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

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

  1. Inkos

    Well, there isnt any strategic metagame at all, exceptions are on some days when one fraction has the change of capping the cont, the leaderchat is used. but in 5 out of 7 days everyone is only searching a good fight. I am leader of a very small outfitt, on good days we can bring in one squad... and we all want the lattice, because it makes it easier to find good fights. We hate ghost capping.
    Myself, as a person with a military background want the possibility to make decisions. The Hex system would be more realistic, but the game did not give me the tools to make military decision because I never can plan where the enemy will be next (because most leader just dont thinkg tactical, so its like playing poker with a noob, no chance of knowing what he es going to do, because his decision are not following any logical system),
    I can gues without thinking taktical, but atm this is only a 1/5 chance, because there es no real goal for most zergs. My Squad managed to hold of a platoon sized force yesterday because we knowed where the enemy is going (everything else was capped) so we were preparing and this was tactic, this was plannend, but it almost never happened because the enemy troops vanished into nothing, splitting into 5 forces, no one worth fighting. PS 2 didnt give us a good intel system, we can plan our attacks or defenceses as good as we could it with intel, scouts or a lattice system... the lattice system is the way of intel we need to make strategic decisions.

    The lattice system will not solve all problems, but It will solve some of the worst (e.g. Ghost capping). When I look at the map in prime time with the Hex system, there are arround 3-4 hotspots (at least one of them without my faction) on the map where plattons are fighting, the rest of the map is ghost capping and sometimes a nice medium sized fight. So what the lattice will do is split these hotspots in more medium sized battles because now it is possible to have a front line, it is possible to figure out what the enemy is planning. So Outfitts can split there groups, you know that you have to hold 3 lattice lines to defend a tech plant, so you split your forces, enemy can do the same or force its attack at one point. Of course it is possible that this might be a big zerg fight, but in every big zerg fight, some will go arround, trying to flan, or cap another base on the lattice line, or even take a complete different lattice. Lattice dont mean that there is only ONE way, it only means that there now 3 and not 8 ways to attack whitch makes it easier to plan and makes it harder for solo players and trollers to ghost cap or to disturb attacks.

    And if you say that you have to split your force to defend outpost who could be ghostcapped. I want to see the player who want to stay in an base for 20 or 30 minutes till the zerg capture the facility only because it could be ghost capped. Players want fights, they want action, they want to play and not wait for ghost cappers in empty bases. So lattice also means that more players can enjoy the fights. And there will be smalls fights too because it is impossible to zerg at every lattice.

    Why is this impossible...:

    E.g: VS on Indar atm: If I say VS holds the complete desert, there would be 5 lattice ways to push south. I will assume that every force is a Zerg like the people are believing with the new lattice system.

    There can be arround 666 players of each faction. So every lattice can have arround 100-110 players (assuming that 50 or more ar somewhere else, warpgate or whatever)

    I now will go on and take the 110 VS players in the west (to Hvar) as an example. After this force defeatet the 110 NC (who also have 5 lattice routes to defend) at quartz ridge they can decide to attack Hvar, support the troops at Alltum, or only capture the satelites of Hvar and push forward into the south. So there ar still ways to make a hard push. But you will let your homeland undefendet.

    But this example with 5 forces the same size will never happen. There will be only 2, max 3 hotspots and yes, maybe the fights there are bigger, but small outfitts can find a lattice out of the 2(or more) remaining to attack. And there will be small fights, not as small as ghost capping fights, but small fights with arround 12 to 48 Players. And if you want smaller fights... well... wrong game.

    Only if a faction gets warpgated, you only have 3 ways to attack but this is fine because getting warpgated means that your faction screwed it up for hours...

    sry for the bad english, and it is late. But I realy think the lattice system will bring a lot of good battles to the game.
    • Up x 3
  2. Irondove

    I hate to say it, but you have no idea what you're on about. the Idea that there is less strategic positioning if you cant cap every base in sight is laudable. Here is an analogy: League of legends is like a lattice system. Even though you have pushing lanes, you can set up ambushes in neutral territory you can move freely from 1 lane to another, waging war of attrition with far more devastating precision than you can with the current Hex system. The enemy cannot just flank left or right whenever it meets a force as large as itself. It has to deal with the force pushing its lane...or risk losing ground. Now consider the "jungling" element. if the enemy decides to engage a force pushing a lane, they have to be weary of ambush; a role in which specialized outfits will shine. And just as LOL has 3 lanes between 2 sides. so the lattice system has between major facilities...in planetside 2 its also like a continuous set of LOL games.

    Can the hex system do that. NO.

    Also if a faction gets into a pushing lane situation where there adjacency gets cut off, they will risk losing a major facility behind them. that puts an end to these mindless isolated hotspots.
    • Up x 10
  3. Whiteagle

    I will state the real reason I personally want the "Rush Lane" Lattice:
    It makes DEFENSE mean something.
    If I dig in somewhere and STOP a Capture through a hard fought defense, the enemy can't just ghost cap around my single point of resistance.
    As a defensive player, this makes the game so much more worthwhile, as your actions have an immediately visible benefit for your Faction.
    • Up x 10
  4. Naceo

    That has to be the best analogy I've heard throughout this entire friggin debate. Opening up an infinite number of front lines in response to getting your butt kicked is pretty ridiculous and destroys any sense of game flow. It's still dumb zerging, only on a much wider field.
  5. Rockit

    I am not worried at all about lattice being a great addition to this game. The ONLY thing that I have a concern about is performance when so many players get funneled into a limited set of targets. I believe SOE understands this and thus has chosen the multiple rush lanes and multiple links per facility as a method to compensate for it. However, if they implement too many of the lanes and links then you are basically back to the hex system so there is a fine balance that needs to be struck and I can't help but think this is why the long development time. We'll see how all this turns out but all in all it should improve gameplay for all to enjoy.
  6. FrankManic

    Indeed. It states very neatly why I despise Lattice. LOL is everything I hate in games - predictable, deterministic, where players are reduced to robots repeating an optimized set of actions inside a rigid framework with no room for creativity, nuance, or adaptation. Its the kind of game that bots can play - One which is so tediously, brutally simple that human input is a hindrance rather than an advantage.

    You can control the movement of the enemy in Planetside 2. It's becoming increasingly clear to me that this isn't done much outside of Mattherson, and most of the zergfits on Mattherson don't understand how to do it. There is a very deep strategic metagame in Planetside. It involves the interplay of terrain and base facilities, fortresses and open land, lines of attack and defensive points. It relies on organized, coordinated groups of players that can work together, move and respond quickly to emerging situations, and hold in their heads a coherent picture of how the battlefield changes over time.

    @Inkos - Learn to herd zerg. You can control the zerg fairly easily, even with a small force, by manipulating spawn points. That mostly means positioning friendly sunderers, destroying enemy sunderers, and learning to make the reinforcement system work for you.

    Zergs go where the spawn points are, where the reinforcement points are, and where they see a fight. Make those fights happen. Find badguys and throw lead at them until the hex becomes a reinforcement point. Make sure that there are always well positioned friendly sunderers. Use /orders to call for help.

    And you can do the same thing in reverse - Controlling the spawning of enemy sunderers will allow you to control the enemy zerg. Destroy them when you find them in places you don't want the fight to spread to. Let them live when they're going in the direction you desire.

    Players got so good at this on Mattherson that it forced an evolution of the Metagame. There is very little or no true zerg on Mattherson. Nearly everyone is in an outift. The large, organized outfits of each faction dictate the flow and direction of battle. What you mentioned - The poker newbie zergling who can't be predicted, doesn't exist any more.

    The poker zergling can't do anything to influence spawn points. Outfits will always defend or replace their spawns. And they will always destroy enemy spawns whenever possible. The consequence is that the only place zerglings will be able to spawn are in the places that Outfits want them to.

    Outfits shape the course of battle on Mattherson by controlling the spawn points. Outfits talk to each other, constantly, every day - Coordinating attacks, coordinating defenses, or just chatting. When an outfit needs help other outfits will dispatch a few men or a squad or a platoon to assist. When one outfit notices a breakthrough attempt in an adjacent hex they don't leave the current battle - They ask for help and most of the time they get it.

    Player coordination is the key to getting what you are looking for in this game. If that doesn't exist on your server then it's on you to step up the game - Grow your outfit, engage with the leaders of other outfit, and build a powerful alliance that will force your enemies to evolve to match you. Take charge of the situation and you will be rewarded with a surprisingly deep and engaging game.

    Pick the right defensive spot. You don't defend bases - you defend regions.

    Holding Crimson Bluff allows you to defend the entire surrounding region. The tower is a strong defensive position and very difficult to cap. If the enemy leaves without rooting you out you can easily capture everything betwee the VS and TR warpgates. You don't need to defend every little base - Hold Crimson Bluff and you hold the East. Ditto Scarred Mesa for the south, Indar Excavation for the West, and Connery for the North.

    Defenses that mean something? Try defending Camp Connery when the entirety of the TR and NC are trying to break your continent lock. You always fall back and defend Connery because it is the strongest defensive position in the north - Backed by canyons and the warpgate to the east and with no significant bases north of it. It has broad plains to the south and west allowing anti-armor teams to destroy anything approaching the base before they can engage. Enemies are forced to zerg over open-ground, and air and armor can reinforce Connery from the nearbye warpgate. If you are in the north and you hold Connery then you can hold Indar indefinitely.

    Ditto Scarred Mesa in the south. Scarred Mesa is the key to controlling the entire southern half of the map. It can only be captured if a well coordinated outfit can fly in 3:1 odds and get them all on point at the same time. A determined, skiled defense can hold out on Scarred Mesa for hours. And if the enemy decides it's not worth it you punish them by warpgating their faction. Scarred Mesa commands the battlefield. The enemy must deal with you - you are far too dangerous to be left alone. This is what Giggly doesn't understand - Holding the Mesa gives you an overwhelmingly powerful strategic base from which to punch the TR or NC in the heart of their territory. If they're ignoring the Mesa you send commando teams to seize Tawrich, Regent Rock and Peris while other teams move to Arc Bio and Arroyo Torre. You force the fighting out of your territories in the north. The TR attempt to do much the same when they capture Mao, or the NC when they try to take Indar Ex - You must control those positions or your rear area in insecure - they can easily expand and take your conquests away from you.

    What Planetside really suffers from is a lack of understanding in some of its user-base. There is an extremely complex, multilevel metagame that arises from the interaction of terrain, bases, resources, outfits, and zerglings. But many are blind to that and demand the game be gutted because they can't see what's going on around them.

    There is a rich and wonderful game here. I wish you would learn to play it with me.
    • Up x 3
  7. Whiteagle

    Must be nice to be in a Zergfit where you have a Standing Platoon or two operating everyday...
    I'm in the Angry Joe Army, but since we're "too casual" we've barely have enough guys to fill HALF a Squad! :rolleyes:

    Way easier said then DONE...
    You must be in a Zergfit if you've never been pushed from a defensive hardpoint because you simply DO NOT HAVE THE MANPOWER to hold it.
    Then there is player fatiuge, where the people you are fighting with simply have to STOP PLAYING because they've gotten tired of it, something you don't have to deal with if you have dozens of players at all times.

    No, this is what you don't understand; Sometimes you just DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS!

    It is VERY clear from your opinions on continental stratagem that you are use to having a large reserve of forces at your ******* beck and call, which is NOT a luxury some of us smaller groups have.

    Have you ever wondered what would happen if you COULD NOT hold these Continental hard-points because they would simply spread your forces TOO THIN?
    What about being unable to move out from a cut off Territory because you just have BARELY ENOUGH MANPOWER to hold onto that single piece of land?

    I play TR, and our current Warpgate on Indar only has two towers near it...
    However, those same towers can EASILY be cut off with the current Hex system because the enemy has plenty enough access to Hexes between them and the Warpgate, allowing them to be taken FROM ALL SIDES!

    Should we be holding Crimson Bluff and Howling Pass to keep the Vanu out?
    Yeah, but what do you do when the NC push right though Tawrich Tech Plant to cut everything behind those hard-points off?
    That's the problem with the Hex system, if you don't have the numbers to fully defend EVERY Base on your front you are better off NOT DEFENDING AT ALL!
    Just scatter your forces to the winds at have them ghost cap as much as possible, way easier then trying to stop the entirety of TWO enemy Factions from taking the three or four Bases next to your Warpgate.
    • Up x 2
  8. notyourbuddy

    Hex only works during the last 35 minutes of an Alert when people actually start to defend bases. The 1hr 25mins is just as pointless as the game when no alert is going on.

    Its either people picking out a hex to farm in order to maximize their 20% xp boost or a massive zerg moving across the map mostly steamrolling "Squads Detected" or "Enemies Detected" in their path as the zerg on the other faction actively tries to avoid them and do the same. In other words, business as usual.

    At least under the Lattice when you take a base you know the enemy is going to have to work to take it back. There will be a sense of map progression when you capture a base. No more of this constant wack-a-mole ghost-cap chasing crapola.
    • Up x 2
  9. FrankManic

    I get by with a little help from my friends. I can count on at least twelve, usually 20, and sometimes 30 people from my outfit.

    But TEST doesn't fight alone. We rely on AT, GotR, NNG, TGWW, V, any many other outfits large and small. Vanu Mattherson has a strong community of mutual support and cooperation. We work well together.

    Have you considered recruiting more people to bulk up your numbers? If you cannot recruit more people have you considered getting into communication with other outfits so you can coordinate better with them? I won't suggest joining another outfit en masse - If you guys play together I imagine you've got your own practices and culture and don't want to give them up. But working together with your faction can make up the difference if you only have small numbers to draw on.

    Also - They really should just give the Canyons back the Vanu. We never had any trouble holding them, but apparently they give TR and NC no end of grief.
  10. Whiteagle

    Like I said in the other thread man, I've personally been apart of two or three attempts to get our Server's Outfits working together...
    Problem is, most Terran Outfits on Waterson either have a hundred or so players, or are HUGE Zergfits like ODAM, TRAF, or EGO.
    Not that those three are bad Outfits per-say, but their reliance on the same quantity over quality tactics as the NC's DVS (THE Zergfit, who even after culling half their numbers still have one of the Largest Outfits on the server) and Vanu's VDRS does lead to clashes with smaller group leaders on how things should work.
  11. Varben

    Death to Ghost Caps. Death to Ghost Cappers.
    • Up x 9
  12. Cl1mh4224rd

    Grrr... I wish people would stop implying that inter-continent connections and intra-continent lattice relate to each other in any way at all. They don't. They're similar concepts, but one is not dependent on the other in any way.
  13. UberBonisseur

    Not true; since nothing forces you to redeploy anywhere currently.

    You lose nothing from being cutoff. It doesn't affect you.
    It doesn't matter if you're alone at the crown in the middle of two factions.

    I mean, I'm all for removing connections on good old Indar, there are way too much, but keeping Hex as a basis because of the few good points it had and wrap it up within 2 months, versus a year for a functional lattice
  14. zukhov

    You are forced to redeploy, the territory you have been cut off in is useless and the enemy is advancing on your warpgate. If you want to cap the cont then you can't just sit in a base. If you want to advance again then you have to fall back and defend the bases that the enemy is taking. The only time it makes sense to hold just one hex is when its the last one standing on a cont you own. And unless you significantly outnumber the other empires then its just a game of rinse and repeat, they can't stop you from back capping them and vice versa.

    If you are alone holding the crown, while cut off by two other factions then the entire force there is useless and should redeploy. The crown is a classic example of this, the faction that holds the crown usually loses everything else.
  15. LordMondando

    Lattice doesn't solve ghost capping. Nothing is forcing people to be in any given lane.

    It only makes it more likely that people might be there to contest any given base in any given lane.

    Is a map is underpopulated, people are still going to gravitate towards the 2-3 fights going on and leave the over 4-6 lanes to be potentially ghost caps.

    Its also a completely false dilemma your proposing, in being against the lattice as it is at present. You are not there by supporting the status quo, and ghost capping.
  16. zukhov

    The problem with sending a few guys back to deal with ghost capping is that you probably need everyone to defend the facility you are at, and no one wants to run back to an empty base, cap it and miss out on a decent fight. If the enemy sends out 2 back cappers then you are losing at least 4 squad members to resecure a couple of empty territories. So chances are you will lose the base you are in and the ghost capped territories and have to pull back even further on the map.

    IRL this would not be a problem, you would leave people behind at every empty base and in theory they would be fully alert and ready to defend. In game no one wants to hang around an empty base to stop it getting ghost hacked.

    The large battles that do occur now often dissolve after a few minutes because the attackers or defenders have to pull back their forces to deal with another situation on the map.

    Ghost caps are usually not over in moments, you have to send people to the base, they have to find and kill the ghost cappper and make sure they can't respawn close. If the ghost capper is persistent then you have to get those guys to do guard duty. And even then the ghost capper can just pick another target and start the cycle all over again. This may be fun for the ghost capper but defiantly no fun for the people guarding the point. It just bleeds squad and platoons dry so you either stay together and constantly get cut off, forcing you to redeploy and send out ghost cappers or spread yourself thin and defend nothing.

    Because its so easy to cut off the enemy with the hex system any advance they make can easily be cut off and vice versa. The only way to cap a cont is to zerg it and hope you can get a pop advantage before the other empires realise whats going on. All the 'spec ops' back capping that goes on now makes no difference to that at all, its just a numbers game.

    An outfit can be super skilled and able to attack or defend against odds of 3 -1 but they will never make any progress because they can just be ignored. The hex system is as much about numbers as any other. Everyone gets spread out so thin its just like a game of wack a mole. Enemy squad in a hex?.... drop 2 on them, enemy platoons in a bio lab?... ignore them and cap everything outside. Some group too good for you?... Ignore them and back cap. Whoever has the most numbers wins.

    Everyone keeps saying that they are just going to get zerged with the lattice... but we get zerged all the time with the hex system, just on a faster timer and a smaller scale. At least the lattice system will allow friendlies to reinforce you - and if you are outnumbered significantly on every lane on the lattice then you just don't have the numbers on the cont to do anything anyway. You would lose under either system.
    • Up x 5
  17. Camycamera

    omfg. are you still complaining? do you know how bad the current hex system is? it is not very predictable where the attackers/defenders will come from at times. lattice makes defence more... defensible. death to ghost cappers. yes.

    also, it gets rid of those POINTLESS territory hex areas where there are no bases in the area, for example:


    (yes pic is old but i got it off the internets and is a perfect example)

    and the enemy is obviously still able to go to those "neutral" areas, they are just not owned by anyone.

    and ******** on your "it's gonna kill the fights" stuff, it will make huge fights more often, that's what this game is about. it will not "funnel" people, it will simply direct poeple in the right direction.

    the hex system sucks atm, and the lattice is pretty much like the system from ps1.

    we'll see if this ***** the game over or not, i haven't played on the test server regarding the lattice, but we'll see on live soon enough.

    now quit your *****in' and go back to yelling "nerf this and that" stuff.
    • Up x 2
  18. Foehunter

    The previous game did have headshots.
  19. UnDeaD_CyBorG

    Yes, that's certainly the post that that this thread needed.
    Full of well thought out arguments, with a well formulated diplomatic opinion based on ... Oh who am I kidding.
    If you've never even played on the test server, please be so kind to not participate in it's forums either.
    Because senseless
    is the only thing you could possibly do here with the openly admitted lack of actual knowledge.

    Edit: Not aimed at you, Foehunter, but the above.
  20. Foehunter

    That zerg-grinding you're worried about: You send infiltrators behind enemy lines to cause chaos. If you had played the "grand experiment" as you seem to insist PS1 was, you would realize that in PS1 I could actually go behind enemy lines, take down an enemy base and begin a ghostcap. If I could manage to get enough reinforcements to join me at the location, you could create a foothold that did not involve having to go through multiple frontline territories to capture. You just needed manpower, ANTs, and the desire to take the location.

    This Hex system is crap. The reason it's crap? Everyone is forced into frontline combat constantly. When there's no pop, the game becomes a game of whack-a-mole. When there is pop, it can be every bit the meat grinder you accuse the Lattice system of being. Especially when there's no option to take territory behind enemy lines. At least the Lattice system had that going for it.

    You want to talk about how Lattice would simplify PS2? PS2 is already simplified. It's simplified, dumbed-down, stripped of everything good that made PS1 what it was. It is now, in effect, a meat-grinder without options. Want do something meaningful behind enemy lines? Nope. Gotta move your frontlines up first. Want to get those Magriders off your case? Nope. Can't hack vehicles. Want to disable the enemies' ability to defend themselves? Nope. Can't disable their radar or spawn tubes. Want to add to the defense of an area? Nope. Can't set up automated turrets. Base too hard to take? Can't win by holding the place under siege. Base too hard to defend? Tough. The generators are all above ground and easily defended by multiple vehicles.

    The truth is, the strategy you seem to think PS2 contains is very minimal at best. The outfit commanders could be truly brilliant, but PS2 really doesn't give them the chance to shine. PS2 is the zergfest you are afraid of. There is no real planning. There is no real value in any of the locations that are captured.

    Was the Lattice System perfect? No. Not by a long shot. Did it cause protracted battles? Yes. Absolutely. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Some players may hate protracted battles. Others love them. For me, it depends. Sometimes I love them, sometimes I hate them. On Esamir, in PS1, I was part of a siege for a base near a river that lasted for 3 days. On another continent, I was part of a siege that lasted for a week. Both instances occured in a one month period. On several occassions, I was part of a team that went behind enemy lines to start draining enemy bases in an attempt to establish a foothold on their held continents. I have played PS2 off and on for about 3 months. Not once have I had a truly memorable experience. This isn't just a nostalgia thing. This is me saying that PS2 just doesn't stand out on it's own as an online game at this point. The reason is that there is no thought involved in the battles. There is no real value in any of the captures. Everything gets retaken 20 minutes later. Everyone seems to be in a rush to capture as many points as possible.

    The game needs continent locking. It needs resources. It needs the ability to drain a base to capture it. It needs a means to capture behind enemy lines. It needs multiple objectives for each base. It needs something, anything, to require strategizing. It needs something that makes it stand out and be memorable. Is the Lattice System the answer? Probably not, but it had a few advantages going for it that the Hex system clearly DOES NOT have. The Hex system IS NOT the answer, either. I want real strategizing, not this "everyone has to do the same thing" crap that PS2 is right now.
    • Up x 7