So lattice has been a really hot topic, and I think we need to take a step back, and observe some of the key effects it's having on flow, and some of the key limitations and vulnerabilities it is revealing after larger scaled usage. We can observer why this is happening, and what we can do to improve it / manipulate the effect. 1. HUGE persistent battles which mean people are fighting tooth and nail for every single base along a lane. I personally really like this. I think this is the whole point of the lattice system, and I think this part is a success. This is the desired effect, big battles over territory. Tweaking the number of active lanes will allow us to manage the size of battles and the number. 2. More bases are being highly contested. There are much fewer "throw away" or flip flop bases around. Bases like Teran BL-4 on Esamire, which I have yet to ever see a real fight over. Every base, and sattelite in a lane gets faught over which is good and bad! This is great, we can to actually have awesome fights over a lot of bases we're never really had platoons fighting over. The problem is, most of these bases were never designed to have a platoon contesting them. Especially the facility satellites. A satellite tower with platoons defending is Ridiculous to try to capture. Because I feel like while before we had too many options to attack, the lattice may be presenting too few. Or at least, there are serious bottle necks, where a main facility 150 vs 150 fight progresses to a satellite AKA Peris East, and there are 200 people fighting at a base where the CP is 75 meters from the spawn room. If the lattice system is going to keep people butting heads against each other, and is going to coagulate people into fewer, larger battles, then Every base needs to designed to handle a 300 person battle. I'm not sure how to do this. I feel like adding an SCU to the smaller outposts would go a long way to managing the over populating of the smaller bases. Along with this, I believe bases should have a larger defender's terrain advantage. Relying less on the spawn room fortress as the primary advantage to defending a base. I have no problem putting the CP right next to the spawn room, if we can get an SCU on the opposite side of the base. 3. Everything is much slower. Because of the fact that every base is a real tough fight, moving across a continent is a bloody, meat grinder. I'm not sure how quickly this will grow old. Especially moving forwards with continent locks, pushing the same lane on the same continent for days in a row may become quite tiring / tedious. As a post thought, I think making every base that's at the front of a lane (any base adjacent to an enemy base) should always be available as a spawn point. So it's easier to switch lanes. Right now, you sort of get stuck into the same endless battle unless you go back to warp gate, and then crash your ESF into the lane you want.
I would say that being able to deploy at every front-line base may be a bit too much. Being able to instantly dump platoons worth of people at the same zone would be a bit excessive. Maybe instead just let people always spawn at the large bases, that way they are at least never terribly far from the fight.
All the bases are being redesigned to be defensible. In particular, all the bases are being redesigned to keep tanks out.
One very bad aspect of the lattice system you overlooked is its averse effect it has on both the breadth and depth of the game. First, there is breadth. On a strategical level there are a lot of activities that won't be possible. Spec ops, flanking, surounding, cutting off and all the counter play to these activities won't exist anymore. One of the big seling points of PS2 is variety. The game was suposed to be different from a map list. This means fighting in various locations in a player run fashion rather than a static rush lane. It also means seeing those fights at varied size of engagements. Having zerg fights everywhere reduces variety and removes one of the advantages of the game. Still on the strategic level, for those currently leading, the current system is already way too streamlined. It is rare to havé situations were picking a target is an actual dilemna. In general there is only one viable choice, or at least a path of least resistance. That little margin of choice is completely removed by the lattice. Depth in a game is determined by how many "turns" in advance you can think of with uninterupted chains of moves and counter moves. By reducing the amount of choices at each nodes, you reduce the depth of the game. In the same idea, you need varying level of validity for moves. That was supplied by the hex + influence system. For example, a suboptimal move could become the best in the context of specific strategies. (cutting off a push, dividing a zerg, surounding the optimal choice for more influence) i repeat those aspects because this time it is regarding to depth. Their removal means that a leader doesn't have to anticipate the opponents moves or formulate counters on a strategical level. Finaly, the lattice system is a dead end design wise as it cannot be expanded upon. This may be the worst negative point. Overall, the lattice system completely removes an already weak strategical level of playing and compounds the tactical level to only one context: zerg fights.
I think the Lattice System is not ready for live yet. Many people wait for it, I for once don't. I think that only once bases allow elaborate gameplay within them, hacking, sabotage, fighting squadbased engagements to take a basement room for room, there will be interesting gameplay aside from zergfights. Obviously, cutting off an advance comes with those options, and is necessary for any kind of strategic play. And with the lattice showing you where to go next, whether you want to or not, how about some side bases that only give resources, but don't contribute to progress or locks? That would still allow for small scale fights for something that someone might find meaningful, allowing small squads something to do.
1.) Lattice has big firefights. There's no battle to be found - A battle involves many units across a wide area. Lattice is 200 people crammed into one hex until one side gets a numbers advantage. Once anyone has a numbers advantage they steamroll. That's lattice. 2.) Every base in this game is, under Hex, a valid and potentially important target. last night we had an hour long battle over Bulwark, Glacier Station, Commander's Rest, Terran BL4, and Ymir. That's what a Battle is - A series of fights that continues over a period of time and involves forces of varying scales engaging over a wide area. The battle for south-east Esamir during the 10-midnight alter on Mattherson frequently involved platoons on platoons, small squad actions, large armor pushes, aerial assaults, and more than a few daring commando raids as we carefully leveraged our forces to maximum effect. Decision were made. Bases were sacrificed because we didn't have the forces to defend them. Traps were set and sprung, devastating larger enemy forces. Commando teams and aerial hunter-killer groups were running around willy-nilly blowing sunderers and harassing the enemy. Numerous outfits coordinated at a high level to deploy our forces as effectively as possible, provide reinforcement for our allies when needed, and cover each other's flanks. All of this was done by players. The decisions and choices were made by players. We picked the targets, we chose the lines of advance, we enacted those plans and made them work. Lattice kills that. You have a rush lane. You can go forward, or you can log off. Those are your choices. There's no need to coordinate - there's only one way forward and no choice or options available. You push your rush lane with your zerg, grinding through the enemy, until you run into a bigger zerg. Then you jump to another rush lane. That's all it is. Zergs chasing each other in circles. No depth. No strategy, just the most boring kind of fight - A fight that has no purpose, no point, No importance. During an Alert on Hex defending some ****** little one hex base can be the most important thing in the world - That one hex might be the difference between victory and defeat. Every second counts as you're re-deploying to attempt a last minute, last ditch defense. One person can make a difference sneaking by enemy lines to start a cap, and one person can stop them. There's none of that in Lattice. There's numbers. There is raw, brutal, senseless mathematics. If your force out DPS's the enemy then you win. If not you lose. Victory goes to the team with more OHK shotguns, more HE prowlers, more massed lock-on spam. Lattice emphasizes everything that Planetside does poorly - It exacerbates lag, shows off all the problems with client-side hit detection, and makes the game brutal and frustrating for new players who will be gibbed over and over and over again as they try to just get out of their spawn-room. Since Lattice was announced Mattherson server has seen a dramatic improvement in meta-game. Every day strategy, teamwork, inter-outfit coordination, and high level play become more important factors in the game. Large battles are constant during alerts and during prime-time. Even off hours will frequently see at least a few large fights. Mattherson is an unforgiving server that forces players to hone their skills and work together if they want to get anything done. It's exactly what Planetside is intended to be - A massive, dynamic, fast moving battlefield where players drive the action, teamwork and strategy are paramount, but the individual daring soldier can still make a huge difference. Hex works very well on Mattherson. For every player complaining about ghost capping their are two hundred engaged in a whirling multi-hex battle - To push out of Quartz Ridge and secure Indar Excavation - To Fight their way up the Howling Pass and get a foothold on Crimson Bluff - To capture the Regent Rock and rain fire down on the plains between Snake Ravine and the Crossroads. We don't need highly restrictive rush lanes to force large scale combat - Players can make it happen themselves. And the kind of combat players create is exciting, engaging, diverse, and creative. You see a wild variety of tactics, from classical infantry formations to things that would only work in a videogame. What you don't see is hours of throwing your body at a wall with nothing to show for it. Kill Lattice. It doesn't solve the problems of Hex. It creates new, far more severe problems of it's own. And it turns a slick, lean, fast moving game of combined arms warfare into a bloated arena shooter.
Read it or not i don't care unless you are a dev or some guy who has influence and prefers my vision. / [spoiler]Come on ppl. Do you really think the devs just threw this in without thinking? Dude.You can't be serious to think that the current system is good. The only reason why it holds up is because of the addition of the "alarm" mechanism which fills the continents. That's it. And don't come with your BF3, CoD crap... It is incredble. You have two basic arguments: 1. No variety in strategical/ tactical gameplay. 2. Too streamlined resulting in zerg fights. I will begin with commenting on them. 1. Variety. Variety doesn't have to result in ingame depth on a strategic level. Being able to do more things can destroy the depth. 2. Lane style fighting. Don't see any noticable difference to now. The only argument of you is that outfits can divide zergs. Great. I bet the solo players like to be cannon fodder for the sharks. The only engagements that have some fight are platoon engagements. The rest is just pwning others. Imagine you are a solo player.. This game is nice for 1 or 2 hours at most. After this the game feels just empty. So much to do but everything feels senseless. This kind of player wants to fight big battles constantly and feel like he accomplished something with his teammates or on his own He wants to see cool stuff and later go into the higher gameplay levels. Right now this is one of the main disadvantages of this game since game flow is disturbed and strategy only happens on the maco level. Imagine you are a platoon player in a random platoon(when you find one that communicates and is open...). The leaders try their hardest to keep the ppl together and entertain the others with combat actions. The problem is that these ppl want to battle but soon they find themselves stuck with a zerg, crushed by enemy zergs or just standing in nowhere to cap some lone enemy base with a few solo players f*cking around. Imagine you are a outfit player. These kinds of players are those that actually have fun for longer times... They try using the available game mechanics to their advantage. They analyze the enemy movements and know where and how to divide zergs. They don't concentrate on having big and flashy fights but they care about the main objectives. Serious outfit players prefer competitive gameplay and in this game on a large scale. Otherwise they would play other smaller FPS games. But there are some problems. One is called "zerg or not zerg"(in all interpretations) and the other one is the missing of real challenges. But more on this later. Too much variety can destroy a metagame. Why? Let's take this game as an example. You have many weapons available. Here is the problem. Fast releasing of content for variety creates unbalance. I don't think the unbalance of this game creates a real problem, yet. The player should be able to use specific setups for specific situations. And he should be able to prepare it beforehand. When this isn't "really" effective then there is no use in having all these options. Sorry, but to be thrown into random battles(as you called them of "varied size") is not good for tactic and strategy because you basically can't predict enemy movements and size. You can only predict and fight zergs in some tight spaces unless you have lucky scout. For the variety you talk about i play chess. Tell me how many games you played at the top so you can talk about tactic and strategical views in game design. And btw, only because the territories look tight it doesn't mean that you automatically have less options... Competitive gameplay What makes competitive gameplay interesting. Easy. Competition. What do you do to get ahead of the others in the cometition? You learn, train and plan. What can you learn, train and plan atm which is of advantage for competitive gameplay? Not much. And i don't really see a flat learning curve in this game. Individual skill and teamwork don't really seem to be needed for competitive gameplay like in outfits. This game is far too focused on macro gameplay for competition leaving out the actual combat tactics which you can train for which include positioning, teamwork skills like fire concentration or individual skills like discipline and situational awareness in close quarter fights. I'm missing these thing ingame since it seems to be very random. The only time you have this is when you have a small equal fight or you are lucky that a zerg/ platoon gets into your trap. Both cases are random and get rare. I feel that you think of PS2 something like Arma gameplay. [/spoiler] So, what does the new system intend to do? [spoiler] 1. The competitive gameplay is more focused on combat tactics(like flanking, drops, spam and). 2. The combat flow is directed and concentrated. I mean zergs don't have brains or leading. Don't tell me it's a challenge to predict their movements. The real challenge should be to predict the movements of enemy platoons. Additionally the solo players have their fun as well. 3. Challenges are far bigger. You have to plan for cases of resistance at any given time. You have to plan approaches up to the micro level. Atm it is just defending that is really worth to play because attacks end in pwning or zerg fights which isn't really fun for a organized outfit. My opinion The theory itself is nice. But there need to be some changes in terms of capture mechanics, objectives and base designs. Capture mechanics: I made a post a longer time ago which suggests supply line. Short example: Enemy camps at biolap. Your faction takes all the territiories which connect the biolap to the WG and a timer starts. When the timer reaches zero then the base looses influence until it gets neutral which means that the enemy can't spawn anymore, use shields, turrets or terminals anymore. To prevent this you can connect the facility with the WG again. Attacking and defending should only be narrowly divided. You should be able to switch fast from defending to attacking and reversed. THIS gives depth and variety! All in all there should be bigger facilities with many various objectives. With "various" i mean that the cap points should have more distance between them and there should exist cap point to cap point style which is described below. Objectives and base design: These thing are very close. The spaces of bases need to be wider. Closed spaces are death traps. You go in and shoot the hell out of the enemy. Vehicles and infantry battlefields should be combined and divided wisely. Turrets should be far more effective. You can make these things super tough but nerf their damage output considerably. Bases need to get much bigger and restricted. Put walls where you can. set up hindrances so that LA and drop troups have more influence. Balance the tank influence. Not only with a shield and a wall but with more shields and walls. Try to make the attacker capping points in a specific order. They cap one point and advance until they reach the facility. This would mean that LA and drops can drop behind enemies. Then the squad predicts or knows that the enemy come back to get their point back and the squad should be able to make an ambush. (Wider spaces needed) Al these tactics and strategies work in the current system as well. The problem is the amount of times they are needed, the missing challenge it takes to pull them off and the size of the space available. AND HERE IS THE MAIN REASON. In the current system the defense of the enemy is always concentrated at one point. The system actually stops zergs. Zerg vs zerg fights are slow. Even when one outnumbers the other one because they don't stand infront of each other and shoot without dodging or hiding... At some point the one with more numbers win but the thing is that they stall at some point. With this you flank them easily and you can get the enemy base in the back of them to take out spawns. Then the enemy zerg would come back to prevent this and the outfit can defend the facility against spawns and retreating zerglings giving the frontline time. Let your imagination and creativity run wild! [/spoiler] I didn't want to post another one of these posts since this section got flooded when a while back nearly no one was here... Never played PS1. And i don't play Bf3 or CoD. No i'm not a solo player. Even so i'm not a outfit player as well. Since no one is online anymore with hundreds of ppl. Dunno what to think. The friends left long ago. I fly mossie since it's boring, die and quit the game afterwards unless there is an alarm where i maybe have some fun minutes until it is over. I remember when the server got overloaded. Now there is not even one full or well seated at prime times. Don't know what kind of so high and complex competitive gameplay you ppl are talking about. This game just got boring. PS: ADD A SPOILER OPTION OPTION FOR THE FORUM!
Planetside 1's lattice worked Great. Planetside 2's lattice will work great too. Anyone who thinks it won't work doesn't know what they are talking about and is probably missing a brain.
Where did you get this info? I think the same, actually. The problem is many love PS2 in its current form, SOE will have a hard time at making everyone happy. But still I don't like current lattice-map looking, I wish it looked more like PS1. You call that "strategical/tactical"? Current map only rewards one tactic: outnumber your enemy and try to capture as many bases as possible at the same time, because defenders won't able to stop it. Imho in lattica map the fight is not "streamlined": it just encourages bigger fights and less ghost-capping by adding a little predictability. On current hex map you can engage the biggest longest and most epic fight ever seen and while you're fighting your enemy surrounds you and ghost-hack all your bases FORCING you to redeploy, even if you manage to push the enemy back. This is something SOE MUST fix.
I don't remember the dev posts, but there are some screenshots floating around and new base examples on the test server. (or were, not sure if they're currently still there). Lattice Supporters are still the majority 7:1 vs lattice naysayers. The naysayers are just louder. And I keep saying this as well, though it often gets ignored, lattice alone isn't the cure-all. It's merely a step in the right direction. They still need to implement resource manipulation, capture types, base overhauls (as have been mentioned) etc.
I cant quite remember but theres some redesigned bases appearing on Indar where its impossible to get an MBT into position to fire upon the spawnroom or the captrue point.
A bunch of bases are being elevated onto platforms, similar to east Highlands checkpoint, where you have a spawn platform, a point platorm, an overpass bridge connecting the two and a road that goes under / through the base. while you raise many valid points, I think you have to remember that the game is already using a lattice system. It's simply a much more connected lattice. What is on the test server is a much less connected lattice than the current live version, but is still a lattice system. If you feel that the current iteration (Aka the one that they're testing and not putting on live, because it's not ready) has too few connections, it would be more prudent to suggest additional connections which you feel would improve the strategic element of battle flow. Personally, I feel like there are too few lanes, and too few connections in the existing implementation on indar. I havn't had a chance to look at the map, and work something out, but I feel like the Rush lanes could use more cross over points, and more detours around potential choke points. For example, a lane connecting 2 main facilities should be something like, Main facility connects to 3 satelite, each sattelite connects to 3 1-point bases, which in turn connect to 2 3 point bases, back to three 1 point bases, one is a sattelites for the next major facility, the other 2 are connected to the other satelites for the main facility. So with something like this, while they're all in the same lane, it's not straight forwards, and there's always at least 2 places to push in a lane. But the lane connecting the 2 main facilities would be pure, and couldn't be joined from a different path. Something like this may require a reduction in main facilities or drastic changes to the map, but that's why it's on PTS and not in GU8 Additionally , I feel like While I like the idea of making the satellites their own bases, I don't like the idea of being able to skirt a base by taking 2 satellites and wrapping around ( maybe sattelites aren't connected to each other). I also feel like cut-off territory should not be able to project Adjacency.
Here's the thing - I don't want rush lanes. I like Hex. If it's a Lattice system then it's a Lattice with just the right number of connections. If you want the simplest and most damning indictment of Lattice it's that when people become aware of all of the problems it introduces they tend to advocate making it back into Hex, but not calling it Hex. Hex works.
I disagree, there will be more room for flanking, surrounding etc. on the tactical level. Currently a squad is often forced to leave a battle or give up an attack because something has moved on the map. This usually happens quite often, you can be cut off from the WG in less than 10 mins unless you are constantly redeploying your squad. Its pretty pointless setting up a dedicated AA squad to support friendly troops when you are constantly forced to split up and move to other hexes. You can't rely on a friendly squad to cover your flank because they might have to suddenly deploy to another battle, I would much rather work with other outfits on the battlefield, rather than looking at the map and deciding which hexes we are going to take. With the lattice system it would be really easy for one outfit to provide tanks, another infantry and so on and work together in a battle. Maybe its my problem, but atm its hard to work work with another outfit apart from on a strategic level (i.e you guys get that hex, I'll get this one, need more people here etc) because we have to spread out so much on the map and cannot stay together for long. I don't see any reason why the lattice will just be a head to head zerg battle. there are plenty of good squad, platoon and outfit leaders who have a lot more imagination than that. Real zergs are easily dealt with but the hex system makes them very hard to pin down. The lattice system gives you a much better chance to smash them up.
With practice you don't need to re-deploy constantly because you know where the next battle is going to be before it starts. Coordination with other outfits requires you to take the time to get to know other outfit leaders, do joint-ops, and build trust and camaraderie. Working with other outfits means constantly paying attention to where allies are deployed all across the map, talking to other squad and platoon leaders, tracking the movement of enemy outfits, and passing along information. It's a lot of work, but when it works it works very well. Mattherson VS kick *** because we talk to each other and work together. Zukhov - In Lattice You can only attack the next base in line. And there are a very, very limited number of ways to attack any given base, especially if you can only attack each base from one other base. Each outfit will pull as many HAs as they can and zerg the point because it's the only way to kill enough people to have a chance in hell of holding a point. There's no room for tanks - They'll be destroyed instantly by massed fire. There's no room for AA - They'll be scythed down by mass AA. There's no room for tactics - Rushing the point is the only thing that matters in a battle like that and there will be hundreds of people doing that on both sides. There's no room for anything but mashing zergs together. Tactics and strategy are possible now because it is possible to be unpredictable. You can do things that are unexpected, you can go around, you can go behind and then attack from ambush. With lattice you Know which base the enemy is going to attack next not because you've studied the battle situation and made a smart guess, but because the enemy literally has no choice - They must attack the next base in line. And they're going to do it by rushing towards the point in a straight line with all the infantry they have. Every time. Every battle. Every day. Because it's the most effective there is only one point that matters and straight zerging cannot be beaten by tactics. Infinite human waves win, every time. You speak of tactical room for one squad? What good is one squad - You'll need a hundred people constantly throwing themselves at the spawn-room to prevent the enemy from rushing out and re-capping the point. There's no tactics in that except human wave tactics. With Lattice there will be two ways into a Biolab - The teleporter and the jump pad. two ways. Which are really only one way. And every single enemy player will be watching those two entrances. How many ways are there into a tech plant? A tower? Every single base will be slammed full of so many people that you'll die in seconds and never even see who killed you, assuming they even render on your computer. What will you surround? There's only one point to fight over. If you're not standing on the 10m of capture area then you're losing. Surround what? And even if you do get some tanks between the enemy and their spawn how long do you think they'll last? Mass volleys of rockets will kill your armor, aircraft, maxes, before they can make any difference. Squads matter when one squad can go fight another squad and have the outcome of that fight contribute to the outcome of a larger battle. That doesn't exist in lattice - There are no secondary objectives, no flanking maneuvers, no way to go around your enemy or outsmart them or trick them or even beat them with superior skill and positioning - You can only win by having the most numbers on the point. It's the only thing that counts, its the only thing that matters. Lattice is a zerg meatgrinder, every day, forever.
What do you think is going to happen when all of those numbers are condensed into a very small number of places? Numbers are all that matters with Lattice - At least now an outnumbered force has a chance to win by being tricky bastards. No such luck under lattice - You've got no where to run, dodge, hide, or evade. Your only "Choice" is to go straight through the superior force. Which is to say that your only choice is failure. Do you want to play Starship Troopers? Or Hamburger Hill? PS - I found this early trailer for Lattice!
Err... under the hex system I don't need to know anything about battle flow etc etc. I could probably train a cat to tell my squad where to go. I know whats under attack, whats safe, enemy numbers and even a rough guess at their position. You hardly have to be Mystic Meg to predict exactly what the enemy are doing. I have been playing since early beta, and it is extremely rare for any empire to make any progress on a continent under the hex system unless they have >60% of the conts pop. When you defeat someone by capping around them on the hex system its just using game mechanics to avoid a fight. And ultimately, all things being equal you don't gain anything because they just do it back to you 5 mins later. I had a 6 man squad tie down a platoon on Amerish today just by running around between a few bases. Under the lattice system they would rightly have been able to pin us down and destroy us, or make us give up territory. Under the hex system we annoyed and frustrated them and neither side gained much. It was easy to do and ultimately pretty boring for everyone. The rest of the NC were spread out giving or receiving the same medicine. Every time one side gained a little territory they would lose as much on the other side of the map.
It can be done. We managed to take cont lock away from the NC on Esamir just a few hours ago with about 33% (heavy fluctuations). If TR didn't start getting serious when they did, we would have capped the cont ourselves. We wanted territory. Them, not so much (and most of them were noobs- they had one BR 82, and he was too busy flying around in a Reaver to actually flip points). With 50% on Indar (usually because the other factions are in an alert we figure we don't want), VS Connery sweeps down like a hurricane. Then you should feel glad, and they should feel like twits. Why didn't they attack the bases that allowed you to attack their bases? Why didn't they put a few people in Scythes/Mossies and Libs to serve as a rapid-reaction force? All they had to do was break up into four squads and they would have swept you back. But they didn't, and the hex system made them pay for it. Why reward stupidity?
Considering PS1 is very different from PS2, and that you have 0 experience on PS2, I not sure how you can make such a wild claim. I suggest you stick to PSU forums.
The interesting thing here is that the very thing friends of the lattice fields as the weakness of a hex system is shown as it's strength by the other side. I personally think that a squad should very well be able to hold up a platoon, maybe not forever, for a significant time. A half squad may be stretching it, and the opposition should feel bad about themselves. I'm rather sure they weren't that organized, though. I've already seen a squad hold up a platoon in straight combat, and I admit that was enormously fun, but all that stalling a superior enemy only had meaning because other squads could use the time to cap around them. There wouldn't have been a use for a well organized spec ops squad without capping width. I suppose it's down to what everyone likes.
