Hex Lattice: Why it will breathe new life into PS2

I don't think that making strategic options for the defenders more viable will be negated by making strategic options for the attackers more viable. Of course, I don't know what server you play on where every outpost in the game can be spawn camped by one faction.

ITs not about increasing options, there are certaintly no more options than currently in the new system. the touted befenefits early on involved 'great predictability allowing defenders to act strategically'.

In reality, if your up against a superior force, its simply handing them the predictability of your next 3-4 moves (in essence, its obvious that you'll attempt to sequentially fall back through a single lane base to base) and thus, the obvious places to spawn camp.

In a lane. Easily.

And population imbalances on a map, are common on every EU server at least. I doubt NA or AUS is magically different.

You can spawn at bases that aren't along a Lattice route and attack from them. Not sure if you realized that or not.

Right now your major complaint seems to be "but the defenders can still lose if they're horribly outnumbered."

You mean switch to another lane? And do what exactly even if unopposed each cap now takes in most cases this round 22 minutes to complete the caps across an entire 4 base lane, at least in order to reach a point where the flank another lane. Presuming the average 4,7,4,7 split.

No my complaint is 'defenders can't but loose if they're outnumbered'. A subtle distinction perhaps.

I don't think you have any idea how the lattice actually works.

In most cases it's pretty possible to defend unless you're badly outnumbered. That must be a problem on your end.

It is quite a stretch that an enemy will have the manpower to cover 3-4 bases deep in a lane and keep all defenders inside the base. It's far more likely that if you're that outnumbered on the continent, the enemy will attack empty vulnerable bases instead of waiting at a base to spawn camp. Why dominate 1 lane when you can capture 2 others?

setting up at the next base is plausible, but for every man there preparing to keep the enemy in is a man away from the main battle. If you got a platoon waiting to spawn camp, thats a platoon not capturing the base needed to start flipping the next base. Setting up at the next base is only effective if you can capture the base the defenders are setup at. If you can't capture the first base, all that prep means nothing.

The "They could use their manpower better elsewhere" arguments are already part of the hex system. Why don't large zergfits break up and capture territory more efficiently?

Great argument. Please point out my deficiency in understanding.

Normally I'm not convinced of someones expertise when after a bit of back and forth they start going 'well you just don't get it'.

Really, don't I? Please do go on.

Again, stella argument. Care to expand beyond 'nuh uh'?

IF we are talking 1 platoon in a lane, to around 2-3 platoons. Its really not that much of a stretch. Nor is it some stroke of strategic brilliance. Nor are 1:3 or at least 1:2 ratios really that rare in planetside on a single map as is.

Hosin will hopefully help a lot with this, but on the EU servers at least, its common for each empire to have a significant population lead on one of the three continents. Largely due to the perception that that continent is lost. I worry this new system, as is, will exacerbate the problem.

It's happened less of late on Miller. The worry is that it has happened quite frequently in the past. Population balance issues are a feature of the game unfortunately.

Hopefully, there will be leaders who on defence realise that there are places which shouldn't be defended. For example (in current test server lattice, unless they changed it significantly) if you're having the northern gate and lost Mao along its outposts - there's exactly no reason to defend any of the bases leading from there to your warpgate.

Well, we have. A strategy we sometimes employ is to send single squads to different territories. Since we usually field 2 platoons, we can hit 8 bases at the same time. squads will then head towards a major facility to take and hold. Its a strategy we don't like using however. Whenever i know it's being used, i know the next 20-30 minutes are going to be a lot of standing around. We haven't used it a while because its boring, no matter how effective it is.

Now, will there be times where a faction camps the next base in line to prep it? Highly likely. Will they try and secure an entire lane (3-5 outposts/towers)? That's what i'm having a hard time to see. You would need a ridiculous numbers advantage to really pull off that deep into a lane. If you're that down on players, then you should be having your ***** handed to you in any game.

So lets say you're up against a force 4x large than your platoon strength defense. They can easily send half their forces to lock down the next outpost. But hey, that means you are now fighting at only a 2:1 disadvantage at the only base that currently matters. To lock down another base down the line, they're going to have to split up either their forward force, the force attacking you, or a little of both.

This is why bases need to be more defensible. A well dug in force should easily handle attackers numbering 2x their size or more, depending on their position. The PTS has shown some really good improvements to some of the outposts. simple walls go a long way, but there could be more improvements to actually make them feel like military bases and have a fortified position.

So lets look at the numbers (assume skill level is equal). If all outposts gave defenders a 2:1 advantage (they could take on 2 men per 1 of theirs due to the defensive position), towers gave ~3:1 and large bases 4:1 then it becomes very hard to players to pull off that strategy. To have the manpower to attack the vulnerable base and to prep the second and camp it would require at least 4x as many men as you have, and a 6:1 advantage to hold 2 bases deep.

Even if they only need to send equal force to the next base to spawn camp, that is still a lot of people being asked to stand around and wait when they could be attacking the base where the defenders are at to get some kill xp and the capture xp. The only people this option is open to are large outfits, and I can tell you if they're like my outfit they would more likely look for a fight than stand around at an empty base to spawn camp when the enemy arrives.

Looking around the test server I have begun to see better base defense's. These defenses look good enough to counter vehicle Zerg. That along with the lattice system should slow down zergs considerably. I Like the system but agree that this alone will not fix the flow of battle problems we have now. Along side a resource revamp/ large base bonus revamp it would but well I am glad to see something done about free flow pointless feeling Zergs.

This is a joke right ?

Gimme that shovel, and stop digging topics for joking !