Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by elkikko92, Apr 2, 2017.

  1. The Rogue Wolf

    You can thank the playerbase for the loss of the hex system. Given freedom to fight however they chose, they chose not to fight at all.
    • Up x 3
  2. jettblakk

    I have never liked the lattice. Because of the way many players choice to play as pacifist squatters, the leaders who used the freedom for fun and effective tactics got punished. The argument for lattice are unfortunately mostly true and lattice is probably a necessary evil.
    • Up x 1
  3. RobotNinja

    Yes...the lattice forces people to actually play the game. And I'll be honest. I did a bit of ghost-capping before the lattice system. Easy xp, easy camps. Even with lattice, people still ghost cap bases. They just can't actually capture them but they'll hack the vehicle terminals and the turrets.

    People don't need more reasons to cheese in PS2. They cheese enough as it is.
    • Up x 2
  4. MonnyMoony

    I think a half way house between the old system and lattice is needed.

    IMO - Lattice should not prevent you capping a base - but what it should do is dictate the amount of time it takes.

    Bases with direct lattice links can be capped the fastest (same time as now).
    Bases 1 lattice link removed can be capped - but should take 3 times longer to cap
    Bases 2 lattice links removed can be capped - but should take 6 times longer to cap
    Bases 3 lattice links removed can be capped - but should take 9 times longer to cap

    IMO - it would help break up massive zergs since smaller sub zergs could break off and start the process of capping bases 1 or 2 lattice links further down the chain than the one currently being capped. As it stands - there is no incentive to move to the next base since you won't be able to start capping it until the current base is capped.

    To go hand in hand with this - I also think the amount of XP gained for capping a base should scale inversely with the size of the zerg (or should scale with the relative size of the attacking vs defending force). The bigger the zerg and the smaller the defending force - the lower amount of XP you get when the base finally caps. That way it would stop huge zergs just sitting there waiting for the base to cap in order to get their 250xp.
    • Up x 1
  5. Kdog559

  6. OldCuban

    I take it you weren't around when we didn't have a lattice?

    Those of us that were, can tell honestly tell you that the removal of the lattice system won't make people play more tactically.

    The zerg will always be there.......always.
  7. LordKrelas

    Any base can be capped around bases being capped? So they can literally zerg down a lane, with teams to spawncamp.... all the way to the warpgate.

    So basically, any defense is pointless since it can literally circled around, letting the Opponent literally cut off any base it has any trouble with from the allied lattice, followed by warpgating them by quite easily mowing down bases.
    With the defenders being unable cause a pause in this, unless they split off into even smaller forces, which then just get cluster ******.

    Those huge zergs would just surge endless forward, with small teams guarding the spawn rooms till it caps.
    Those Zergs should be paused at least a bit, so then maybe Defenders could have a prayer to defend a base from it.
    You know, with like land mines, vehicles, some infantry, before it just surges into the next three base's spawn rooms...

    IE I thank the Lattice for being able to actually have a fight, and know where the enemy needs to take in order to achieve a specific base cap.
    So it can be planned for, rather than every defense done right being avoided, and then rendered useless without a fight.

    IE a Zerg shouldn't be able to just mow down bases, without stopping if they want to cap it.
    That's encouraging Zerging.
    Zerging is utterally boring for defenders & attackers.
    Either you get no kills, or it's too damn rare, and that's for both sides.

    -- Lattice forces tactics. You must pick which bases you need, you can not avoid any base you please.
    Hex lets you avoid any base that is defended, and any fight you can't win, without preventing progress.
    No Tactics, just evasion of Any Defense's tactics.
    As you just weave around without any need to adjust, adapt or plan.

    So Hex is horrid for tactics, unless you call zerging around in waves a 'tactic' more than attacking specific bases to gain access to a base, from a differing angle.
  8. Tanelorn

    Maybe in beta but before the lattice in PS2 there was an adjacency requirement. It wasn't ghost capping anywhere on the map. Rather it was if the enemy held a nearby base they could attack any other nearby base WHICH IS EXACTLY HOW IT SHOULD BE.
  9. OldMaster80

    The problem is in ps2 one single player can cap a base without staying on the point. That's how it worked in the beginning but some idiots cried because they wanted to pew pew without defending the control console.

    Today one single player can land in an abandoned base, flip a point and fly away.

    In this condition the hex map will NEVER work. We had a test moths ago when they wanted to introduce a new version of Indar (conquer mode). Result was a disaster.
  10. ColonelChingles

    I don't even like the entire "hey let's sit around this random point and sing kumbaya" capture mechanic.

    Assign every unit values. Infantry = 1, Sunderers = 5, MBTs = 25, etc.
    Add up the values for all your faction's units in the hex. 48 infantry, 4 Sunderers, and 5 MBTs = 193 points.
    Compare your points to the enemy's points. You have 193 points, the enemy has 175 points.
    Find the difference. You have 18 points more than the enemy.
    Cap this at a maximum difference, say 15. Since you had 18 more points than the enemy, this is capped to 15.
    Each 30-second tick your side gets the capped difference in points. After 30 seconds, you get 15 points, after 60 seconds you get 30 points, etc.
    First faction that gets to 100 points wins.

    This means that you win a hex by having a bigger force than your enemy in a hex for an extended period of time. In turn, they can prevent you from capturing the hex by sending reinforcements or effectively killing your forces. That's how capturing should work, moving to eliminate as many enemies as you can while preserving your own forces.

    It wasn't that bad. Something as easy as "Bravo Squad, stay back and secure the point. Alpha, Charlie, spawn on Delta's Sunderer at the next base and push to the point." solved the problem.

    Of course back then it was a breeze to whip up two platoons on any given night... populations were a lot higher then. Today it's difficult to muster past 3 squads, so such options are more limited.
  11. LordKrelas

    So literally a Vehicle group with 1-operator only per vehicle just driving into the outer edges, and avoiding any contact with opposing force, can cap a base from anywhere in the hex.
    The more annoying & harder to find Ghost Cap, now with vehicles!

    Let the large Pop side win.
    Let the Overpop be the sole factor, to hell with positioning, proper use of defenses, miracle counter attacks.
    Lets just have whomever sits the most forces into a hex's fringes win the base...

    Is this literally what in hell your idea is?
    Who the hell would fight, if you could win the base, and earn certs just be having more people in a hex?
    The easiest way, and people do the easiest way, would be to literally scatter to the edges, and avoid the Hex's defenders.
    Whom would have to find your group, which could be anywhere across the Hex, and remove it.
    Unless they always have the pop advantage in which case, they can simply hide their own forces across the hex, preventing any capture.

    Less Tactics, more evasion of combat.
    Example of this presently exists: Ghost Capping with a Stalker Infiltrator, or an entire squad of them.
    Soon to be with Tanks on the edges of bases apparently.
  12. ColonelChingles

    Well if there's a tank, there are plenty of ways you can kill it. Another tank, a Liberator, etc. It's really not that difficult to hunt down a MBT, they're slow as heck and gigantic to boot. There's an incredible number of ways to knock out tanks.

    Population is a factor... but note that vehicles count for much more than infantry. In a sense, you could have a small combined arms force hold out against a numerically superior but point inferior infantry mob. Consider, for example, a 2 squad platoon versus a 48 person platoon:

    6 Vanguards (12), 2 Sunderers (6), 6 infantry (6) = 166 points
    48 infantry (48) = 48 points

    So as long as the smaller force could hold onto its assets, it would win against the larger force. By a fair margin I'd say.

    Okay, so what if the larger force brings along its own vehicles?

    In that case it comes out to tactics. Instead of forcing the fight at a base where really the attackers have the advantage, the defenders can instead start to attack the larger force piecemeal. Knock out a Prowler here, smack a Sunderer there. If they're competent, then the smaller force can attack and destroy the enemy bit by bit, focusing on their high-value targets. Without their high-value units like tanks, then the enemy will be unable to take the hex.

    If the smaller force is outnumbered and cannot act cohesively, then they'll lose. Which makes sense.

    The current point capture mechanic is much worse than this, because it forces the numerically smaller force to fight at a fixed and known location. If that starting force is weaker, no amount of "tactics" can save them if the fight is for a single room.

    You seriously can't be that stupid.

    Sure, try scattering your forces around. That just makes it much easier for the defenders to counter-attack and knock out your forces bit by bit, reducing your force to nothing except worthless infantry.

    And with just infantry, it would be extremely hard to take a base, since all they would need is 1 MBT to balance out 2 squads of infantry.

    If that's the best you can come up with as "tactics", then no wonder you're against this change. Forced to use your mind, you'd be slaughtered.

    Evasion and the selection of terrain is the highest form of combat. What Sun Tzu said, "The natural formation of the country is the soldier's best ally" easily applies here. People in PS2 should attempt to pick their fights, to evade the enemy where they are strong and strike at them where they are weak. That is artful war.

    Your concept, of smashing your head repeatedly into a meatgrinder of a capture point, is ugly and has no merit whatsoever.
  13. LordKrelas

    Yeah, unless the tank is constantly driving away.
    And in numbers, so if you do engage, you have to out number the things or use the brutal Liberator...
    And pray the enemy isn't using Liberators to cap the hex... or doesn't have better or simply more aircraft pilots.

    So this requires the allied population to basically jump into as many vehicles as possible.
    Which in combat, is drastically bad.
    Again, relies on Overpopulation being the sole factor.
    IE say TR or NC has the majority of the Pop, now you can't even stop them from capping any base.
    Why? As if you have the lowest pop, you can't even stop a Cap which is done across an entire hex rather than a base.

    The capture mechanic that actually requires combat.
    And doesn't focus solely on population numbers for who wins the base.
    That fixed location also happens to have defenses, a solid spawn... and doesn't force the defenders to try to find the opponent across an entire hex rather than a small base, whom with your idea can simply overpop & hide to win the fight.
    Defense does their job well enough? **** it, stand outside range, and win anyway.

    The attacker is gonna have a bigger advantage outside the base, where they literally dictate where their forces are.
    Making the defenders have to come to them, whom unless outnumber them, are forced to attack them or lose anyway.
    So the Defenders lose twice.

    You do realize what created, and is Ghost capping right?

    Spread out the forces, with vehicles, and the defense can only attack in number so many spots...
    Since if you could cap it, you already out number them.
    And the grand part is, a hex is large; In order to engage the attackers, they must find them.
    The fewer search parties, the more likely the enemy is to totally evade all contact with the defense teams.
    Aka Recall how a Stalker infil can run around an entire base more easily the fewer people are around said base.
    Now picture this scene across an entire hex, with the more durable tanks, and ******* aircraft.

    Ah yes, 1 MBT bests 2 entire squads of 12 people.
    Great so Tankers cap bases by proximity, and infantry are near useless for anything but piloting tanks.
    That literally sums up the use of infantry given that nowhere they can go that matters, a Tank can't with this situation.

    Removing the entire need to invade a base to win a base, isn't grand mystical tactical game-play.
    It's musical chairs blind-folded with Tanks.

    So you rather a base, be won by simply having more people walking around, than actually fighting.
    So cap points are contested by actual combatants but attendants.
    Do we get participation rewards too? Oh wait, that's the entire capture mechanic you want.

    You do pick your fights in PS2 currently.
    Pick what base, with what Pop, with what infantry, vehicle and aircraft you prefer.
    Don't like the situation, pick a different fight, or change the situation.

    Your idea isn't to pick fights, it's to void the entire point of the fighting: They are fighting for control.
    With your idea, they aren't fighting, they are trying to simply overpop each other.
    I take it you ghost cap that damn marsh a lot, calling it tactical supremacy when your cap had no opponents to face.
  14. breeje

    no not in beta, i never played beta but when the game came out you could cap every base even the one next to the enemy's warpgate
  15. FateJH

    That wasn't exactly the problem with a lack-of-Lattice but rather a general one of strategy and orders, at least the way it was framed here. One of the main problems with Pure Hex was the incessant bleed of base captures around the frontlines, the resolution of which only lead to the responsible players who tried to address it chasing tails more often than not and making their experience unsatisfactory.

    One suggestion that was common for having to chain a series of fringe base resecures was, "wait a while at a base and catch the perpetrator." That doesn't actually stop the game of musical chairs or really set it back much. It just makes the other guy respawn somewhere and the whole thing can start over from scratch. Even if it did, it's a lot of time and effort wasted in a way that was probably not as enjoyable as it could have been spent.

    Another suggestion I recall was "ignore him and start capping their bases the same way he's doing to you." Evasion of conflict was a part of the problem to begin with, so fighting fire with fire just leads to burning everything down. You'd also have been more likely to aggravate would-be responsible players like yourself on the other faction than the target player of your ire. Finally, it also doesn't address the bleed.
    • Up x 1
  16. breeje

    yes after they changed it to the bases next to it (still a pain in the azz), i am talking to the very early days when you could cap every base on the map
    with a total freedom, even if there was no connection