Then we don't play on the same Miller. Then again, maybe you only play Indar and I only play the other continents. I think it's a well known fact that Indar is the worst continent and if your view of the hex system is limited to that, no wonder you could hate it. However, I can't state this clear enough: The lattice system sucks, the hex system is NOT enough. You see several point of views on that, a lot say that the hex system is already way too predictable while other have no clew where to go, and even less what the enemy are going to do. It's just a matter of experience leading, but the current hex system, while superior to the lattice system strategy wise, is still stupidly thin. In essence, this thread is about denouncing the limitations and flaws of the lattice. it isn't about defending the hex system. You'll see that most people against the lattice are also against the hex and want more out of the game than what we currently have.
The bottom line is that they really shouldn't be making changes to the game dynamics like this until they have the proper class features in place. The truth is that a team should be able to go behind enemy lines to take a base (stop whining about ghost capping). It should be hard, but it should be possible. This, in itself, would make the game more interesting, as a dedicated, properly equipped platoon or outfit could take territory that the rest of their team hasn't gotten to yet. The reason PS1 gets brought up so often was because it was possible to do this, and cut an enemy off from their own warpgate. This, in turn, caused chaos among the enemy, and forced them to send troop back to retake territory. When this happened, the frontlines (where the zergs tended to happen) started to thin out. People like to argue for or against Lattice. They like to argue against making PS2 like PS1. They like to insist that it's "a new game." The truth is, it's Planetside. Period. Whether you're a fan of the first game or the second game or both games, it's Planetside. There are certain aspects of PS1 that need to be in PS2. That said, Lattice is not necessarily one of them. If bases and outposts were more difficult to capture, and actually required a squad/platoon/outfit to be properly equipped, rather than a random collection of individuals trying to grind it out, it would make it interesting. In short, PS2 needs base redesigns, deep captures, class feature additions (and/or modifications), continent locks, and more continents before any changes to Hex or Lattice are made. Making the necessary changes to these other things would help people make a final decision on whether they like Hex or Lattice better. Otherwise, SOE is just making changes without anyone being able to see the bigger picture. This will drive many players away, and PS2 will end up being a failure. Make the necessary changes before dealing with Hex/Lattice.
I think there are many things that could be a lot worse than what we currently have. There are many things they could do to improve the current system. They just realize that many people will be incredibly pleased by adding in "rush lanes" which will be similar to "PS1's lattice." Strategy exists however meager, I don't believe tactics do. I can't really tell the difference between an organized assault and a pack of gorilla's. However the hex system isn't to blame for this. It's largely do to the meaningful objectives, poor base design, and terrain layout. What we need is PS1 style bases, mines, spitfires, motion detectors, AMS, and a PS1 style cert system.
I do agree that more objectives on a tactical level would always be welcome. But don't dismiss the game's tactical depth. To be fair, I kind of think there is a lot of untapped tactical depth in the game. The game is just too young yet, we just limit ourselves to max crashes at most for the average leader. I am personally working hard on this currently, trying to pay more attention to squad composition and team mates load outs, and I try knew things every day. Essentially just trying to improve as a player. It's a weird thought, but as resistant as I am of the MLG involvement of the game, it will improve the tactical play of the game. I know I'll pay a lot of attention to the matches once the format will be stabilized.
I won't, however what I was hoping for was for something closer to... I don't know? Counter Strike is what comes to mind, but I haven't played it enough to really comment on it. Basically I just want more advanced map control to be possible. An example being controlling "Hang'em High''s blue base in Halo:CE it just doesn't feel like any of the terrain matters. I agree that the game's newness has a lot to do with this as well as the constant buffs/nerfs shaking things up every couple weeks.
Base design is currently a huge problem because currently most bases are designed as an entire COD map. So the base is basically even for most people, and the ramparts don't give enough of an advantage against attackers. So battles usually turn into king of the hill stile skirmishes. Until the walls become more important than the SCU / generators, the game will not have the attackers / defender's feel. 2 biggest factors that give position an advantage is Line of sight, and cover, usually a height advantage gives you both of these. Right now, most base ramparts give you a height advantage, over some parts of the base, but often terrain or satellites around the base give you an even greater height advantage. Additionally, Aircraft Make it so that the top of the walls are actually deathtraps, and not the glorious over watch positions that they should be. However much Scarred Mesa Sky-dock, or The Crown are considered thorns / terrible bases. It's simply because they're the only bases that offer that sort of protection. Additionally, since they're such a stark contrast to other bases, they feel even more insurmountable, because every other base is so easy to attack, that people become complacent. The reason why you'll see awesome infantry battles across Esamire or the north of Indar is the Openness of Line of sight, combined with very defined cover, and kill zones. You can take hills and Hold ground North of indar, because it's easy for people to threaten large areas around them. inside of an amp station, You can have 30 people in the base all around you, and you're still hidden, and still able to walk around the base without them seeing you, or being able to shoot you. Which turns the game into a series of 1v1 or 1v2 duels, like COD. With some of the best infantry battles I've experienced north of indar or on esamire is when you look over the hill and there's 50 enemies poking out, trading shots with 50 allies poking up and trading shots, You feel the 50 vs 50, instead of seeing / threatening a few people at a time. The less cover, and the more Line of sight we see in the game, the more epic the game will feel, and the better the experience of Attacking and defending with be. A Flank is great, when you actually get around the enemy's cover, but if everyone is flanking everyone, it just feels like Death match. More line of sight, more valuable positions, will mean more real map control, and a better experience for everyone. There's so many bases where you feel like the defenses are working against you. Like Split peak pass. It's like a minute walk from the spawn to the nearest point, and another 30 seconds to the farther ones. You must cross an exposed bridge to get there, and when you get there, it's completely open. That base is basically impossible to defend. unless you have a numerical advantage.
I had this tab opened for a while now, not finding the time to answer. But I felt your post was well thought out and deserved to not go unanswered. You make a very good point on map design. unfortunately, I've seen a lot of people considering there are no infantry fights on esamir/amerish without a lattice system. Which is obviously wrong as the best infantry fights I've had were on the hex system and in pushes in between bases. My most memorable is exactly like you said, pushing down from Sungrey to Crux headquarters. Moving sundies up each time we conquer a hill/large rock and eventually get to the target. I think the game is too young still for people to realize that the best defense is offense. Setting up defenses in a base is a last chance scenario. It is fairly easy to determine where the enemy will go, and what route they will take, but it isn't always as efficient as keeping them engaged at their previous target. The best way of keeping territory is to actually be in between the bases and keep on pushing rather than waiting for the enemy. Blitzkreig, not trench wars. One of the positive about the Lattice is that it may teach the player base those facts. But that's a minimal gain compared to the drawbacks.
The huge battles are fun, until a stalemate occurs. Then it's just a constant tug o war for 2 hours straight or even longer. A possible solution would be strategic defensible locations between points that naturally encourage flanking and safety for infantry. Just random buildings, bunkers, towers, but with no spawn points.
I haven't been able to play much, but Wed night, I played a couple hours, and found that when a battle starts to choke into platoons vs platoons at a satellite base the front line actually started to extend. After about 20 minutes of fighting for peris east, there was a front line from Peris east all the way to Vanu archives, with tanks, and infantry pushing for every inch. It was actually really awesome. Not sure if it was luck or the lattice system, but sometimes having lots of people fighting for a small base ( with less cover around it than a main facility) there's more open field combat, which IMO is some of the most fun PS2 has to offer.
