My Look at the Latice, Hex, and Hex Adjacency.

Lets start of completely out of order from the title with the hex system (Or whatever the hell its called that we have right now). Right now this systems strong suit is lending choice to attackers. By that i mean attackers can easily change the course of their attack to any newly opened territory connected to territory recently conquered. This means if im holding Mesa skydock i can take regent rock garrison, tawrich, redridge comms, or leopardwood nursery. While terrain lends itself bettter to attack regent or red ridge, Galaxys tend not to give a **** about terrain. This makes it harder for and organized group to defend against another organized group since defenders are guessing where they'll attack next. all in all it makes a system flawed in favor of taking bases instead of holding them, in a game of taking and holding territory and the only way to really defend a territory is to take everything touching it.

Now I'll look at the the good old lattice. It lends itself to defenders by limiting the choice of attackers, but allows the attackers to exploit the defenders focusing to heavily on one position by attacking the other position. If were using the PS1's lattice exactly then wed have a smaller amount of bases, meaning they can be more important and more defensible. This ends up as an opposite of the Hex system meaning it favors holding territory by forcing attackers to make a limited decision.

And finally we look at the mysterious new Hex Adjacency system. Many like to call it a lattice and it will save the game others denounce it as the false messiah. Its aim is to mix the new with the old for the best possible system to make a great tactical system that many have wanted. In my opinion it has a flaw. Unlike the lattice you don't have instant connection to the next major base, instead you have to fight down the hex line capturing territory. This makes it so defense is done by the major facilities but instead by wearing attackers down enough to counter push from somewhere they can get higher end vehicles. BUT it could also mean the all bases that control territory will be made more defensible, and major bases will have the same done to them. If this were to happen then it would mean making it to a major base was something of an achievement and they could start having some meaningful benefits.

In the end a 100% lattice might be better, or the new system could be even better. As the game starts to improve and change I'll be here watching its progress and hoping it thrives as a great game. I welcome everyone to post there ideas about the systems !

(Since im an idiot i havent made a sig for this yet but i can be all over the place when i write, so if you havve any questions about what im trying to say feel free to ask)

Any time that choices are limited, a sandbox game suffers.

The effect on the players is worse. They never learn how to make choices for themselves, and never evolve.

Players that cannot hack a game of choices require a game to make choices for them. Its a vicious circle.

http://forums.station.sony.com/ps2/...ice-hex-adjacency-system.107317/#post-1442606

I made that thread a while back. Its the maps that are the problem, coupled with capture mechaincs. What I have in this thread is s very rough idea of how to solve the problem without changing how the game is played so drastically. The badsic idea is to have several large areas all funneled to a bottleneck. The bottlenecks are where you find the epic battles and the areas in between offer a level of freedom not present in the newly proposed system. It encourages organized battlefronts but allows tactical ops too.

ah my recent playing PS1 has made me forget not everyone is on the same page. I think i may have wrote this up thinking that this game had NTUs. If NTUs were added then organized groups could neutralize key bases and take them creating new routes of attack behind enemy lines, cutting off enemy lines, etc. But yes ncagent00kevin the design you said in your thread would be the best for the game as long as there is no way to do this neutralization.

13lackCats ill be honest I don't know what your saying, but judging from your sig and saying "Any time that choices are limited, a sandbox game suffers" your opposed to lattice and the new system. Any time that choices are limited, a strategy game thrives. It forces players to chose during high risk high reward scenarios, thus becoming better at making the choices to get the best outcome. The last line of your post i really dont get the first part, but yes a player not used to having choices requires them to be made for him or given so many that a particular choice isn't best or worst. Having a few meaningful choices is better then ten meaningless ones or one force path.

A game with no choices and a game with to many choices are both bad.

In this case it ruins any chance at a defense.

This system would still have different paths you can take, different places you'd have to defend, and overall makes it more predictable. not completely predictable. But not total randomness as we see now.

The randomness is why this game suffers. Along with not having set places you can defend (can't send a squad to each place when they send every squad to one).

Why do you feel today's game is random?

With a look of the map, one knows where the battles are (and how intense), where the caps are happening, and how much of the enemy in relation to friendlies there is. One can even see the movement of enemy bodies by remembering the map from look to look.

There is no guess work.

One may need to do some work in order to make their fight, but a smart tactician takes advantage of this by ensuring the attributes of the engagement are their choice.

I think the root cause of what players see as "randomness" "ghost-capping", "unstoppable zergs" etc is a lack of communication tools.

With something as simple as a side-specific yell, those that get it can teach those who don't (and help them get to the right places), and those who get it can organize better.

Would you agree that chess is a time-honored and respected strategy game? In the first 10 moves, there is an enormous number of possible moves. that number is referred to as a "google", btw.

For me, the best strategy game provides on challenge, and re-playability. If i can predict an enemy's actions every single time, it is neither. For me.

My last sentence is a basic economics principle that will guide the final decisions of the game's path, and also laments the de-evolution of sandbox players:

Those who are bringing in the most money, require a simpler game. It is the games that provide irregular conundrums that require players to evolve. The problem for gamer evolution is that players don't like to pay for conundrums, they want to pay for success.

They know what's currently happening. When an enemy attacks you don't know where they will go (you can't set up defense, a big part of the game that's missing). The problem currently is you can't predict an enemies actions at all until they already happen. If you are wrong (likely possibility) you and whoever you lead is stuck standing and waiting for nothing. Zergs gather for xp reasons and a winning fight. Attacking give you a reward even if you do nothing but get there 1 second before the cap. Then why leave your friendly 100 players?

Your post humors me greatly. I think the part I like the most is your use of Chess as the ideal "sandbox" game. Chess is highly structured and its gameplay revolves around the predictability of your opponents actions. It is the very antithesis of a sandbox game and your promotion of Chess as a model to improve Planetside 2 actually supports the incoming lattice system. Did you not realize this when posting?

On top of this basic misunderstanding of Chess, you also fail to realize that Planetside 2 is not a sandbox game, it is a strategy game much like Chess. Unlike Chess, in Planetside 2 there are more than two players so providing the predictability of possible actions that strategy games require, strategic choices available to each side need to be further limited. Limitation of choice in strategy games is not bad, it allows choices to have greater meaning and impact on the game state.

In addition to clear limitations of possible moves allowing players to anticipate and prepare, the game design needs to cater to two separate groups, the unorganized masses and the outfits. The design itself needs to provide direction for the randoms that do not communicate or are not part of large enough groups to make an impact and the design needs to provide tools to the organized outfits to actually make strategic, meaningful choices. The first group is getting more love lately, but the second group could do with more/better tools.

I feel the game is improving quite well, I look forward to the lattice system in the test server to see how they want to implement it.

The issue with the game now:

What's the point of holding territory if a single person is just going to go and ghost everything around you?
What's the point in holding territory if you manage to stop a superior force and they just go around you and ignore you?
What's the point in holding territory when the benefits to holding it are only visible so long as attackers keep attacking it?
What's the point in holding territory when trading territory is still easier for far to many people to keep up their K/D and gain certs?

Like it or not, that Lattice we're getting is the start of the meta-game. Zergs won't avoid each other as much and Spec.Ops will be able to start planning (more so) for actual ambushes and behind the lines work. Now, alone simply limiting capture flow isn't the solution. But with other mechanics, it'll become the new (or maybe old) Meta most vets and more organized outfits are screaming for.

Platoon/Squad leaders should be able to look at the map and see the locations & size of every squad/platoon waypoint for their faction. Just something like this on the map "+9" or "+28(3)". Then, leaders can see where they need to go. If you see a "+12" and the hex reads "Enemy Platoon Detected" then they will probably need some support.

Then, there should be a region command chat where all platoon leaders (squad leaders only if single squad) are in a voice/chat channel to work together on local objectives.

Why will zergs not avoid each other?
In fact now it'll be easier to look at the map and say: "OK, they are here, getting here allows them to capture there; let's redeploy and attack elsewhere when they capture there so we can pwn the 5 defenders 10 times each and get capture XP on top of that".

As long as a single person can flip all control points and leave the base, ghost capping will exist. The solution is control points flipping back some time after being abandoned, not a lattice.

As long as all bases on a front are not defended, the attackers can outmaneuver the defenders. The lattice system will not limit the number of bases with enemy influence to one across a whole continent.
If attackers maneuver and defenders don't they will get outmaneuvered.
If defenders arrive to the next target before the attackers, they will stop them again.
If the attackers get stuck in a stalemate and defenders manage to send a group to flank them, the attackers will get their rear ends kicked.

The more mobile force defeats the less mobile one, the only thing currently broken is that a base can be captured without a single capturer in it.

they will avoid each other unless they are forced together at choke points, which IMO, will really suck.

If they want to make even fights from 5 to 500, they need to force overwhelming forces to split up when they are not needed. Base the cap XP on time, activity, and difficulty and share it among the conquering faction. 100 people roll a 5 man outpost, they split up a small xp pot and they will split to avoid wasting time.

Even in chess numerous limits are placed on the player. So I do not know that it is a good choice to support your argument and the number you are looking for is called a googol and it is a 1 with 100 zero's and chess by no stretch of the imagination has that many combinations.

I understand for wish too keep a sandbox style game and I agree with that in many regards, except with the lattice system. Part of the problem as I see it is that the current HEX system lends all the advantage to the attackers and because of that it makes it very difficult to defend. While the lattice system restricts the avenue of attack it makes it easier for the defenders to anticipate the next attack, thus it will give them the time between hacks to prepare their defenses, which will lead to better fights for everyone.

one thing that i think a lot of people aren't seeing is just because the new system has very linear lines leading to each base, you can still attack from any direction. All that dead land is open to roam in so just because one base leads to another doesn't mean attackers aren't going to be sending in a wave from a piece of lattice that doesn't connect with the one your fighting on. I agree that the new system removes some options from attackers but it's also going to focus the fights more, which is what planetside 2 is all about.

One thing i think the lattice system is going to do rather well is show where the battle lines are. Currently hexes start flashing and there stuff all over the place, and it's hard to see where squads and platoons need to go (yes they could play in an outfit and have organization but what about all the small outfits, that could do some good stuff with the small skirmishes).

You're wrong about chess. It does have a google of possible moves in the first 10 moves. The most likely moves are not ruled by the limits of the player, but by the limits of what makes sense. However, in the truly remarkable instance of a game that is not contained by its rules, a !? move is still likely, if not inevitable. Take it from someone who has studied the game intensely.

In a video game, this equals playability, because the situation is never the same.

Google rolls off the brain a little easier than googol, doesn't it...perhaps it would be more marketable?

With one look of the map, I can tell you: Where the battles are. Where the enemy is massing. Where the ghost caps are.

With two looks at the map, I can tell you where enemy formations are moving.

What more do you need to anticipate attack?

I am sure you have marveled at Chess, but you are misrepresent how structured Chess is. A players available options on a given turn is limited, the complexity in the game is the compounding factor of limited options. When the choices are made based on what is beneficial, the number of options are further limited. Your promotion of Chess supports the limitation of options, not the "sandbox game" freedom you desire. Additionally I would like to point out that freedom of choice does not prevent there from being a limitation of options. Limiting available capturable bases will be a healthy change for the game.

Wrong, wrong wrong.

I learned a long time ago not to spend much more time than that.

Unfortunately, in the end, money wins. People don't pay to think...they pay to win. Economics is ruling the decision to change to linear gameplay, nothing else.

Every problem I've seen brought up regarding PS2's metagame or the lack of defense of bases could be solved by having a long range radar.

Being able to see enemy movements on the map is almost the same as having a lattice, except better. The commonality is that you preemptively know where you can go to stop the enemy. A long range radar actually works better than lattice however, because you can engage the enemy at any point during their assault towards a base. Normally, you'll just spawn at the base being attacked and and run towards them. Seeing enemies on your map from radar allows ambushes, flanks, drops, etc. while the enemy is still moving. As an attacker it removes that boredom of knowing that your force will always reach the next the next base unhindered and most likely devastate the base because you can surround it and attack from multiple angles.. Instead you would always feel a sense of uncertainty, since your group may be attacked at any time. More uncertainty in a game (within limits, obviously) has been all but proven to be more fun than certainty.

To be clear. Both lattice and long range radar would add more uncertainty to attacks, but in different ways. I argue that lattice is not the most enjoyable way to increase defense, since all it does is limit options without allowing creative player input. A radar still gives you the information of how big of an enemy force is attacking which base and from which direction - but also allows you to respond to that threat creatively. You might galaxy drop on top of a hill next to the tanks (before they get to the base) and hit them with HA. You might flank with MBTs or set up a line of MBTs blocking their path at a clear choke (before they get to the base). You might liberator bomb them when they reach canyons where the libs have plenty of cover. None of this happens on purpose right now because you never really know where the enemy is until they are right at the base doorstep. At that point they are surrounding your vehicle pad and there isn't much from a strategic standpoint you can do to stop a larger force. So you get a grind of infantry and tanks pelting windows with zero tactics. That's why I feel like lattice will not help as much as needed. The real strategy comes into play when you can effectively engage at any place where you would have a tactical advantage. Right now a lot of those locations with geographic advantage are ignored, because you never know for sure when the enemy is going to be passing through them. People can't wait at a spot forever for some enemy to pass through. In real life, they have soldiers and guards waiting at advantageous locations for years, but this is a game, so you need a radar to make up for that.

There are other problems it solves too, like where can I go for a fair fight? If I have a platoon of 48, and on radar I see that 2 enemies are taking base A and 30 enemies are taking base B... where do I take my platoon? Well we all want exp, so we're going to head to the bigger threat. However if my friend and I are in a two-man squad together, we are more likely to go take on the other 2 guys and prove we are better than them. People will split themselves into roughly fair fights. They have to, otherwise if you try to throw your zerg at the lightly defended bases you are wasting your man power, losing territory faster than you're gaining it and most importantly, losing out on sweet, sweet exp from combat. So large outfits are much more likely to follow and constantly engage enemy zergs which is what makes this game exciting and what I signed up for.

Now in answer to the obvious "wouldn't it be overpowered if enemies could see me on the map?". First of all, you don't have to mark every single enemy and it doesn't have to be a pinpoint exact location. I'm talking about blips, updated each 20 seconds, where a tiny one is 1-4 enemies, small - 5-12, medium 13-40 and large is 60+. But the "enemies detected" system we have now doesn't give you any indication to their whereabouts within the hex or the direction they're moving. So it's not possible to use that to know for sure that you should use any particular geographical advantage. For example, you might see "Enemy Platoons" at Zurvan, so you mine up the road leading to the crown. But then 15 mins later you notice they never went that direction. In fact most of them when towards crossroads instead. But it's too late now. Crossroads is surrounded and being taken. With radar you could track their movements in that direction and re-position yourself and your platoon before it's too late.

So the TLDR is if you could see blobs of enemies on map that are a hex away from your owned hexes, this would be an entirely different game. A game of constant engagements from the time you log in to the time you log off.

Before you denounce lattice why don't you wait until the test servers hits and try it out yourself? Devs are open to feedback. If it's a total nightmare like you think it will be, then obviously it will not make it into live.