month. Beta all over again.

Lattice wasn't worked on though until 2 months ago at the earliest. In 1 month they put it together. I mean up until then, they were pretty much focused on the hex system.

We have no idea how long the resource system has been in play, or even if things have already been implemented that were a part of the final system already. We just know that the final release date is slated for the next 2 months.

Thing is, we know this is the key to here. We just need to push that this is what is needed, to reinforce to SOE that the community wants this before we want other things.

The forced lattice system feels uncomplimentary to the random chaotic nature of war. It removes some of the freedom (opportunity) to choose your own destiny and creates even more funnels than the hex system, a system which already limited routes and flows.

This is the real problem here.

Some people dont want to bother planning routes from hour to hour ... vote 1 for lattice, hates the hex

Some people want the ability to plan their own route though the map ... vote 1 for hex, hates the lattice

And in the middle you get...this forum, where likers post presumed benefits (to them) and how itll win the game, while haters post doom and gloom and expect a loss of functionality, and rightly so. This issue is so contentious now the second it hits the servers it will create a group of unhappy people.

Personally I didnt think the old system was bad as a starter plan, It had areas needing improvement but certainly not so terrible to junk everything down to the cap points so they can replace it with a lobotomy style game flow and capture mechanic. Make them a damn zerg compass if thats what they need.

I want MORE choice not less. I want to be able to out plan my enemy as well as outfight them.

Lastly, if anyone mentions 'ghost cappers are bad mkay' in the same thread as a lattice discussion can I please take them out the back and shoot them in the head? Ghost capping, a minor problem, can be solved in so many other ways than forcing a whole new game flow on everyone. Its smoke screening at best.

I don't know where you get 'a lot of hate' for the lattice from. The only people who dislike it are the ones who annoy everyone else on the continents with their ghostcapping.

The problem is - Bases are not defendable , save the precious few.
And you will get the streamrolled by higher Lane population until either you reach one of these hardpooints or your populations match.

Biolabs are a great example of a defendable base. Multiple points of entry , objectives o defend and points to force multiply your population %.The 'Blind zerg' who are not working together a myriad of different choices of how they can attack the biolab/where they may enter , but seeing as they are not working together it does not really matter , IF , there is an organised defense of the biolab.

Hence why an organised 3 Squads had hold a biolab from hoards , as those hoards are not working together.

There are only a few other bases like this. Where you can force multiply your lower population via facility layout or terrain to match a higher population aggressor.

But 9 times outta 10 . If you are outnumbered significantly , by around 30-40% and are defending one of 95% broken bases , you will lose.

People can claim , oh we did this with this many and hay you should learn to play , but the fact of the matter is , numbers talk and ******** walks.

The magic mechanic everyone is looking for is base redesign and I mean ALL the bases. More layers of defense , which require a concentrated , coordinated effort from the aggressor to take , so they can continue to assault the base. Rather than , a single Alpha point , with no cover or protection with only 1 requirement to capture , rush , zerg , explosions , pow ,tanks burrr , planes , gah , MORE AV!

Like for all bases to have walls , gates , breachable doors , shield gens , scu gens , turrets , natural higher elevations. The things which allow a outfit squad to defend a base from a zerg platoon , because the zerg simply does not know how to properly attack the base.

The issue on indar is there are too many bases. If you made most of them highly defensible would it not make it too hard to get around? I know what your saying though, more defensible points that when used in a proper way can hold off a horde. Rather than, everything is out in the open lets spam the crap out of it and win. Are populations high enough to support a map with so many nodes? Dont forget that if we did have more than 4 continents, it doesnt mean war has to be occurring on every single one. You seriously cant expect a fight everywhere. You work your way through a network till you initiate one or find one.

I feel like small outposts especially, are just 'there'. Yeah they provide a link and resources but little else (on live). They arnt highly strategic positions. Not a good place to mount an attack from as you cannot spawn tanks from them. What is their meaning and value to you guys.

Is there a downside to turning small outposts into strongholds? or will such things as walls and stuff for added protection enough? I suppose i just dont get why they are in the game as they currently are.

Its more than 'the lattice' its apparent 'lack of magic' as people keep saying that is the problem in my mind. For example: what if the devs stopped making guns for a change and actually gave us battle enhancing equipment! Granted guns = Cash. However yes, things have been designed with massive fights in mind, thats why places are open and not confined. Populations dont match? they should seriously redesign the bases.

Might as well post this here. Dont know if anyone has posted one already but this is what indar looks like at the moment (point out any errors please).



Ive made my own too (before i mapped the official one). Ive also got a few easy ideas that im gonna post up soon. No doubt people will find fault with them still! haha. Includes benefits to facilities, spawning changes, some facility reworks, simple resource changes (has already been said by someone else) and a valid reason to go behind enemy lines and sabotage a facility. A foundation to improve upon, as a suggestion. (hah just come up with a quality idea for interlink facilties)

To answer the original question, i do believe the lattice can work if done properly. I cant tell you how much i hate the current hex system. Maybe a different territory system could work instead but no matter how you sugar coat it, if in order to hack one base, you must own another, its a lattice. A network of links. Yes i get how people feel about flanking the enemy to either gain influence in one area or reduce theirs in another.


''Basically, PS1 had the lattice and worked around links
PS2 will have the lattice and work around __________''

er, links? granted there's a hell of a lot more than in PS.

Lattice takes the game from CTF and turns it into RUSH mode...
I don't play Op metro, I play Caspian Border.
They are going to turn this into Op metro...
When they do, I will go back to Caspian border.
There are many people that feel the same way as me...

This is just not true. Many people have legitimate complaints about the lattice system because they don't wish to be swamped by Zergs. Hell, even the largest zergfit LEADERS are worried about that, because they know zergs don't benefit everyone, and some variety is needed.

I -like- the lattice in it's current form, but admit that it needs a decent resource system or something in order to help the game along.

Stop trying to oversimplify the issue, by villifying the opposition, you aren't helping.

*Popcorn*

Good resources system, better base designs (walls that aren't made of swiss cheese and actually offer a decent position to fire from), and mechanics regarding the neutral zones (usage for stealth, ambushing, etc - most of this would come with continents designed around it)
Those are your "magic" mechanics.