Lattice System.... Not a good idea.

Actually, I'm going to explain this in detail. For a minute, let's say the NC capped Indar, and TR and VS are getting back on their feet.

They muster their forces. A TR zerg takes back Dahaka, then Saurva, then decides to march south through Indar Excavation to Hvar. Vanu, on the other hand, takes back Hvar, then Allatum, and then decides to march north on Dahaka.

In the hex system, these two forces would be adjacent to each other halfway through. "They're coming right [up/down] next to us!" Battle ensues.

In lanes, however, they simply pass by. "Hey, we're being taken!" "That's not in our lane, so it's not our problem. We're going to [Hvar/Dahaka]."

Could these forces have engaged under the lane system? Of course! But they have less reason to do it. It's still physically possible (until they ruin the terrain to where it isn't, like I hear they're doing to Hossin... I was actually excited for that continent, too), but the psychology of the system is that you can't go from one lane to another. Who's going to go off into neutral territory when the next base is clearly laid out for them?

Which is also exactly what happens under the hex system. At least with the lattice its more obvious who needs reinforcement and where. Under the hex system no use in helping anyone out with flank attacks or reinforcement, the enemy just redeploy at the warp gate, pull gals and back cap you. With the lattice I can reinforce people to defend a position and know that the enemy has to defeat us to move on.

Sorry I don't get it. Isn't this happening on hex map as well? This has nothing to do with lattice: even on hex map if your zerg on east side of the map and the enemy zerg is on the west side you have to redeploy if you want to stop it. Btw if my squad leader tells me to take Dahaka I don't care about what's happening in Zurvan, I can't care about all the map at the same time.

Funny isnt it. To all those opposed to the 'lattice' (less links) i have a question for you.

Would you like it if ALL the buildings in the game at facilities and outposts had no walls, just roofs? (or just a whole load more doorways in them) Ie 4 more teleporter points and 2 more landing pads at biolabs? hmm?

Might it make them less defensible?

Setup on live favours attackers more than defenders.

Setup on test evens up the balance. Not in ways such as base desgin but thats another topic.

The question makes no sense. What does the tactical set up of bases have to do with strategic options of the whole play area? At different scales (and you're comparing something like three orders of magnitude here), different design rules apply.

I know that, i was making a comparison defending on the hex is like trying to hold water in a sieve.

Agreed.

Surely I'm not the only one who sees the new Lattice as a STEP in a larger system? They're not just going to put it in and say they're done.

Would a system where you can destroy generators and slow down spawns (vehicle and player) down the line (until it hit a major facility) solve your problem? You help the main force advance, avoid the huge fight, and accomplish some strategic objectives. It's a form of limited backcapping. You're willing to evolve the Hex system, why not see the Lattice as something that can grow to suit your needs?

The overall designs are similar. Limited attack routes that allow the forces attackers down a path defenders can hose them down with bullets. This is defense 101. Choke points, limited entrances, better positioning, the defenders should have all of these in there favor. While they have it at some bases, on the larger scale they have nothing. Attackers have all of the advantages here.

And yes, the tactical lay out of a base DOES have an effect on the strategy of the area. It could control a major route into enemy territory, leaving it off limits until you take it. Now, how easy it is to take effects the strategic importance of it. If its very easy, people won't give it much thought because they can take it any time. If it is hard to take then there is a lot more planning involved to take it, and taking it means a lot more.

So you're not even going to try it out on the test server? Like saying I'm going to hate being age 100, when i get to age 100. but im only in my early 20's...silly.

When its not a ghost town i will. But i hate being 'force' to go only 1 direction, which will happen roughtly 70% of the time with the lattice as you travel down the 'lanes'. Only the larger facilities offer multiple choices o were to go. The towers and outposts they use for the 'mini-branches' only offer 2, a or b. All others?.. forward or backwards only.

They could have handled the issue with 'blobs' moving across the maps alot differently, They could have made cutting off snips of territory worth doing, and having an effect when it happens. There's plenty of things they could have done to make the current HEX system work. But instead, their throwing the entire system out the window and reverting back to PS1's lattice system.. and trying to force it into working on a much larger scale. All its going to end up doing is turning PS2 into a larger version of SMNC.

... for a base design vs. continental control point design? Seriously?!? That's like saying a middle-sized nation's (say, Germany's of France's) road network is similar to an urban environment's (say, Manhattan's) road network. You just need to look at them to see how wrong that statement is.

Bases: Tactical level, can easily modify the terrain whole to accommodate whatever design you have in mind, the whole design is built around artificial walls restricting movement and line of sight. A continental lattice build like a base would have kilometre-high artificial walls running through the landscape, dividing it without regard for the lay of the land.

Continental lattice: Strategic level, needs to be built along according to whatever terrain is already in place with modifications being hard and very limited in scale, the whole design is built around defensive "hard points" controlling whatever area is more easily reachable from them than from any other point. A base build like a continental lattice would be a bunch of disconnected pillboxes mostly out of sight from each other.

I love how people pretend that there are only 1-2 tunnels for people to fight over. If the enemy zergs 1-2 tunnels, spread your forces out so you slow down their advance on those tunnels and take all the other ones. They will either have to spread their forces out, causing better small scale battles or they will be back capped to the point where they have no territory left except on the front line of those 1-2 tunnels.
In this map VS have 8 different bases they can attack, NC have 7 different places to attack and TR have 8 different bases they can attack. If TR were to zerg towards mao, VS could storm through zurvan over to rashnu and cut them off completely and then work their way north, back capping their mindless zerg. There are lots of different avenues for defenders to completely screw narrow focused attackers over. This map rewards factions that coordinate with the zerg on orders chat and between outfits. If you spread out and the enemy only focuses on a small area you WILL gain more of the map, it punishes them for being so narrow in their scope and uncoordinated.

Oh my god, this is still going on? dudes, we've said enough, put this to rest until they update Lattice. They're going to add Lattice no matter what, Higby and T-ray have never shown any incentive to backdown from it. So instead of begging to keep the Hex system, focus on what will improv Lattice, like better base design or adding a few more connections. The West side of indar looks so bland with that Lattice.

Yep, but it would be nice to hear which conclusions did they draw so far. It seems to me they're receiving tons of feedback
So what's the next step (beside that change to SCU that received more dislikes than thumbs up?).?

No it is not. It goes too far.

So you think every player wants a big zerg fight? I'm not sorry, but I want a game that provides BOTH small fights and big fights. The lattice system funnels people into all big fights.

Avoiding fights is not a "problem". Avoiding other players IS a tactical move, and players should have that right to play that way too. You want to take away that right and force players to play one way - your way - and deny them 2, 3 or more ways to play.

You say we get the occasional zerg clashing right now, and I say the big zerg fights are already fine as they are.

I agree that the way they've done back-hacking so far is a problem. The community, including myself have provided the solutions, but SOE didn't implement them.

Personally, I like game mechanics that disperse the zerg more, and giving players lively fights at EVERY base along the front line. You want bigger fights? Raise the 2000 player continent cap. You want funneled rush-lane zerg fights? Then forget about raising the cap, because people's high-end systems will barely be able to handle lattice zergs as it is. Wouldn't it be nice to have a 4000 player cap? 5000?

Core FPS values? Core PS2 values? PS2 doesn't have core values yet. PS1 does. A Core Planetside value is to have other tactics to play: Blowing generators, Draining base NTU, filling base NTU, getting bonus modules from caverns, etc. etc. Funneling players into big zerg fights is not a core Planetside value. Giving players plenty of options in an MMO is a core Planetside value.

I want it.
the events shows the weakness of the hex system.
guarding a base does nothing. they just go around your area and take everything behide you.

if i outfit can hold a base and stop the forward movement of a "zerg" then they do a lot for thier side.

It is a "problem" when the game makes it into not just a winning strategy, but a dominating one. There is very little reason to defend in PS2. Why defend when you can counter attack the 5+ empty bases bordering your territory? It has gotten so bad that big fights rarely last more than 10 minutes during ops in my outfit. The enemy just packs up and waits for us to leave or attack somewhere else. We spend a majority of our time chasing enemies around to get a fight.

There is no defense in PS2, only attacking and counter-attacking. There is no point in defending because the enemy easily just move around you. For hex to work, everyone needs to be spread out evenly and not group up into zergs. Fights wouldn't get much bigger than platoon v platoon, but bases would almost always have someone defending them. However, this really goes against the game's main focus. Big epic combined arms battles with hundreds of players. This is a fact, that this is planetside's high concept. Hex system does not support this and forces you to spread out. If you do group up you are punished by leaving a lot of territory open for enemies to walk in and take it.

Your argument that the lattice removes player choices and forces them to play a certain way can work both ways. The only option that matters in PS2 is what empty base to take. the option of what to take to battle, how to attack the enemy, where to flank them, and whether or not to abandon the fight make no difference. Holding a base only affects the territory you're holding and little else. The hex makes one strategy dominant and the rest useless. It's a fact and it's why the devs are implementing the lattice because they know it works. The only difference between PS1's lattice and the one they plan to add to PS2 is that there are outposts between links that you have to take before moving on to the next outpost or the base itself.