'Strategy' doesn't mean anything when the battles are sparse or forced. I'd much farther prefer lattice/lane over hex for this fact alone, moar people, moar battles, moar certs and fun! Ultimately there are more tactics at the micro level, due to increased frequency of enemy encounters in specific instances the focus is shifted to reactions of the individual and smaller squad. And who says you can't flank any more? You know you can go out into the neutral zone. I remember when everyone thought lattice was a good idea, now everyone is being incredibly wary of it, why? Enough second-guessing, though often the ideas of the community are great, at some point we need to get to work, sometimes I even feel like it's killing the game. So, what do you prefer, 'strategy' of a sandbox game that has ambiguous aims and uninteresting goals, or the incredibly visceral feeling of fighting head on, molding flesh and armor into one organic fighting unit? At least, this is how I look at it, lattice is great, and every sacrifice of sandbox strategy is worth it.
For the kind of gameplay you are looking for, you can already get it with minimal effort. For anyone who wants something more than just massive and relatively mindless battles 24/7, this harms. I don't ask you to stop doing what you want to do. If you want to run into a Bio Lab guns ablazing or grab a tank and join the zergs colliding at an Amp Station, nobody is preventing you from doing so. In fact, the game gives you multiple ways to easily get this. Yet you're asking everyone else who doesn't want to play your way to adapt or leave.
Sir, I simply prefer massive battles with clear objectives and obvious short term endgames, and no I can't find them, especially with Alerts, everyone runs away, they all run to ghost cap territory. I don't see red alerts (enemy platoons!) or even just regular platoons for more than two minutes at a time most days I'm on, it saddens me, not even in the few and far between bio lab fights, I like the outdoors too, but Tech plants are no better, the only localization points are reactionary spawn camps as few have the backbone and organizational skills to have massive platoons crash head on with hex system. Neither have I asked you to stop doing what you're doing, if you want to hop to desolate lanes and capture the most territory so be it, but you'll get your fight too. You're asking everyone who wants big battles to adapt to worthless strategy or leave. My statement is an exaggeration of course and is not the words those of the opinion would use, but I feel it is an apt amalgamation of the intellectual movement against lanes. I just want this done ASAP, it's better than hexes in current state, we can work on a 'web' afterwards if that is needed, but afterwards please.
You automatically assume anyone who disagrees with you, anyone who wants to actually apply strategy on the macro level in Planetside 2, is someone who wants to just cap vacant territories. You're not alone though, I have a lot of experience with arguing against people who do just that. I know how it always turns out. This shows me that continuing to argue with you is a pointless endeavour. No need to respond.
Okay then, I submit, let us agree to disagree. I value big battles and micro strategy, you value macro strategy.
NC were ghostcapping aggressively during Indar alert on Miller yesterday evening. 4 minutes if often not enough to notice ghostcapping taking place and drive there on time. It's good we had some EFS pilots who read /order from time to time. Can't wait for lattice system to be implemented.
You tried it yet? What it if removed mirco tactics as well, and who won every battle was just a function of their numbers? Also why not add another system as well, that preserves strategy? Why is it the best possible option?
Out of curiosity, how does it always turn out? I have some experience trying to move around a territory to increase influence* to assist in a fight over, say, a bio lab. The idea of this kind of "strategic" movement I don't have a problem with, I just find it tedious and boring because there's almost always no-one to fight when doing these things, and I extract little enjoyment from an FPS** game when it doesn't feature the "shooting" part. *Given that influence has been removed, there is no more point doing that beyond simply surrounding a territory, which will indeed yield an advantage in the form of "ability to attack from a different angle", yet this can already be achieved through less boring means, so once again I see little reason to do it that way. I'm a patient guy, but being patient does not make the game more fun after you've waited a bit, nor does it make waiting itself fun. **If we're going to say that it's not "only" an FPS game, then we should very well compare the parts which aren't FPS to their respective genre to see how they hold up - if this is done for the "non-FPS" parts of planetside it's quickly evident that the game generally sucks in those regards, which is to say, if I want to do those things I'll play another game which does them better. This is either a call for improvement or removal - whichever makes the game better. So, what alternative to the lattice did you have in mind?
Please refer to my second and third posts, I did not say it was the best, I just said it's great. And yes I have played it. No, it does not remove micro tactics. I personally and sincerely think the combination of lanes and tutorials will save this game. I would prefer a large game with a lot of FPS fans in it than a small or dying game with only strategy fans in it.
Two things - One, if you want short term end games I would suggest you look to a round-based game like Battlefield. Two, your server is underpop. Re-roll Mattherson. A large part of this whole debate - Most servers aren't Mattherson and experience an inferior standard of gameplay as a result. The populations are, apparently, too small for the systems in Planetside to function. The quality of play is too low for significant evolution of metagame strategy and tactics. Smaller servers would likely benefit from having one of the three continents taken out of rotation so only two are available at a given time as lack of population seems to be the clearest persistent problem that people bring up. That and lack of teamwork.
If you want to ghostcap stuff play on an empty BF3 servers... see, ****** argumentation can go both sides!
Great is a poor choice of adjective then. It might is my worry. As has been discussed a bunch of times, by myself and others there is absolutely no reason it has to be either/or. The technical term is false dilemma.
http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...-lack-of-strategic-depth.118877/#post-1612820 2067 words for you.
The OP plays HA... of course he is looking forward to the lattice.. It is going to be a HA dream... When there is only 3 bases open to capture, you think any armor is going to live with 500 strikers at each of them bases? Rocketspam fest, Op metro style...
So what the lattice system will do, is force you to defeat your enemies, Both Tactically and strategically. Additionally, since there are fewer people idling as, there's more constant active combat zones, it means that everybody that you're occupying by holding out at Vanu archives or Scarred mesa, will be less soldier resisting your offensives in the other lanes. Before lattice, you could arguably had to "out strategize" your enemies by simply putting more people where they were weak, and cutting-off / ghost-capping around, defended points. Now you will have to defeat entrenched enemies by out playing them tactically. If someone is set up in a fortress ( biolab / Scarred Mesa / crown / quartz ridge ) Then you either need to come up with some legit plan to overwhelm them, or you need to post a garrison at your adjacent base, and push up another lane, hoping to draw defenders away. Eitherway, You can't just go around them, by taking the few bases next to them, and then winning with influence.
The purpose of the game is massive battles. If you don't like massive battles, you're playing the wrong game.
Some people want to run with zergs. Sometimes people want to do something to contribute that doesn't involve the zerg. By telling people "You don't want to fight in massive fights, you don't matter" you are ignoring a large percentage of the population. I'm from Waterson TR, the zergiest zergs that ever zerged exist there. The largest outfits, their leadership is worried about what will happen with the lattice because even they realize that channeling the zerg does not solve anything, and creates as many problems as it solves. I may regularly criticize him, but look at Any of Slyguy's posts on the gameplay forums if you don't believe me. Zekaria of V1C1 is of the same opinion I hear. Those two guys are leads in two of the largest outfits, that represent 2,300 people on waterson. The lattice system has the chance to empower these small groups as much as it does large zergs, it's just a matter of implementing a resource system and rewarding small unit play more. But that needs to happen.
Yeap, the 'u no liek large battle ****' out matra is now old. Can we stop pretending that anyone is trying to argue for smaller battles at the expense of larger ones? K? K.
Honestly there is a confusion about what is "strategy" and what isn't. Being able to outflank your enemy and ghostcap isn't really strategic as well as it's an unfortunate side effect of a system that does more to promote movement rather than fighting. This has been mistaken a "strategy" by so many people. In truth Planetside 1 and 2 have never had abundant amounts of over-arcing strategy, it was the smaller tactics played out by the outfits that made the game feel much more strategic than it really was. Yes in Planetside 1 there were times where you would have elements of strategy by choosing which base to defend while trying to cut off your enemy, and the lattice is going to provide those abilities again. What the lattice is removing is this delusion of strategy ghost capping and large amounts of movement have brought. Now your decisions will be really strategical. Outfits will have to observe the lines and have to see where they are best fit in the situation. No more rolling the dice to see if that front is being pushed by 2-3 guys ghost capping or soft capping their way to the warpgate while the 3 zergs are engaging over some pointless base to the south. There isn't as many decisions to make but the one made will become more important. That's far better than spending most of your time making the administrative decisions on where to go next. Currently you can spend most of your time protecting a flank by just ferrying soldiers from outpost to outpost all while the zergs grind each other into oblivion. If you make a mistake it's easily corrected by simply outflanking your enemy and cutting them off with one of the numerous unguarded paths. Planetside 1's strategy wasn't huge or complex like people would have you believe. It was much more simple and straight forward with every decision really meaning something. You may have only had 2 bases to choose to fight at to intercept your enemy and stop them, but if you read your opponent wrong and chose the wrong one, the consequences would be severe. I would rather have less choices that meant more over more choices that meant less. That's why I believe cut off bases need to flip quicker than non cut off bases, have spawn timer penalties, and eventually go neutral if no connection to the owner's warpgate has been made. Make those bad decisions really felt. Don't let a side easily recover from outfits failing to protect an important outpost. Failing can be a ton of fun. You don't always have to win to have fun. Right now failing is just an annoyance. If you make it something that really means something, people are going to play more intensely and enjoy themselves a heck of a lot more. tl;dr Less is more in this case. You make less decisions on the high level but the impact of your decisions is felt more and thus the gameplay experience is both more engaging and rewarding even in failure.
