Remove Lattice System

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by elkikko92, Jan 11, 2020.

  1. elkikko92

    I dont play planetside 2 anymore becouse with lattice system the game is boring, battles on same territories and there is no strategy.
    Hex-system created confusion and a lot of big problems, so is not the solution.

    Really, there is no better territory capture system?
    I write a lot of suggestions on this forum becouse I think Planetside 2 has big potential.
    Write here an altenative capture system, better than actual lattice system

    Personally I suggest macro lattice system: lattice only on big outposts and facilities
    • Up x 1
  2. Bragg

    One simple way to bring little more tactic to game is make every base cortium powered. ANT's have to deposit cortium to keep base power on, if that is lost all consoles, turrets, shields go down, etc stop working, expect base capture.
    Every spawn, item change, resupply in that base should drain cortium, so heavy battle in current base drains more cortium.
    Empty base should stay powered for hours, in active combat time should extremely lower. Like only 10-15 minutes.

    To simply put, you could siege enemy base if you cannot get into capture points.

    (This was old Planetside 1 mechanic, but it was little bit deeper there. Because you could destroy the actual spawn tubes to prevent enemy spawning on their main spawn room)
  3. Zizoubaba

    I really think they should just delete all the territories and then make one big biolab !
  4. Demigan

    And what about the attackers? If the defenders have to supply it with cortium, then the attackers would require their Sunderers to be supplied as well. Pulling a Sundy would mean you drain some of the base's cortium to supply the Sunderer, after that it either needs an ANT or an ammo tower to resupply more cortium, draining it's respective unit.

    What this would do is that large fights are no longer an option. You want to do a full 100vs100 battle? Well too bad either you or your enemy be out of cortium in 10 minutes and the fight peters out.

    Or let's assume the attackers don't require cortium. They siege a base and take it! And now they don't have the cortium to attack the next one.
    Either way stalemates would be more prominent than before, unless ofcourse you refill the base's cortium at which point you basically just allow the attackers to steamroll anything by either zerging it or sieging it. Why would you even try to defend that? Defenders would automatically start leaving and try to be the attackers somewhere else in an effort to take back territory as they'll almost ineviteably lose theirs.


    If you want to solve this problem you need to make it more dynamic, and alter the maps sometimes. Currently we see several bases the most simply because the frontlines start there and on average we'll be around those bases the most. So what if we add an alternative map setup where the warpgates are placed somewhere else, and the starting frontlines are also changed so they overlap on the current warpgates? That way the frontlines will on average be around the current warpgates (that would suddenly be capturable) and allow us to fight on bases we rarely see a good fight around because the only time they are captured is when a Zerg is rampaging down the lane. If the continent simply picks one of the two warpgate setups each time it opens we randomly alternate what bases we fight around as the core gameplay during that alert.

    Additionally we could allow the construction system to build lattice-lines. This way players can open up attacks to previously unattackable bases, but at the cost of having to protect the PMB. You could even allow such lattices during the continent warmup, meaning players can alter the starting frontlines by building a lattice and capturing it before it automatically turns to the enemy.
  5. Gooyoung

    random warpgate location lmao

    Suddenly oh you're right toe to toe to enemy warpgate

    JK imagine the chaos that would happen
    • Up x 1
  6. Demigan

    You misunderstand.

    Example:
    On Indar 3 bases are selected as potential alternative warpgates. Lets say scarred mesa rock, mao techplant and quartz ridge causing all 3 warpgates to rotate with the clock. For argument's sake we count the old northern warpgate as the techplant. The starting frontlines rotate with it, meaning we are now +/-3 or 4 bases away from the original frontline.

    Each time the continent unlocks the game randomly selects one of two options:
    1: current warpgate locations and frontlines.
    2: the alternative locations and frontlines.

    No mix-matching or completely random locations.

    I'm not saying these specific bases should be picked, I've just picked them from memory to illustrate how the concept would work.
  7. elkikko92

    I like this! But I think that little outposts should be a secondary objects and not linked to lattice.
    This is my suggestion:
    1) Put lattice links only between two big outposts (or facilities)
    2) With ANT veichles you have to bring cortium resource and go to LITTLE outpost to charge a silo
    3) Every little outposts charge adjacent facility (or big outposts)

    Is the same idea but the little outposts are not to the lattice link: they are only a point to put your cortium resource
  8. BrbImAFK

    No. That is all.

    More seriously, we used to have a lack of lattice. And all it lead to was constant, annoying ghost hacks all across the continent, all the time. Dudes would take ESF's and put hacks on every base they could, and some poor berk would have to run along behind them resecuring them. It was ****e gameplay.

    As for the whole logistics idea, that's how Planetside 1 operated. Every base had a resource tower that needed to be filled up with nanites by an ANT, and on super-hard-to-take bases, the winning strategy was usually just to siege them out, denying them the ability to refill the silo and thus, when the silo ran out, the base went neutral and the defenders no longer had anywhere to spawn. However, Planetside 1 was a very different game, with a full logistics system and proper thought etc. Planetside 2 is *not* that game. If bases have to be regularly filled up with cortium, it'll happen for a while.... until people get bored of playing delivery-man, and then NO bases except the ones currently being contested will ever get filled up. PS2 has a far shorter "attention span" than PS1 had. Kinda like comparing a ritalin-poppin'-ADHD-tween with a "normal" adult.
    • Up x 1
  9. Qwicked


    I loved the HEX system. But I agree, ghost capping was a problem. The bases in PS2 are not as deadly as they were in PS1. The automated turrets in PS1 would kill anything that moved lol. I feel like the turrets in PS2 need to be beefed up across the board. Even the construction ones, a turret should be able to deter an attack from a hand full of people.

    Beef up turrets, make them deadly. Then you could look to drop lattice, if a base could defend itself from a single ESF then ghost capping would not happen. But a squad or platoon could still drop on a base and cap it. That would give us strategy again.
    • Up x 1
  10. elkikko92

    Yes, I agree. I'm giving suggestions from the begginning of the game to improve the gameplay and the main problem is the same: the players DON'T follow the mechanisms of the game.
    Conceptually, the hex-system (with the old influence-system) is not very bad : it's better than lattice-system for the strategy. BUT the players want a good battle and dont follow the metagame of hex-system; they don't want to capture territories alone with no enemis, the result? All players are in the crown on Indar and the rest of continent is empty.
    I dont think lattice is the solution: I dont play planetside 2 anymore becouse is boring has the same battles on a few of bases; please do something and improve the gameplay!
    Which are your suggestions to fix this problem?
  11. Bragg

    It most of the times already feels like that. Players dont really try to capture anything, they just fight their "good fight" or "farm" what they call it. Every continent could be squeezed to 1 territory with gates connected.
    Sad thing is what they are doing for Koltyr, might be this.
    • Up x 1
  12. Rooklie


    Yeah that's why I said that :)

    (it was a joke)
  13. Scroffel5

    My dude, why are you always so negative? You seem to forget that people will adapt, whether or not they need Cortium to fuel the sunderers. If you need cortium to fuel the sunderers, all those random ANT pilots will have something to do instead of roadkilling and ramming things. They'd have more use at a fight. If you do not need cortium to fuel the sunderers, but you do need it to fuel the base, you would have the ANTs on standby, waiting till you capture the base. If the defenders need cortium, make sure nothing comes in or out, and leave them weak and crippled. Either way, the players would adapt to their update.

    Here's a little suggestion that I have said many times before: It'd be nice if everyone, when they saw a good idea, instead of focusing on what is wrong, focused on what was right, then we could compound on the ideas to make them better. Everytime you discourage someones idea at the beginning of your post, you discourage the person. It'd be better to start with a word of commendation before going into what should be changed, added, or removed.
  14. Demigan

    Because I've played games for many years now and I know how it goes. Players will always choose the option that gets them their goal the fastest even if it means ruining their own enjoyment of the game. Additionally PS2 is already build very much for the attackers, with many points closer to the Sunderer than the spawnroom.

    So rather than see me as negative, think of me as trying to get the most positive out of the game by avoiding the negative. "people will adapt" is a horrible way to sidestep any problem. "Who cares if we give out a OHK hitscan gun with anti-tank capabilities? People will adapt!". Sure they will! But it will be a game where everything else is obsolete. Now this idea won't be that bad, but it will still be bad. I already mentioned the adaptation that PS2 players will have: Defenders will just leave. You are punished for bringing in large amounts of people as your cortium will drain faster and the attackers are rewarded for bringing as many as they can as they'll force the defenders to either be outpopped or run out of fuel quicker.

    Any game feature should enhance the enjoyment for as many players as possible. ***** over all defenders will not increase the enjoyment for anyone as zerging will increase and defending will happen less and less.

    Just because there's things to do does not mean the problems that it will create go away. You haven't responded to the problem of attackers capturing a base without cortium and then not being able to continue attacking for example, or how if you instantly add a large amount of cortium upon capture that you would only encourage steamrolling. Or that it would discourage bringing large amounts of players to any fight because it only drains cortium faster which is the antithesis of everything PS2 stands for and the biggest reason people play it.
    Cortium for bases in this manner is quite literally destroying the most important feature of the game and your response is "don't be negative, people will have something to do". Seriously try to think about what you say and what you are responding too it makes no sense.

    If we saw a good idea and we wanted to improve it we would need to know what would need improving first. To know that we would need to know what would go wrong, IE the negative things. I tell you what the negatives are so you know how to fix it. Or in this case what idea's should be dropped in a dumbster and set on fire.

    Cortium to bases should serve a purpose to enhance the game, not put limits on the amount of players that can enjoy a fight or the time they can spend on it depending on the cortium count. Cortium could be used in several different ways, for example you could allow players to fuel generators with it to achieve certain things. Players could equip a Cortium container in their utility slot and deploy it nearby certain objects to power (or deactivate) shields, gravlifts, jumppads, teleporters, alternative vehicle pads, spawnpoints, turrets and even additional capture points and the like. This means that cortium isn't required but is a convenience item. A base cortium regeneration for each lattice-link base could provide with the bare necessities without requiring constant supplies. Sunderers take a bit of that when spawning so they bring some for the attackers.

    And suddenly you have a way that cortium supports the game. If you run out you have less gadgets and doodads in your support. Sunderer Garages could get some defenses to protect Sunderers while they are there (or prevent Sunderers from deploying if the defenders hold it). Buildings inbetween the point could offer various things to enhance their defensive or offensive capabilities. But they aren't required, and overuse will mean you run out sooner if you don't use ANT's and rely on the basic cortium income so there's a stragetic element as well.
  15. Scroffel5

    Lets take the current game. To start a fight, you need men and a sunderer. One person has to get a sunderer, at least one. Then, you need defenders to defend against the attack. If you don't have things to protect your sundy, it is dead, so you better leave a man or two behind to watch the sunderer. Hopefully more people spawn in and the fight grows bigger, but what will happen if you only have one sunderer? It will most likely get blown up and the fight will end. That means some willing souls have to go back and get more sunderers and park them in different places, and they have to keep them alive. That, in a sense, puts a limit on the amount of players that can enjoy a fight. You'll always need more people going back for sunderers depending on how many people show up and how long the fight drags on for.

    Adding the need to rely on cortium just puts the people who are already driving ANTs around in that area to refuel stuff, and it gives an opportunity for you to use your ANT for something other than base building. It doesn't necessarily mean that you can't have fun at the fight because you have to constantly leave for cortium. It just gives you a new challenge, as players adapt to the change. They need to keep you out, so now you have your own minibattles going on, and the other players will have to protect you. It gives another objective to taking the base. Keep your ANTs alive so they can keep you alive. Then people adapt accordingly.

    And yes, we do need to know what is wrong with an idea, but notice that i said you should START with a word of commendation. You don't simply say "good idea, perfect idea, no problems with it" when it isn't and there are, but if you think an idea needs to be improved, focus on the good things about it and how we can make it better.

    If cortium is required, thats a good thing. It forces players to do a specific thing, and there are already enough willing participants to do just that. Yes, people who may not want to pull an ANT and go gather cortium may have to do it at times, but that is no different from having to pull a sunderer and baby-sit it. You are going to be forced to do things in the game that you don't want to, and most people just won't be able to deal with that and will leave, but thats the game. Cortium doesn't need to be required to keep vehicles alive and well, say for repairing them, giving them spawn juice, or giving them ammo. It could be used for just refueling bases, and that is perfectly fine too.
  16. Demigan

    Or you pull more sunderers, as already happens, and when one breaks down it's replaced. Now you only need time to replace one and don't need people to continuously defend a Sunderer.
    Also the defenders cannot teleport towards your Sunderer. During an attack you can have players all over the place, and in flanking positions is a good start. Flankers can often find and kill the players that try to avoid the rush and get the Sunderer. This is one reason why Sunderers aren't defended that much.
    Additionally you can buy either the shield Sunderer or the Blockade Sunderer. Both are extremely resistant against C4 attacks, so resistant in fact that it becomes nigh impossible to destroy a Sunderer that's in use.
    Add the option of mines and deployed Spitfires and there's not much defending necessary until the defenders almost get on top of your Sundy.

    Now you could say that people don't use the excellent Blockade and shield Sundies (despite there being virtually no reason not to), but to that I say: They will adapt.
    So no you don't need more attackers than defenders.

    I see nothing here that requires the cortium to be the spawn fuel. It could be anything else. And again you do not adress the fact that this would punish the defenders for using larger populations while it would only help the attackers if they have a larger population, making Zerging easier as even if you do meet resistance the defenders will simply run out faster.

    The "adapt accordingly" argument is idiotic. It doesn't instantly make things OK, and in this case it simply slates everything too much in favor of the attackers. By default the attackers have vehicle superiority, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to place the Sunderers. In case of Hossin's horrible layouts it would mean that the ANT's would be free to refuel without being contested (or much contested), in most bases on other continents it would mean having to punch through a vehicle cordon. So now the defenders have to sacrifice people of their defense to first spawn somewhere else, gather cortium, then gather a vehicle escort and keep the ANT safe long enough to deliver it's cargo, likely losing the vehicle escort along the way and not even having a high success rate in any case especially when players begin mining near the cortium delivery points for cheap kills and camping it with vehicles. Adapt accordingly right? That works both ways, and the attackers would reap the benefits of this adaptation much easier as they only have to do what they've always done without need of extra coordination while the defenders require more coordination to stop what is essentially a forced capture timer that reduces the more population you have.

    As I said: Good things --> none whatsoever in it's current configuration.
    Solution: Make the cortium fuel anything but the respawns and items the defenders use. Make it enhance the game compared to what it is now, not dumb the game down as you play.

    Forcing players to do a specific thing is horrible. There are some things that you can't get out off easily, like bringing a Sunderer. But that doesn't mean this type of gameplay should be there on every level and it should especially not be there to make the playingfield uneven in favor of one team.
    Now you'll be thinking "ah but the Sunderer is a softer spawn than the Spawnroom so the defenders have the advantage". But that ignores the entire situation. The attackers have vehicle superiority and infinite time to try and take the base as long as they hold the field. If the defenders cannot mount an effective counterassault the attackers can just keep bringing in Sunderers and infantry until they do succeed. This is how most fights happen btw: The attackers keep at it, slowly gaining ground. Then once they get the points it's suddenly a very bad situation for the defenders. While the attackers had near infinite time to try and take the points, the defenders have mere minutes to retake it and then hold it for at least the same amount of time as the attackers did to reverse the capture. It's already slated in favor of the attackers, we don't need to punish the defenders more.

    Also interestingly you don't even see an obvious side-effect of this system you propose. Currently most defenders will simply slug it out right back against the attackers until they can overwhelm the Sunderer and destroy it. But if they are always on a timer and can never just slug it out in a good fight they'll need to focus their attention on destroying the Sunderers. The adaptation of the defenders will be to actively stop fights and prevent new Sunderers from being placed, the opposite of what you seem to want with your blathering about Sunderer protection right?
  17. Scroffel5

    I was going to mount a well executed, eloquent, and sophisticated counterargument to your reply - picked it apart, laughed at it, and everything - but instead, I will send you a link to a video that better says my thoughts and I will make a Forrest Gump quote:



    "Stupid is as stupid does."
  18. Demigan

    I was going to tell everyone the answer to Life, the Universe and Everything else. But now I just respond to you instead.

    So far you've not executed and eloquent, sophisticated counterargument. And the only reason you picked your own arguments apart must have been because you finally realise that you aren't really adressing my concerns. Your most on-point reactions were "don't be negative" and "they will adapt", ignoring the implications that not being negative would have or that the adaptation does not have to be a positive one for the gameplay and that in fact it would be an adaptation towards a worse game. The rest of your arguments rarely have anything in common with my concerns except the topic it's about.
    So with that history, how can I believe that you had an eloquent, sophisticated counterargument ready for me? I understand you are in love with this idea, but that doesn't make it a good idea! I've already proposed an alternative that still means you can use cortium in bases without making it a bottleneck for the defenders to overcome that the attackers will just exploit for easier captures than now.

    I really hope that you realize how much your Forest Gump quote applies to you. Except that you aren't as bumbling successful as him.
  19. Scroffel5

    Can you reread my comment again, but out loud, and with proper emphasis at the proper points?
  20. Marik

    I am perhaps one of the few who like the current system quite well. Of course the battles are always limited to a few bases, but I think that's more because if the card design and the lines.
    And that you need a Sundy for an attack is ok. Even if I sometimes feel stupid when I'm the only one who draws one and then gets blown up because the rest is so incompetent.

    One problem I have is that I can't free myself from the pull of the fight. Those are the ones who have waypoints and don't follow them.
    I attack with the handful of players that follow me, but it's not enough. Either this is a group of players who are vastly superior to me/us in skill. (And I am not that good at shooting). Or a bigger counter offensive follows.
    I think the main problem is the design, which allows such fights of attrition far too easily.

    -----------------------


    Ich gehöre vielleicht mit zu den wenigen denen das aktuelle System doch ganz gut gefällt. Klar die kämpfe sind immer auf ein paar wenige Basen beschränkt, das liegt aber dann eher, wie ich finde am Karten Design und den Linien.
    Und das man für einen Angriff nen Sundy braucht finde ich o.k. Auch wenn ich teilweise dämlich vorkomme, wenn ich der einzige bin der einen zieht und der dann gesprengt wird, weil der Rest so inkompetent ist.

    Ein Problem was ich eher habe sind die, die sich nicht von der Sogwirkung des Gefechtes befreien können. Das sind welche die Wegpunkten und der gleichen nicht folgen.

    Ich greife mit der Handvoll Spieler, die mir folgen an, aber es reicht nicht. Entweder ist das da ein Gruppe von Spielern, die mir/uns vom Können her haushoch überlegen sind. (Und so gut bin ich Shootern nicht bin). Oder es folgt eine größere Gegenoffensive.
    Ich glaube das Hauptproblem liegt am Design, das solche Zermürbungskämpfe viel zu leicht zulässt.

    Sorry but even as an adult I don't want to do the same thing for hours.
    For constant monotonous work you have to be made.
    Who can be blamed for not wanting to do that. Stratgy or not, if you do the same monotonous work for hours, you either break down and stop or you are made for it because you feel good as a small cog in a supply line.

    ---------------------

    Tschuldige aber selbst als erwachsener Mensch will ich nicht Stunden lang das selbe machen.
    Für ständige Monotone Arbeiten muss man geschaffen sein.
    Wem ist es da zu verübeln das er das nicht machen will. Stratgie hin oder her, wenn man stundenlang die selbe Monotone Arbeit macht, geht man entweder daran kaputt und hört auf oder man ist dafür geschaffen, weil man sich als kleines Rädchen in einer Versorgungslinie gut fühlt.

Share This Page