Results of the Lattice

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by moooosa, May 23, 2013.

  1. moooosa

    12:00 am, Midnight:
    Massive zergfits. Giant masses of way-too-many players butting heads stupidly. Only way to win is by overwhelming numbers, steamroller style. 60% of fighting done from behind shields (spawn room, etc.) since there is nowhere to go without getting ripped apart by at least 3 tanks, an ESF, and a few HA all at once.

    Lots of kills? Yes. Fun? Well, the non-stop explosions are exciting for a bit, but it doesn't take long to get tired of the inside of a spawn room.

    4:00 am:
    Thrilling, hour+ long battle at Crimson Bluff. Constant stream of incoming enemies from different angles, point control flipping back and forth the whole time. Fighting hard. Less kills, but much, much more movement; infantry battles decided by skill; spattering of vehicles involved but kept at bay.

    Fun? Quite.

    Conclusion based on this limited data:
    The Lattice can't work with these server populations and base designs. There's actually, believe it or not, TOO many players in battles now, and the gameplay devolves into a spastic fit of ordnance. This used to happen occasionally, in some places (which was fine), but now it's all zergfits all the time. No breathing room, no breaks in the action, no time for planning and no sense of victory since flipping over a base is a minor event in the ongoing endless battle. This is during common hours. BUT, gameplay in the wee hours where server pop is usually much lower and the flow of the game tends to fall apart is improved significantly by the focus of the Lattice.

    Feel free to discuss.
    • Up x 3
  2. thrikerr

    Even during prime time not every base was being fought over by these massive "zergs" you speak of. And the small squad kiddos still think they don't have a place in this game any more. lolz
  3. AzureKnight

    I'm iffy. My problem is the way it was designed was for this exactly. They want large scale battles and even in the description it basically says it's this way to force people in to going one direction or the other. Sure it can make it fun, but forcing large scale conflicts all the time gets annoying especially when you can't defend against dozens upon dozens of people who outrank, outclass, and out-equip you.

    It's hard to be a sniper when you have explosions, smoke, and the fact that view range of those you snipe varies wildly depending on how many people are there.

    You get stuck in a spawn room, which in the towers was wonderfully redesigned so that the anti-farm/zerg for the defenders was removed because apparently people farmed from it. Understandable to a point but when your only two options if you break free are run to a friendly area and lose the area you were defending or run to an enemy area where the zerg's coming from to try and cap it, there's no point in holding that tower once a zerg is underway.

    My only other problem is that I hate being forced to go one way or the other. yes it makes large scale battles, but when its tanks/planes, explosions and you can't tell which direction you're being shot at by 20 people, it makes it more frustrating than anything especially when you can't run to a different area to try and draw them off the place you're trying to hold.
    • Up x 1
  4. 660/12

    I more-or-less agree. My thoughts on the lettuce:

    + Promotes big fights. Big fights are fun!
    + Promotes open-terrain fights and actual battlefields. This is nice. I love open-field fights!
    - Does NOT promote EVEN fights. During the three hours I was on last night in prime-time, the local population was (by default) usually 66% to 34% or more lopsided. TR had the advantage at first, then VS did. This kinda blows.
    - Seemingly removes options for smaller units to do meaningful things. Jury is still out on this.

    +/- Maxes may become the default infantry class.
  5. TintaBux

    Pure lag and spam for me.
  6. elkikko92

    They will relase HOSSIN, and implement lattice on Amerish and Esamir!
    Indar battle are too big because there isn't a good spread of population in each continents (Amerish is always empty)
    lattice is a good step
  7. AzureKnight

    I believe lattice is an okay step where the population is smaller, for example Amerish, but not on larger populated continents. Indar is prime candidate for that obviously, but when Hossin comes out, there's going to be a sh-- ton of people on there and it's just going to lead to what's happening on Indar right now. That is to say, large scale battles of mostly armor with little to no chance of making any progress due to stalemates.
  8. indianahoops

    I don't understand the argument "Numbers win the battle".

    When did numbers not win the battle with the HEX system?

    The current Lattice system needs some improvements, by it is a huge step in the right direction.
    • Up x 3
  9. AzureKnight

    The difference is, on the hex system, a squad of a few could take a place due to focus being drawn elsewhere. If people spawned in, it required team work and skill to not lose your footing. In the middle of a large battle, a small group could sway sides if they went after other CPs to draw heat off their own side.

    On this current system, it funnels people to going one way or another so you end up with two massive armies facing off. Required skill drops off as AoE is by far more effective than taking single shots. You toss a grenade in to a group and everyone's dead or injured and another shot kills them.

    Numbers are what win the battles, yes, but the current system removes the tactical advantage of putting pressure on your enemies by cutting or just going after their supply lines. If you can't cut the enemy numbers, either you'll lose or be forced in to a stalemate which will just destroy the game.
  10. Chemicalnurd

    It's not perfect, but it's way better than hex. Just needs some tweaking with new mechanics etc and it'll be amazing. People need to stop whining or we'll get the hex system back and the game will make no progress, battles will continue to be a persistent version of Call of Duty.
    We need:
    • Better base design - defensible bases. Look at the ones in PS1, improve them. Do not knock holes in the walls. Also this is coming from someone who played PS1 for the first time a few days ago, so don't call me a vet looking back through rose-tinted spectacles.
    • Resource mechanics - Something involving a flow of resources through the lattice. Allow for ways to slow or stop the resource flow (A job for infiltrators?), but a way is needed to make this intense as opposed to dull backhacking where people make it fun by pretending they're being spec ops tacticool.
    • Incentives to defend - Possibly given through a system where the game predicts attacks at bases and you're rewarded for being there when they start (this SHOULD be possible with the lattice system.). For example, a base could show "Attack probable within the next two minutes" or something on the map, with an option to deploy there. Instant action could be changed to fit with this so you have a toggle to choose "Instant Action - Offense" or "Instant Action - Defense" etc.
    • Spheres of Influence or similar - Some kind of feature to prevent hot dropping straight into battles. This can absolutely kill the direction of a fight. Perhaps an excuse could be used like bases having some kind of automated field or weapon system that destroys incoming drop pods. Squad beacons would be the only way to allow drops into an enemy base, maybe this could by saying they disrupt the defense field and cause it to tag a squad's pods as friendly so they aren't destroyed, but a single beacon can not do this for more than 12 pods. I think this would make the huge beam of light that comes out the top make some level of sense, for one thing. Effects on AMS sunderers within the sphere of influence could also be experimented with - basically, the attacks should come from outside a base, not within it. A system such as this also means the galaxy and non-ams sunderers have a role. For example a group could break through the shield in a shield-diffuser sunderer, or drop in from above using a galaxy. They then take down the gate shields and release the zerg in full force (A mechanic should be added that allows the shield to be broken from outside though, but more options to deal with these things are always good). Routes into the base that are difficult to use unless you are an infiltrator could also be a decent option.
    Another thing that could be done to help eliminate monotony would be to have the lattice shift configuration occasionally, but the danger with that is that it could lead to map design needing to be less interesting. The lattice for the most part fits around geographical features in a pretty logical manner, so having it change could mean a map's geography needs to be made less relevant (and therefore less interesting). Some lattice links also make a level of tactical sense, for example you would be unlikely to want to attack the Crown from Crossroads when your infantry has to run across a pretty open area unless you first have support from TI Alloys, which gives you control of a bridge with effective cover, access to one of the crown's blind spots, and several routes up to the crown that only infantry can really use, but which could be used to great effect in shutting off the flow of vehicles so an attack can come more safely from Crossroads.

    This isn't a problem with lattice, but a problem with base design.
    • Up x 2
  11. TomaHawk

    I haven't done much in the new patch except b*tch about the broken scoped sensitivity bug now in the game, but this sounds.. like.. what we had before the patch. I am having a hard time determining what the patch changed in your description. And I will concede right now I don't even know what this lattice system is about or how it works.
  12. 660/12

    Numbers usually win the battle in any system, but with hexes, smaller units could be productive by picking smaller fights and less defended objectives. Right now, that APPEARS to be less true. Yeah, numbers always win the battle, but what we've lost (seemingly) is the ability to choose our battles.

    I think this will work in the long run IF (IF IF IF) Sony puts in features that reward tactical play. Give us base sabotage, resource flow, disruption, and more tactical options. I like zerging. I really do. But not all the time.
  13. MarlboroMan-E

    (a) it's too early to call
    (b) I got caught up in one of these massive zerg fights. I stuck with it as long as it was fun, then flanked to a different point of attack.
    (c) it's too early to call
  14. Marinealver

    We need the other 2 thirds of the planet
    Ceryshen, Cyssor, Hossin, Seaharus, Forseral, Solsar and Oshur (Or Ishundar or both depending what continent Indar is supposed to be)
  15. indianahoops

    The problem with giving people the ability to choose where they fight is that they naturally go where they have the highest % of victory. Which leads to attacking bases with little or no resistance. Which leads to sitting around empty bases all day.

    Which also causes no one to play defense. With the HEX system, nobody is going to try and fight a battle where the odds are against them. Why should they? Just let the enemy have the base and then re-take it once they leave. This also leads to just sitting around doing nothing for both sides.

    No doubt the current Lattice system needs someway of routing out a enemy that is holed up in a base.

    PS1 had the whole NTU system with ANTs, which was fine, but thhis is where PS2 can separate its self and innovate in that area.
  16. SnuggX

  17. moooosa

    It's true that the hex system lead to a lots and lots of ghost capping and awful sitting around waiting for bases to cap. The Lattice system more or less eliminates that. However the Lattice system is also flawed. With the hex you could (for example) counter a concentrated army's push by sweeping around and capturing undefended bases, forcing your enemy to either split up or quickly lose a bunch of territory (Strategy!). With the Lattice, stuff like that is gone and you're pretty much required to engage in a blunt headbutt with the enemy where whoever butts the hardest pushes ahead.

    Note that I never said we should simply go back to the hex. The reality of this is that we're looking at two extremes here; both are flawed, and frankly neither is particularly good. The Lattice does guarantee more consistent "action," so there is that, but I'm afraid it will quickly become numbing.

    Keep in mind that I did mention the lattice working quite well with a particular population level. Unfortunately this is a game that could very well have 1000 individual players involved in one battle at one location. How could that ever work? With hex this could diffuse naturally, but with Lattice it remains concentrated.

    Ultimately I fear that the Lattice is an oversimplification. We need a middle ground.
  18. AzureKnight

    Which is why I thought up this idea:

    Though it seems poorly worded to me now, i just want an item that make capping based off the hex grid possible, though it would be class limited, require a fair amount of certs to get, and would have a substantial cool down. I just hope that maybe someone looks at it and at least is all, "Huh, that could work"
  19. moooosa

    That's a clever idea. With proper implementation (it would probably need to be hyper-visible like spawn beacons and have a long-ish cooldown time) it could certainly bring dimension to the game. Then again we don't want to exactly "bring back" ghost capping. But maybe its use could be made infrequent enough that it would make sense. It's a difficult thing, but I appreciate the idea.