End work on Lattice now before any more effort is wasted.

Discussion in 'Test Server: Discussion' started by FrankManic, May 2, 2013.

  1. FlowerPot

    this is true, they could put more effort into releasing Hossin!

    read the description for the section when Higby says when we will get Hossin.
    Spoiler! Another 2-3 months and we will get it on the test server! Sick to the roadmap ftw
  2. UberBonisseur

    It's mostly because you are fighting TWO factions at once.
    50% pop actually means there is one enemy soldier for each of your own.


    You don't know that yet, the mechanics are still not implemented.
    If cutting off = capping bases then it doesn't necessarily take more skill, just a lot more time.

    Please define "ends good battles".
    Do it.

    You could say the system is poorly done because there is NO CONSEQUENCE OF BEING CUT OFF.
    But the "ends good battles" ? Does that imply you are forced to leave a fight in some way ?

    And what if a cut-off thingy was added, would a small group still "end good battles" at the expense of the majority zerg ?

    The rest can be adressed by not playing on Indar.
  3. TestyVenom

    If you think the lattice system is "mindless," then you don't really understand it. Difficulty in predicting the movement of your enemy is not related to the game being strategic or complex, it's just a complication; there is a difference between being complex and complicated. The same complexity and strategic know-how will be necessary for the Rush Lanes/Lattice System, and perhaps more than with the Hex system.
  4. Alarox

    Explain to me why every almost every good strategy game ever created heavily involves predicting your enemy's movements then. It's because needing to predict what's going to happen raises the skill cap of the games tremendously. Chess, every RTS, Magic: The Gathering, every turn-based strategy, every form of Poker. Being able to deceive and needing to predict your enemy is what makes these games so strategic.

    Also, complex means having many smaller individual parts with multiple interactions between the other parts. Complicated usually means complex, but also difficult and unorganized in addition to the complexity.

    The Hex system is complex. The Lattice is less complex. This is a fact. It is the same thing, but with less options and possibilities. This is a fact.

    It's true that the Hex system is also more complicated, but that doesn't mean it's somehow less complex.
  5. UberBonisseur

    You can actually predict enemy movements in PS2.

    It requires, well, recon people.
    Basically, someone willing to stand on top of a mountain, just watching.

    By looking at the map I can already tell a squadmate to check out what's going on.
    Obviously he'll get blow up quickly, but still grab the intel.

    Ironically, you can just send a guy to spy on the other faction since you can have multiple characters on one server.
    It's kinda sad that we're not given a nice recon unit in the first place.
    • Up x 2
  6. TestyVenom

    Hmmmmmmmmm, nah. You're still too closed-minded about the strategic aspect of both systems to realize that more options is not the same thing as complexity; opportunities for chaos are not the same thing as strategic opportunities. At a certain point, the number of possible outcomes becomes ludicrous; that is currently the Hex system and the way it works. You think that having more bases available to capture at any given time means that it requires better strategic ability; this is only true in one way: knowing how to avoid fights and still gain ground. That is pretty low on the "skill cap" meter in my opinion, and it takes away from the more important and challenging of the strategic knowledge: knowing how to actually fight and make proper use of resources in combat while constantly adjusting to the changes in the battle.

    Simply having fewer bases that are immediately available to be captured does not at all diminish the requirement of strategic knowledge and ability. Again, you are only thinking of strategy in one form. Strategy also happens on the micro scale, which should be the more accentuated form of strategy in this game; trust me, it will be much more fun than playing "whack-a-mole" (Hex System) with the opposing Empires. Keep in mind that the Rush Lanes/Lattice System will not actually restrict/hinder the movement of anyone's players on the battlefield; they are still able to roam about wherever they please, so the ability to perform strategic maneuvers on the macro scale still remains.

    I apologize for not explaining the following in my original reply:
    1) Rush Lanes/Lattice System emphasizes the micro-strategy aspect of the game.
    2) Rush Lanes/Lattice System will "improve" (imo) the flow of battles, which is the primary intention of the implementation of this system. Side Note: The Rush Lanes/Lattice System will only be beneficial to players at all times of the day as it will direct fights more effectively so that a) larger fights occur, and b) even when there are low populations on the servers, the fights will be easier to find and easier to start. Ghost-capping does not count as fun in my book, so this change will be entirely positive and maybe playing early in the morning will be fun.
    3) Ok, fine, you caught me; the Hex System is more complex ONLY on the macro scale, but it is also absurdly complicated for the number of players online at any given time (this includes maximum population for all Empires on one continent at a time). However, the Rush Lanes/Lattice System will inspire more complexity on the micro scale, and also emphasizes what this game is about: BIG BATTLES. So, the Hex is more complex in one way, while the Rush Lanes are more complex in another (the more important way in my opinion). Please, get your "facts" straight.
    4) C'mon, you don't honestly think that sneaking around one another taking bases while trying to avoid fights as much as possible is actually challenging and "strategic," right? Here's the reality of the situation: the current system inspires less thought than the Rush Lanes/Lattice System more often than not. You will have to know your enemy much better and be better at predicting their actions on a smaller scale and faster in order to defeat them in battle. You will also have to be a better FPS player on top of all that, so please don't bring up "skill cap" again as an argument for anything to do with major game systems other than weapons balancing, thank you.
    5) There is quite a bit more that I could talk about, but I, or someone else, have likely already said these things earlier in the thread. Please read its entirety. I'm also sure that much of what you have said could be argued against using things already posted earlier in the thread, too.
    • Up x 3
  7. zukhov

    The hex system totally negates terrain. For example lepardwood nursery is linked to scarred mesa. That's a link that ignores 2 bases an air tower, a massive bridge, an ocean, impassable cliffs and maybe 1.5km of roads. To cap that territory, Instead of having to amass a force, form a plan, execute it and defeat the enemy in several battles, all you have to do is crash land in an ESF and have your squad hit squad deploy. Being able to ignore terrain altogether is one reason why the hex system is less complex.
    • Up x 1
  8. Eugenitor

    Every time I see this phrase, I swear...

    Battles. Don't. Flow! The whole concept of "battle flow" is nonsense on its face. The idea that one force will slowly push back another force is just not representative of how anything works in this game, and lattice cannot change that. Once one side gets the upper hand, the other side goes somewhere else. Every time! Saying that people will be more willing to fight while losing ground in any system reflects a severe misunderstanding of player psychology. This whole fantasy about one side pushing a lane to meet increasing levels of defense on the other side is just silly. People simply don't play that way. The only way you're going to get any truly last-ditch defense is if you've pushed them all the way to their warpgate (in which case, hex and lattice are functionally identical), and they'll be more willing to defend if they have cont lock.

    Even organized groups run when confronted by approaching superior numbers, and I mean literally run. I've personally chased away six outfit members who fled in a Sunderer- I was by myself far in front of our zerg, and they thought I was its first member. I even shot one and they left him behind. BR 50s, too. (Even more hilarious: They ran into another force and tried to run back to the base they'd just come from, ultimately getting podded to death)

    This whole thing of promoting orderly combat and predictable flow, which would somehow foster the improvement of tactics- it's all just meaningless garbage.
    • Up x 3
  9. TestyVenom

    Ok, Mr. Opinion, let's just run around and do nothing for 30 minutes. <--- Obvious exaggeration.
    • Up x 1
  10. Alarox

    I know you can predict what's going to happen. Problem is, the Lattice removes any depth from that. Its obvious where the enemy is going to go, and it's obvious where you will go.
  11. Alarox

    Blah blah. You insult me, you lose credibility. You had your chance in the last one. You can have the last word in this conversation with a witty insulting reply if you'd like, but I'm done.
    • Up x 2
  12. r1stormrider

    ^^^this guy cannot make a good counter argument for his support of the lousy hex system. meanwhile i see eugenitor still likes going off on his little vicious deadly and relentless 1v1/2v2 ghostcapper battles. yeah!
  13. VSMars

    There is no such thing as "micro-strategy". It's called "tactics". Get your terminology right.
    • Up x 1
  14. SavageOc

    Idk what FPS games you play, but good battle flow is a critical factor on how good a shooter plays, especially for multiplayer. If I'm running around trying to find the enemy most of the map I get bored and play another game, one that doesn't make me run in circles to find an enemy. PS2 is in drastic need of this, as it is one of the biggest complaints. I'm the only one of my friends who play planetside because, as one of my friends put it "Why wait around for a battle in PS2 when I can jump into one on BF3?" They like the potential they see in the game, but they don't to have to wait around a lot of the time.

    The way to fix that is having battle flow to direct players towards each other. This is what the lattice will provide, something the hex does a piss poor job at. The developers see this and are going forward with the change. It's worked for them before, and it'll work for them again.
    • Up x 3
  15. Punker

    Wait.... wait, there are actually people who like the current (hex) system? You disgusting speds, i cannot believe my eyes.

    Edit:I literally had to wipe the vomit off my keyboard after reading the OP and his supporters posts.
    • Up x 1
  16. TestyVenom

    Nice try. In case you are serious, what I did was break something down into what could be considered subcategories of a larger concept. You're welcome.
  17. VSMars

    No trying involved. The different scales of fighting are called "strategic" (How do I win the war/continent?), "operational" (How do I deal with my front line?) and "tactical" (How do I win this battle?).
  18. Giggily

    My outfit is pretty organized, and we don't run from superior numbers unless we know that there's nothing we can do. I think I've posted this plenty of times before, but through good coordination it's completely possible to delay, and outright stop advances from superior forces. Just the other night we fought a battle where we were outnumbered about 2-1 for 20 minutes straight without the enemy ever making serious inroads on our base.

    Similarly, about a week prior we were defending out continent lock from TR and NC. We were down to just a few bases, and then held up inside of Indar Bay for a good 30-40 minutes despite being incredibly outnumbered just by using choke points to our advantage. As a result of a smaller force holding up a much larger one we allowed the rest of our faction to push out a lot more easily. We didn't even actually leave the base until the last moment because we were able to delay them so much every time we even stood on the point.

    So you should probably just stop speaking in absolutes. You may personally run away from superior numbers, but not everybody does, and fighting larger forces isn't suicide or impossible.

    Personally, I'm looking forward to the death of ghost capping and base defenses becoming much more important.
    • Up x 1
  19. Eugenitor

    You're actually proving my point. Here's a question: Why do you think the rest of your faction pushed out everywhere else instead of reinforcing your defense? Why do you think your strategy of "Let's slow them down here so our zerglings can grab the rest of the map" worked? Because your zerglings weren't willing to walk into a losing situation, and their zerglings were walking into what they took for a winning one.

    No, I'm speaking in generalities, and in a game like this, it's generalities that rule the day.

    If everyone was in an organized outfit or operated in ways that benefited their faction and not themselves, we'd be having an entirely different conversation.
    • Up x 2
  20. Giggily

    So switching to the lattice system really wouldn't have made any difference at all.