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

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

  1. TestyVenom

    I agree entirely. I don't know anyone that truly thinks the Rush Lanes/Lattice System is THE thing that will fix all of the problems in PS2. It is, however, the proper direction to take with the game when considering the development of the game in the long-run.
    • Up x 4
  2. LordMondando

    I've been at 2/3 PTS's. Neither of our experiences invalidates each other. I'm simply pointing out a problem and others have seen. Denying its there at this point is just moot frankly. Two of the three tests, its been easily apparent on the NC/TR front against both TR and VS.

    Note also, I'm talking about the problem that already exists in the game being made worse. Again denying that population imbalances and being zerged because of them is non-existant in PS2 at present, is a little odd. That the new system improves this situation also seems hard to argue for.

    Its also a problem thats importantly, demonstrable and repeatable. I hope to do more tests in the near future to illustrate this.

    You misunderstand. My point about verdun, was if they make the bases more defensible as a move to help solve population imbalances they'll only succeed in making attacking a generally frustrating experiences when you don't just vastly outnumber a defender.

    That doesn't seem like a solution to me, just moving the problem. That was my point in mentioning verdun.
    • Up x 1
  3. Aesir

    Biolabs are the only base I would say are a bad design, because of your stated reasons and I agree with that. Techplans/Amps have the fighting spread throughout the entire base, only the BioLab funnels fighting into knife fighting distance. The Dome could use a second level below it of the same size, approachable from the center ground. While the Pads are the other 2 "lanes" inside.

    But the fighting is not only inside the dome it also happens outside the dome.

    This is why we need more defensible bases against Vehicles but also, more powerful multi crewed Vehicles with dedicated Driver/Gunners.

    So you can make those outside moves to resource a base, you cut the enemy off from the satellite and hunt down the Sundy's ... clearing the Inside will only be a matter of time.

    PS1's Tanks primary role was to counter Infantry and hunt down AMS's ... well until everybody and his entire family hand an OS ...
    • Up x 1
  4. LordMondando

    Well the lattice is pretty much done, time to get onto the other systems.
    • Up x 2
  5. UberBonisseur


    I mean, I'm all for linking the continents together, but should two separate continents interact with eachother ?
    And how do you make it work ? We don't have decent base benefits yet.
    • Up x 1
  6. Ash87

    People know my opinion on resource system, it is in my sig. I tend to go more towards the Limited availability of resources driving combat and pushing people down lanes (You know, just like in real life, badum tish). I do think people might not think the Lattice will solve all issues, but I do think there are an abundance of people on both sides, support and hate, that have uninformed opinions.

    When it comes to the 4th faction, I think something rather critical needs be applied. The game should actively punish people who try to flip between factions on the same server, during the same play session, while courting new people by encouraging them to play on disadvantaged factions for one server or another. Anything else would be obtrusive and would drive people away. The best example, was someone I saw this week recommending that there be ques if you were joining a faction with a pop advantage. I'm on Waterson, where 75% of players are TR or NC. It's a dead heat between TR and NC as of just recently. If they were to punish people for not playing VS on that server, you would risk alienating 75% of people. Simply encouraging new people to play VS, by giving them a bonus to something or granting them equipment... or what have you, would go a LONG way. Maybe, if you create a char with a faction that has a pop disadvantage, you get 250 certs at start. If you switch between characters in a 12 hour period, you incur a 25% XP handicap.

    There, incentivizing people to join VS, so they can buy something better at Start when making a new char, and discouraging 4th faction switching between the same play session. 4th factioners would have to worry about loosing a significant amount of their earning potential, and would gradually shift to one faction or another to play on.

    I'd also say that playing on One faction or another over time, should give you a small passive boost to XP, or something akin to the Loyal Solider Bundle, that actually rewards Loyal Soliders.
  7. Aesir

    The Lattice in itselves is an improvement over the Hex System in my opinion. It's easier to fix than trying to make the Hex system better.

    To "fix" the lattice you need to make sure that you can not spam powerful Vehicles, dedicated crewed Vehicles(driver does not get a strong gune) that are more powerful than your 1-seated counter part will reduce the number of Vehicles, allowing those crewed Vehicles to be more powerful.

    Tanks were the absolute hard counter to Infantry outside of bases in PS1. However inside a CY you had to be very careful with your Tank. Vehicles also were completely shut out of the base internal fighting.

    There were several things "around" the lattice supporting it, small and big features that made the lattice a very good system, but those features on their own also were very interesting. Spawen Generators, Doors, the balance between Vehicles in the field vs Infantry but also the balance between Infantry in bases and Vehicles trying to clear them out, the NTU system, facility benefits, benefits being spread out via the lattice, the generators you could destroy and hold to cut those benefits(without actually being able to take the base).

    To make the Hex system really work we would need more players and we need players that don't run from a fight. The Problem with the Hex system, you have a unfavorable battle on your hands on this base, many players do not want to overcome that challenge and search for an easy fight they can totally win. Making it even harder for those that stay and actually fight.

    We, the Players can not embrace the Hex system, because 50% stay and defend, while the other 50% go somewhere easy. That's how the whole Zergs avoiding Zergs comes to pass by. This is what ruins the game. The Hex system could work if players would stay and fight, this does not happen and I see no system to make this happen ...

    We are stupid humans that rather win, no matter the cheese ... So we can not effectively use the Hex system.
    • Up x 1
  8. LordMondando

    I'm not arguing for the hex system though. I'm aruging that with just the lattice system, we improve some things, but also make problems with population imbalance worse. I also worry that given how derisive lattice has become this is largely just being drowned out.

    What I'm pushing for and i'm sure SOE love me for it, is that we need the resource revamp now, it needs to look something like a logistics system, and this needs to emulate real life logistics enough to the point where it gives drastically larger forces in a map or any given lane an inherent weakness in how many resources they chew through and the logistic network feeding them this has to be in a sense vunerable. Exactly how to cash this out, with ANT like vehicles, or with gens, or both (I'd perfer this). Is an open question.

    What I think can't happen is lattice goes to live and thats just it for the next couple of months. I don't think that will be what happens, but none the less a lot was dropped to put lattice at the forefront and there were some pretty big claims about it fixing a lot of the games problems.
  9. Aesir

    Basically we all want PS1 with PS2 gunplay... :D

    I apologize for not knowing your intentions. There are like 4 other threads out there with people claiming the Lattice is the end of PS2 ...

    The Lattice like others said is a step in the right direction, a step SOE needs to make, all the supporting features can be added over time, like a revamped resource system, a better dedicated crewed Vehicle system, a better base layout, more "side" objectives within a base, some of which you can achieve and have an impact even if you do not have a Link towards that base.

    I think SOE needs to focus more on tactical gameplay once the lattice is in place. Improving how bases handle the bigger numbers that are funneled into them, but also Vehicle combat which should be more focused outside the bases ...
  10. Ash87

    Well the longer I play in the Hex system and have the lattice to look at as a counter point, the more I don't think that the hex system is fundamentally a BAD system...

    But it's a system that is designed to work on Larger servers. If you have 2000 people on a map, lines on a hex are very well defined. You have to look for weak spots in a line and push against said weakspots. With the Lattice actively funneling people already, you get a system better set up for a small or medium sized server.

    But the issue is still that no one has Reason to stay and defend the bases. If I am going to stay at a base, it needs to be for something. Certs MIGHT work, but it'd have to be enough to supplement players who could be elsewhere doing something else. I would say this wont work, because then you'll annoy people who go out and actively TRY and fight.

    This is why I say finite resources would be the best solution. Make the whole dang planet into mad max, and let us all fight over the last scrap of oil.
    • Up x 1
  11. LordMondando

    I think we can do much better than PS1. Though I think its logistics system is generally a pretty good blueprint. An important point is though, that the issue im talking about, was largely absence from PS1 in virtue of PS1 at maximum on a map having a 1/6th the population of PS2.

    I also worry about issues like how fun defending/attacking/maintaining a logistics system would be, early drafts of ideas I came up with were unworkable without some form of A.I base turrets, which would introduce PvE into the game, which I'm less than keen on.

    By and large Lattice is as good as its ever going to get, though I don't think it should be made live, until another system that deals with the population issues is also tested to a significant degree as well.

    My challenge to anyone who disagree's is that they turn up for more PST, or one of the 'sunday testathons' I hope to organise in the near future, so they can see the problem for themselves.

    Hell if everyone who actually supported lattice (unfortunately in a lot of cases with minimal critical though demonstrated in thier posts) actually turned up to the PTS, there would be ques to get into Indar. I think thats a big problem as well.

    My position has changed quite considerably over time. Though I've always been worried about it removing strategic depth, on further consideration and indeed having to actually play a bit part in some large alliance operations have lead me to the conclusion that territory capturing alone is never going to give the real stategic depth the game needs. So base capture logic is by and large moot to that concern. The real overarching problem, namely of population imbalance only really became apparent

    At the same time, I play as hell of lot more 'soloing' in the game than i've done since the first week, in the last month. On Ceres and Cobalt, getting sustained large fights there is much, much harder than on Miller. Prehaps lattice will substitute a little bit for a weaker outfit community engaging with causal players.

    But its hard to say, not enough people are turning up to the PTS's at the moment.

    I think your largely right, but metagame. that is 'the game about the game' or how things play at a stragetic level, has been weak from launch and arguably, the one consistent legitimate complaint from launch and even back into beta.

    Just putting the lattice system is, is a band aid at best. As i've noted as well, my concern. Which I'd really like if people supporting lattice would take some time to go and examine first hand next PTS. Is that its going to make the frustrating experience of being zerged, or the unengaging experience of running around in a zerg. Far more predominant in the PS2 experience.
  12. UberBonisseur

    Just saying here, my main point isn't about bashing the lattice for the sake of it, but that sentence above sums up everything:
    The resource system needs to change
    Vehicles need to be redone
    Base design needs to be remade
    More tactical objectives have to be added

    The core is not the lattice.
    As we speak it achieved nothing.

    Regardless of the system, TONS of work is needed.
    Do we pretend Hex and ghost capping was the cause and buy another 5 months of time to implement a new system ?
    SOE is doing just that.

    My rant about the Lattice isn't just for the sake of ranting.
    It's a convenient solution that pretends to adress issues which were not looked at in 6 months of Hex system.
    • Up x 1
  13. Aesir

    The "meta game" is more than just strategic play, it's also tactical play. Both work for and against each other.

    You add more tactical meta play into the lattice system ... you automatically add more strategical meta play.

    Let's say as an example, some outposts between bases and towers have a link up generator, you blow that up and lose your lattice benefits past that base.

    Now if we also would have more or more impacting facility bonuses and actually different outposts having also benefits would again add more reason to actually defend/blow those link up generators. Adding more depth to both tactical and strategical meta game.

    Meta Game is not only on the strategical side, it's also on the tactical side and they both affect each other. It's not only about what base but what to do inside the base.
  14. r1stormrider

    so what im getting from this post is that im gonna be playing this lousy hex system so i can constantly engage in a silent war 2v2 or 1v1 against another infiltrator. we're going to be chasing eachother around abandoned bases out in butt-fuhckistan fighting over a point so we can keep on ghost capping? i dont see how this promotes large battles. while im there chasing an invisible enemy all my friends are having a complete and total blast in an actual battle. the hex promotes exactly what you say you dont want. there is no frontline, no direction for the battle. a major engagement finishes and everybody scatters to the 4 winds. then guess what? you have platoons farming single squads!
  15. Aesir

    To say it short, PlanetSide 1 never happened in some minds ... though we have been screaming and point in it's direction as a good basic concept since early beta. :)
    • Up x 1
  16. Irondove

    So I've been looking at the thread posts, specifically those who say that the lattice system is restrictive. I take issue with that. I would estimate that they are cutting about 1/3 of the current hex adjacency out of the equation; static spawn points. Its not as if the lattice system restricts you to a max of 3 lanes; well only if they enemy is within a two hex distance of your warp gate ( giving just a little more time for the faction to defend its warp gate).

    Second It prevents an opposing force from capturing a static spawn point(a captured territory) in an adjacent hex and circumnavigating an offensive through this spawn point, instead the defending faction has to depend on dynamic spawn points(sundies) beyond defending the immediate static spawn point the enemy is advancing on. This mean that you have a far more vested interest in the static spawn points available to you, but are not limited by that factor.

    Also once the lattice is implemented, back hacking should be reimplemented fully; being able to take a territory regardless of the adjaceny, but the capture should require a presence on the point throughout its capture or it flips back to the origional state. Spec ops is born.
  17. zukhov

    A couple of territories get capped behind you, you have to send 4 guys from the squad back to flip the points. Maybe hang around if the ghost capper is hiding. That's 1/3 of a squad doing nothing but tidy up work. Not only is it a boring chore for the people you send back but it cripples the offensive and defensive ability of the squad. And it can be done with no effort on the ghost hackers part, just jump on a wraith or ESF, flip the point and move on. That's the problem.

    Its much more effective under the hex system to split up and solo cap bases, avoiding all enemy contact. Its the 'smart' thing to do, but bloody boring as hell. It makes no difference to the outcome of the continental battle, all sides do it to each other, one sides ghost hackers cancel anothers out and its only by sheer brute force that a continent is capped. Indar on Miller hasn't changed hands for weeks, with fairly even pops on a continent its just a stalemate - maybe one or two large and pointless battles and a lot of very small, uneven skirmishes that are over in moments.
  18. Whiteagle

    That's a semi-good idea...
    Might need some more limitations so the game doesn't become fifty Infiltrators jumping on any points they can find behind enemy lines, but the logic is sound.
  19. Rockstone

    It worked in planetside 1 REALLY well... but to set it up we'd need sanctuaries.

    Also, ITT: OP is retar-ded. The lattice is great and it worked great in Planetside 1- a game far more tactical than Planetside 2.
  20. DjUnicorn

    Another Anti-Lattice thread by the same guy? Good god, talk about spam.
    • Up x 2