the lattice is not fun

Where are these greener pastures you speak of?

You may well be right regarding further development. On the other hand, it could be that the PS4 release proves financially beneficial and provides funding/impetus for a return to further development?
I realize the workforce was vastly reduced, but I wonder if it is like pruning a tree. You prune it, it looks smaller, but that's only so it can grow into something better.

But seriously, take me to them pastures.

I'm entirely sure there was ghost-capping being done. I mean, there was the occasional good fight. But if someone's goal was capturing territory, especially during alerts, it was better to spread out and send people everywhere than it was to commit any considerable numbers to a fight that'd last longer than 5 minutes. The only exception being the old Crown, which defied all logic and nanites.

I mean, if players behaved perfectly, and spread out evenly across the front, pre-lattice could work. But that's not conducive to medium to large fights and players don't coordinate well enough on such a level. So you just end up with people avoiding each other, either intentionally or even unintentionally. This is a case of too much player freedom being a detriment, which is why they lessened the amount of choices with lattice.

The only thing that was worse than old-hex was old-pre-backcap-hex. Which was when you could capture ANY territory, regardless of connection. That made the map do all sorts of funny things.

http://store.steampowered.com/

Hundreds of games released this year alone. Take your pick.

I doubt the PS4 release is going to be the boost the game needs. What it really needs is an expansion (as most MMOs have one by now), but it might be too late for that.

I agree that the Crown activity typically defied reacting to the Alert.

But within the context of Continent Wide Alerts specifically during High Population Periods, there was not rampant unchecked Prolonged Ghost Capping. Invariably, some forces would try to check any Ghost Capping advance, in response to the Territorial goal of the Alert.

Non-Alert times, Alerts during low or uneven populations, or Alerts that were not for Continent Control, Ghost Capping would also surface. But not when the Populations Were Maxed during Continent Control Alerts: the motivation was in place for forces to react to unchecked attacks.

I agree with you that player behavior (due to existing factors of communication, goals, etc.) pursued goals of Zergs Ghostcapping empty bases, and staying away from each other: it was more efficient grinding, it satisfied many players desire to see "progression", etc.

I am just saying within the specific narrow parameters of a Continent Wide Alert (during Max Population on all Factions), we did actually see the motivation emerge by players to check unopposed enemy attacks on Ally territory. We still see that now in Full Pop Alerts in the Lattice system.

Yeah. That system just gives players even more options to Ghostcap and avoid conflict that would reduce Grinding effectiveness and reduce "progress".

Hex: not fun (apart from during alerts in prime time), because forces would avoid each other and cap without resistance. Some concentration of available lanes was needed.

Lattice: not fun because your options are so restricted there is often no fun fight, particularly on Esamir, and you get enforced 96+ zergfests at small outposts that can't deal with those numbers.

Solution: primary lattice of (roughly, some tweaks would be needed) facilities and large outposts, with most small outposts being taken off the territory control system entirely and being a flippable collection of terminals and turrets (like the old outposts for facilities). As an optional extra, they could provide small bonuses for local forces in resource acquisition, when we get resources 2.0.

After lone-wolfing for over 2 years with both systems, I find lattice much more enjoyable.
I find the tactics for dealing with zergs are much more enjoyable than jumping from base to base to find 1 guy who then disappears, or 12 guys that are avoiding the zerg, working together and kicking my *** when I'm trying to make a difference by myself.
Currently, the lattice seems variable enough that you can change your focus to uncontested bases many times.
My personal preference.

MACRO LATTICE IS WHAT I SUGGESTED MANY TIMES....

Yes. I'm agreeing with you, and stating it more clearly since a bunch of people in the thread didn't seem to get it.

I guess we're both giving anecdotal evidence here, but what I saw was some groups attempting to keep the rampant ghost-capping in check. Which caused entire squads to do nothing but deploy and redeploy to deal with every single minor capture attempt. It wasn't particularly hard to counter it, assuming numbers on a specific front were even. The kicker here is that doing so was just extremely tedious, at least from my perspective.

Reason I say that is because I spent nearly half of my playtime during an alert, one that I was doing with an organized squad/platoon, deploying and redeploying from base to base. Responding to numbers as low as 6 to 3 people, who would either instantly evaporate at the first sign of opposition or provide a 5 minute firefight, at best. I imagine this was particularly frustrating to a lot of squad and platoon leaders as well. Especially ones who cared if their squadmates were enjoying themselves.

I'm not saying that current lattice is perfect. It has some damned frustrating quirks and gameplay elements. But I still think it's the lesser of two evils here. At least with lattice, I can log on and get into more than one semi-decent fight within the course of an hour or two. Rather than being able to spend an entire day without any meaningful battles. Everybody plays PS2 to shoot at least a few of the planetmans.

In contrast, I ENJOYED redeploying to either make pushes on weaker bases, or to shore up defenses at exposed bases and stop enemy advances on those bases. It was a Sandbox gameplay that actually worked, because the Reward System was supporting both gaining and keeping territory and the Population was high and balanced enough.

I agree that Lattice functions better under the current PS2 Reward System, outside of Continent Control Alerts during High and Balanced Population times. Without Lattice:
1) most players zerg empty bases and avoid actual combat
2) some players farm other players, but heedless of actual faction goals

PS2 Devs did a great job of creating a current-gen, unique game genre. They achieved this mostly by launch. It didn't know what to do after launch, but added some small number of good things. Then it rolled over and mostly died. At this point, the only decent possible changes I see players able to negotiate, are trivial to implement things.

I guess it's simply a matter of opinion on whether you enjoyed said gameplay. But apparently enough people did not enjoy it, or at least enough to warrant SOE to want to change the system, in spite of their seeming reluctance to do so in the beginning.(PS1 players asked for it oodles of times) Which coincides with my anecdotes about my own squadies' and leaders' disdain for the constant movement and near unpredictability of the hex system.


What I don't get in your post, is you refer to the reward system and imply it has changed in a way that is more conducive to the lattice system. From my own recollection, I don't recall any change that would really impact strategic or tactical decisions by players in either system. The only significant changes that come to mind is that they made the alert end reward time-based to stop last minute faction hopping, added an xp multiplier for playing the alert, and a handful of other changes that don't really affect player decisions on the big map that much. Hell, I can think of a few sunderer changes that had a greater impact on that than any reward changes.

We used to have influence...so the more people you had in a territory the faster it would cap. And you could go anywhere you wanted...as long as it was connected via hex.

Then the ps1 people cried for lattice or they would leave..so they halted their vision and gave us exactly what we asked for. And those ps1 players left.

They had the gaming world in their pocket for two months...they pulled in people that would drive people here to play....I don't know what happened there but alot of high influence gamers have left because of this games current state.

They still come back occasionally and login. But none stay too long.

The game is where its at because of our requests and not driven by some grander vision.

In this day and age you can give the pack what they want and they will realize they never wanted or you cam drive a clean new vision and make something fabulous.

Still hoping for fabulous here.

I don't think SOE Designers knew what they were doing in terms of (1) understanding what they "big picture" wanted (or even fathomed what was possible), (2) how to tune the game to get specific changes they wanted, or (3) how changes they did make then impacted other parts of the game.

Consistently across their games, SOE listened to what Hardcore Organized Players wanted. As well as reluctantly to some mass outcry on forums.

I have no interest in the Server Smash meta, which I think is much worse than Standard Game. Ground Vehicles Dead, Abuse of Quick and Hard To Stop Deployment, Abuse of Rezing.

I don't like the current iteration of Standard Game meta. I'd nerf (non-AA) range on Maxs and improve range on Infantry Ground AV. I'd probably also reduce (non-AA) Firepower potential on Sunderers, but increase their durability to Vehicles. I would also decrease the XP for Inafntry kills by all Vehicles (probably to 1/4th the current) and add partial XP for all major Vehicle Damage (regardless of kill). And I would add Air Radar which shows all Units more than 1 Hex outside their Faction's control. I would also explore more Aim aids in ESFs. And I would look at buffing all unused/underused non-niche guns/units. Given budget, I would also explore expanding Voice Communication to either cover (1) across Outfit/Platoon/Squad communication, OR (2) Communication channles by Allly Region/Base or Ally Continent for Air.

I believe all these would shift the meta and open up the game to a broader audience.

I have no clue what kind of game SOE/DBG envisions, though I already said Server Smash meta is atrocious. But if people playing Server Smash love it, then I'd let it go just because they dig it. If they don't dig it, I'd nerf at least: Rez, Gal Drop (but buff Gal in other roles like Air Ammo Supply), Squad Respawn in Vehicle, and Squad Beacons. These are all broken crutches that shrink the game, I'd change it to open up the gameplay and tactics to a broader number of units.

In a "big picture" sense, Reward System encompasses the game's entire eco-system. And the system's massive "butterfly effect" that is always in play.

Changes they have made, in addition to changes they have never made, both contribute to the current Reward System. As does Power Creep. SOE nerfed Inafantry Ground AV and they boosted Max Range Weapons, both major factors in shaping the Standard Game. They also changed Class Roles, in giving away LA and Infiltrator abilities, and removing lots of hackable Terminals from the game.

Consistently SOE/DMG makes games that are neat and fun in concept and basic execution, but then are littered with gimmick nich audience appealing forced gameplay that players hate and TONS of career bugs.

I agree with your first. I am a big fan of a Hybrid Lattice system...Connect the main bases with the lattice and remove the smaller outposts & put them unto an adjacency capture mechanic, but link them to the main bases, meaning you can only attack them when the main base is open for contention...

However, you are completely wrong about the HEX system requiring more strategy. This is a common misconception. Under the HEX system, there are very few restrictions in movement, therefore there is very little if anything defenders can do from stopping an attacking force, thus no strategy is needed other then follow the path of least resistance and continue to grab territory until it makes it too painful for the defenders to continue to the hold the base they want.

Defending under the HEX system is a lose / lose situation, if you hold a base, you lose the adjacent territory. If you fall back and try to react to each cap, you spread yourself out and attackers can focus their forces on the main targets...There is no risk to attacking, therefore the only strategy that made sense was to be offensive. A system that doesn't balance offensive and defensive strategies making them equally effective is not a system that requires strategy...

Here are some simple questions for you...

Under the HEX system, how would you balance a faction that has 5%, 10% or more players on a continent then another faction? How are you going to restrict that faction from using it's extra players from hitting all of the undefended hex adjacent bases, while matching the smaller sized faction 1:1 at the other bases?

You can't, that was one of the biggest long term problems with the HEX system as the games population decreases or as new continents are added and spreads the player out, no one came up with a viable solution to that problem. The HEX System favors the faction with the greatest population. A faction with a smaller population, can not cover all of the territory that is available to be captured, therefore the larger population, just holds them at a few places, then takes everything else. However, the Lattice limits the number of places an attacker can capture, this allows a faction with a smaller population to actually be able to hold a lane, to protect a base, without losing all the territory behind that base or lane...

I think that in general Server Smash participants are the more strategically minded players, and would generally agree with you about the issues with the current meta. "Redeployside", which includes squad spawn into vehicles 2000m away, is something that we all hate but we all know we have to do it to be effective.

Galaxy drops aren't the problem, and in fact in my opinion galaxy drops are one of the most intense and exciting things you can do in this game. The problem is that people can spawn straight back into the galaxy and drop again: squad vehicle spawn was a bad idea and the things we were worried about with it have come to pass. (Ever tried clearing a GSD'd amp station with five enemy battles buses inside and the terminals hacked? Whenever you kill someone, they respawn back in the sundies, and whenever you kill a sundy, they use the terminal to pull another one.)

Good question....ive been thinking about it and I don't have an answer for it. If I did, I'd be working at dbg.

How difficult would it be to occasionally mix up the lattice connections? Maybe some sort of monthly rotation, just as an example?

I think some of the connections are based on terrain and possibility for ambushes, line of sight, etc. but perhaps there's other iterations that could be implemented?

Open it up to a community contest to design a bunch of different layouts so it doesn't necessarily impose on dev time until they actually implement the code?

The more layouts the better I'd imagine. Toss a few in during alerts just to throw a wrench in the routine.

This is an interesting idea. Someone should let the devs know directly.

Perhaps Gal Drops could survive my changes to fix Server Smash, when the other stuff (like Rez and Squad Beacon and Max's Range) is nerfed... but I doubt it.

Gal Drops are largely unstoppable pinpoint mass player insertion on Cap Points or other targets. They are undoubtedly made more broken by the synergy of other broken Infantry tactics available.

I'm not saying I'd remove Gal Drops (though that might be the best alternative), just that I'd nerf the current incarnation. Gals are too durable, Gals weapons are too effective vs. ESFs (though this could be moot if Gals were notably easier to kill), and the Gal Drops are too accurate, etc.

It all comes down to, in order:
1) understanding what Server Smash is now, including the OP Units/Tactics that define it and the Units that are Unused and why
2) then determining and define what Serve Smash you'd want to have
3) then making the tweaks to get from #1 to #2

I can do that. I am good at balancing systems to get t a defined new system. I could do it in small number of passes by nerfing into the ground the offending elements, or I could do it in more passes by tuning those offending elements so they were playable but not game breaking.

don't play Server Smash, so if players prefer the game as it is now, then I'd suggest not changes: it'd be what players want. Server Smash *IS* a functioning game (which is notable and positive), it's just a question as to whether it's the game Server Smash players want. Once they identify and define the game they want (not define it by how, by define it by what happens in it, the how is up to the Designer), then a gameplay system Designer can make progress toward it. Though that Designer will take the spirit of what you want, and not your own thoughts on it (unless they are on point and support the new system)