GU11 Ends Lattice Standoffs

keep telling, its gonna be even worse now TE left the game

Wouldn't this change make zerging even more efficient and prevalent that it already is ? At least before you had a really good chance to defend a facility next to the Warpgate and deny the continental cap. This change will make the population imbalances problems even worse, seeing now that there will be less options to take back a continent if you're faction lacks numbers ...

Remember the game is aiming at the mlg types, as primary customer base, an you an I dont matter to SOE in the slightest. The game has to be simplistic an shallow or how do you think mlg could play it?...

it never really meant anything anyway to be honest, but now its just insulting.

Dont know where you fight or that you are actualy looking at the map as this is simply not true.
Or you have a incompetent enemy.

O shut up,
first off, you use word tactical wrong.
Lettuce increased tactical play while removed strategic.
As for the rest I will not comment ... just please shut up

If others and I get into heated discusion that degenerates into sh+t fest does not mean that valid points are not discused.
But your comment is just ....
Just shut up.

I agree but still its underwhelming.
SOE at least give us visual and auditory sign that continent is caped/lost.

I was talking about the specific event (end of cont capture when the ennemy is down to his last owned region) that has been refered to sooner in this topic. In that event, under both systems, the fight is simply a cluster fest. The change avoids the end cluster zergfight of a cont capture / lock defense that occurs on BOTH system (Skydock Mesa anyone?)
I was NOT refering the the general types of fights found on both system, but specifically what the complained change is aiming at.

Well, see my other posts in this topic.

Agreed, but still, 75%. ... ?

Well at least now we will have something to do each night. Cap the continent. I just wished it gave some kind of chime or anything to indicate that continent was secured.

It's SOE, you expect them to come up with a correct balance at first try? Hopefully this percentage will be made higher soon

Just makes Mattherson another 1-faction server - it's bad for us all.

PS1 lattice was 3D and actually allowed flanking, PS2 lattice is linear stalemateathon.

Wait, you're telling me that continent caps actually mattered?! I'm sorry, I honestly didn't notice with having to pay 5.95 instead of 5.99 for my tank....
But, I guess as they say, he who doesn't pick up a penny, will never get a dollar.
/sass

This is a bicycle shed. As in it has little bearing on the game other then ego stroking. It's a nice thing, I'll admit. It gives people something drive towards but in the end it's like a medal you win at a local jogging contest. It's nice, there are SOME small perks for a while but in the end it has no bearing on anything at all.

"Oh we have [Continent A]!"
Well... woo hoo to you I guess, we on [Continent B/C] have been eating nothing but bullets for the past hour or so. How about you bring some of that pew-pew over here?
"Nah, I think I'll stay here and bask in my glory!"
Charming.

Its the best solution now, I just hope they change it back for cont locking. I think thats going to be a while, also ash had a good thread about making 100% cap double the benfit of a 75%, but you would still be able to break locks and what not.

People that want the lattice don't care.

They're already off chasing the next set of flashing lights....leaving those of us that want to play scratching our heads over this lattice thing....wtf were they thinking?

It never meant anything much before. But compared to now, yea~h...!
This made TR having another "Dominating Victory" on the TR-populationserver Miller.

I really feel deceived, betrayed, mocked and abandoned being on Miller.
So sad to see what the game already has become. So much potential not just used but wasted what was used.

SOE is working nonstop at how to take out even more strategical elements. : (
They clearly dont know what they are doing. Its our duty as fans and players now, to always CRY about it. =_=
I hope our crying will pay off, one day.

I do not like this new threshold poodoo..

I really want to write a big QQ rage post and scream n kick and quit....but I'm going to try to play the game a bit this weekend and see how it goes.

Well, I'm an a$$ for assuming. To me it seems blatantly obvious. It never crossed my mind to verify if territory control was based on area or on percentage of total outposts owned. You have different sized land areas assigned to different outposts. Why would you not give those differences meaning? This revelation is disheartning to me. Yet another "thing" that takes away from PS2's charm.

Malorn, I've read huge chunks of your manifesto, even though I've never played PS1. You of all people should see value in adding the extra depth of having one base be "worth" more than another in terms of land area, where it could be worth "less" in terms of resources. It would just add depth. In what way would it HURT gameplay to have it work this way?

Lol, since Alerts were added to PS2, I have been hearing squad leaders and platoon leaders target specific outposts because of their land area during continental alerts. It has added "struggle" and "challenge" to our "strategies". It's funny, because we have been creating our own "depth" via our ignorance. Now that is gone. It's going to go back to attacking the base with the fewest defenders now. Yay (not).

I had fun today on Indar. Then an epic battle on the bridge to skydock ensued. It looked epic but felt more like a movie than a video game. My FPS only dropped to 40 but there was definitely either computer lag or ping lag because I couldn't hit anything with a sniper rifle. So I stealthed and got some pistol kills at the end of the last bridge then died and the battle was over. Then we did it again a couple hours later and capped an empty base.

A break down of the tactics of attacking and defending using the lattice in video.