We've had Lattice for about three days and the gloss is already wearing off

Stupid computer decided to post 3 damn times.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

At the beginning of the night it was a little slow when we pushed against the NC. But to be fair, TR had 50% pop around then so that was bound to happen no matter what.

The VS actually put up a great fight all around for the parts I was there for (I left shortly after our first few engagements with the VS to go grab some dinner and came back to fight more VS.)

I'm not one to call anybody cowardly for going to the Alert, it's kind of the point of the alert in the first place. Please don't assume.

PS2's Niche is big fights. But, in order for big fights to be attractive teamplay needs to be a core component else it's just a slugfest. Strategic players and tactics isn't a niche, it's just a player and another word for teamplay respectively. But, PS2's niche does attract strategic players who like to utilize tactics to achieve goals, which is where I think you were going with that.

35 hours since launch? Before I assume anything, I'd like to ask if that's a typo?

Lattice doesn't ignore anybody. Let me get this straight. The amount of strategy or tactics you can actually use and put forward with either territory mechanic is very minimal. Most tactics in this game revolve around the actual battle itself and have nothing to do with the territory mechanics.

One very controversial tactic comes to mind, and is made much better with lattice now compared to hex. That's, going behind enemy lines.

In the hex design, it was known as ghost capping and was really easy to do, and really annoying to deal with. In lattice, it holds a big more weight and does it in a way that makes sense. Just tonight during my outfit's ops, we were holding crossroads watchtower against he VS and NC. To the west, the VS just took Hvar Northgate, and were about to go to Quartz Ridge. If I remember correctly, we send a squad to Quartz Ridge to defend the gate. The squad itself had no hope of taking on the superior VS forces alone, but they were meant to slow them down while the rest of us when to Hvar Northgate, behind the enemy lines since they were at Quartz Ridge, and start the hack on Hvar Northgate. Once we did that, the VS at Quartz Ridge could not hack the points, they were forced to return and face us. That's awesome, that gives rewards to going behind enemy lines without making it ridiculous and opening up a bunch of doors.

In the old hex design, this situation would be silly. The VS would still cap quartz ridge and we'd cap Hvar Northgate. So, you're probably thinking "Well just use that mechanic in the hex, fixed" but it's not that simple either. The way the mechanic works is if you have a secured link to the base so you can hack it. Imagine Regent Rock Garrison. TR Hold Xenotech and Scarred Mesa. The VS have started the hack on Xenotech. TR can still start the hack on Regent Rock because we have the secured link from Scarred Mesa. Situations like that are possible in the lattice network, but aren't as common.

In the hex design, this mechanic would flop because of adjacency. You'd have a secured link to your base all the time unless you were essentially cut off from all other territories.

So going behind enemy lines is a strategy in the lattice that becomes lot more rewarding now, because it actually affects the enemy who didn't watch their backs. In the hex, it didn't really do anything since the enemy could ignore it. And correct me if I'm wrong but that's the strategy so many people are complaining that they felt they lost with lattice, when in fact it was made more powerful.

Actually, the fact that lattice opens up a high number of paths at facilities greatly increases the value of holding them as it gives you access to much more of the map. They are like gateways to different sides of the map. It's an artificial means of making them valuable until they can actually make them valuable for real reasons.

It's not the only way it's been marketed. I may be biased in my recollection, but it was more often mentioned to be "war on a large scale" and "a strategy game in the form of an fps".
What this means is subject to interpretation, but I'm pretty sure it means more than just "big fights".

Also, a demographic can be a niche. There really are several types of players currently playing PS2 and definitely don't all want to be part of big fights all the time. A lot of players I've met enjoy having 2-3 squads fighting equivalent forces the most, but relish the variety of fights available in the notion of "war on a large scale".
In this sense, the lattice is limiting these players ability to play the way they want to in favor of only "big fights, all the time".

Haha yeah typo, it's 35 days, most of which were leading public then outfit platoons.

This isn't true. Strategy is, in a ps2 specialized way, the selection of a path constructed of viable targets.
The ability to create a player driven path and adapt it to the evolving situation of a continent is core to those enjoying that type of forward thinking.
Tactics are more of a reactive and immediate type of thinking. Nearly instinctive as most tactics should be known and are "muscle memory".

Both are present under the hex system, despite its lack of valuation of targets to determine what a viable target is.
The lattice effectively removes one type of thinking, one complete layer of gameplay.
The creation of a path and the ability to adapt it is out, and so are some of the players that had their playstyle centered around that: scouts, gal drop last sec savers and generally platoon leaders.

They could adapt and change role, even keep their role and try to find purpose under the lattice.
But why should they? We're in a situation where a system could improve on all aspects of the game.

Ghostcapping being annoying is a matter of taste, I didn't mind it in the hex and usually was the one trying to prevent it.
However in the lattice, I find it infuriating to be unable to cap a territory just because the other one is being attacked, and I feel dirty when I do it. It feels like an exploit because it's the optimal strategy. If you don't do it, you're playing the game wrong.

That system under the hex would be much more interesting if contested territories didn't project any influence.
This is a soft limitation rather than a static/hard limitation. Instead of removing gameplay, it adds some.

That's a constant, the biggest defect of the lattice, is that it's simply anti fun. It has so many mechanics designed to limit players by removing possible moves that none of the gains could be worth it. It feels forced and artificial.

You yourself considers it an artificial value, and I doubt they can find any kind of boost being more valuable than being a crossroad in a system otherwise devoid of choices. The hex is simply more suited to have intrinsic value given to territory.

I'll conclude on a side note that I don't want anyone reading me to be confused about:
The lattice is Bad, the current implementation of the hex is the Ugly, but the hex has the potential to evolve in the Good.

I'm sure it does, but the game was designed to incorporate thousands of players into the same massive battlefield. That much we can be sure of, and I am not saying that I want strategy to be gone either. I love a good dose of effective strategy, and without layered teamplay mechanics in the game you and I wouldn't be playing. I just wanna be clear, I like being tacticool too.

I think different groups of players can fill a niche as a group, which I think is what you're trying to get at. Players cannot be a niche, but they can fill them with different play-styles or by playing in a way that is in a special area of demand.

Anyway, I agree that many different players enjoy many different kinds of fights. They enjoy flying, tanking, small fights, big fights, sniping and ground pounding. But that's okay, all of that is available with lattice and there's plenty of it waiting for them too. All those things aren't gone at all.

But, even if those players find they do enjoy that style of gameplay, most players come because they hear or see these big fights on massive scales. If that's not there when they jump in the game for themselves, that's less than ideal. And even though there are a lot of players who like smaller fights, or medium fights, what have you there are also a lot of players who like big fights too. And the hex made that happen less. The lattice offers big fights all the time, but more often than not there is more smaller fights to choose from than there are big fights. I see this every night.

So, we can conclude that on a server with a semi-balanced population and competitive factions, there is plenty of variety. I play on Mattherson, and that's how it is every night so far since lattice. Big fights, small fights, medium fights, it's all there all the time.

That's a relief lol, this late night gets to me too. Trains of thought are somewhat fragile, but I enjoy it nonetheless.

I agree that the ability to create player driven paths can be appealing and important, but I think the negatives outweigh the pros. But the main problem with that, at least in the hex design, is that a lot of things didn't matter such as I mentioned before, enemy's getting behind your lines. Now, if they attacked you obviously it affects you, but in the hex design if they start taking territory behind you, who cares? You have your player created goal ahead of you and nothing is stopping you from achieving it. Even though from a strategical standpoint, you've lost your resource gain, you're cut off from your faction, this should definitely impact you more than it does in hex(And I believe it should also impact you more than it currently does in the lattice as well)

It's a risk/reward kind of thing. If you avoid the fight, there should be a reason for that aside from avoiding the fight. Or that's all it will amount too. Even though you yourself may not do that, it happens and the majority of people playing this game hate it.

Well I can understand why you'd find it to be frustrating, but I understand that in the same respect that you'd be frustrated if you got killed or defeated.

I don't know why you feel like it's an exploit, it's a valid strategy. The mechanic creates risk/reward gameplay and makes going behind enemy lines something that can actually affect an entire zerg, something small outfits can do to affect numbers much greater than their own, which is what they've been asking for.

If the enemy doesn't leave a few guys behind to defend the base while they push up to the next one, it's on them if you sneak in. When a zerg leaves a base like that, small outfits who pride themselves on changing the battlefield in big ways can do just that with this mechanic, fighting off the smaller squad that was left behind if any, and forcing the zerg into a roadblock down the road.

Optimal strategy? That's good, PS2 community has been yearning for more meta-game. That's exactly what that is.

"Simply Anti Fun" is a matter of taste or opinion. I have fun every day playing with the lattice with my outfit. We utilize strategy and tactics, we enjoy big fights, and outside of ops a smaller group of us play and enjoy the smaller side of things. So, it can't be anti fun for everyone.

Sometimes some amount of obligatory gameplay is good for a game like this. If there is something that the enemy HAS to do, you can form strategies around that. And the enemy can do the same thing, and predict what you would according to what they had to do, as well as considering what you have to do. In the hex, you don't really have to do anything. So it makes forming strategies a but more limiting. Like I said before in another discussion, lattice as brought our outfit's alliance to a whole other level of coordination, so to say it only takes away from strategy is far fetched to me. Because while it may have taken away from some strategies, it added a lot more. I think it takes more strategy, more coordination, to achieve the same results as before.

Making the skill cap higher is almost always good.

Even if it is artificial, it's enhanced the gameplay surrounding facilities in a way that makes them very valuable to have. People asked for meaningful reasons to have them and now we have that, now all that's left is to add reasoning behind each facility on an individual level. Right now they're meaningful to have because it opens up other pathways, but that makes all facilities valuable for the same common reason. I'd like to see each one valuable in an individual way later on to add another layer of gameplay.

I think that will happen once some other features go in such as the resource overhaul. Once that comes in, vehicles will probably be less spammable, and then get buffed, which would give tech plants much more value. Hopefully they figure out some really good benefits to having bio labs and amp stations after that too.

@OP I laugh at how you think the lattice system is affecting that much. All it did was changed your perception of what is happening. Even back in beta numbers ALWAYS mattered. If the enemy team was larger than yours, then there is an 80% chance your gonna lose! I'm surprised most people had not picked up on this faster.

Here i'll enlighten you on somethings...

The lattice system follows the original road ways on Indar (obviously some have been added and/or changed slightly). Ground vehicles and troops usually have to follow the roads to get the nearest base (and most do all the time) so even in the hex system it's very easy to guess where the enemy is going to next and how they are getting there. All the lattice system did was make this obvious to everybody so now bases are better defended, responded to faster and lone soldiers can't capture territory. It also restricted air traffic which has been sort of a problem since the game was in beta.

hell, when half of the players will be gone because of this lattice system, you will be back to ghostcappping. or zerging with 100 tanks while 2 - 3 fools are behind shield is called tactics ?

This. I'm not sure the game can survive the 30-40% of people who will leave when the lattice is on all continents and therefore not possible to avoid.

Well you can build a dam but the flow is simply going elsewhere then. : )
Even tough I think lattice is the biggest selfbetrayal and crap that has ever made it into any videogame, im still playing on "Latticndar" as long as the Vanu-grasslands are in danger. Because I simply like the grassland.
But whenever it goes further out of it, my motivation is shrinking enormously.

That percentage is a complete guess. 90% of the vocal community asked for lattice, we know this because we saw it on the roadmap. And a bunch of players have come back because of lattice.

So there's no telling what the percentage of retention will be.

People tend to mark anything that's more than a squad's worth of people as a zerg, not knowing what the word really stands for or wrongly assesing the nature of the group. I myself have had the pleasure of hearing people mark whole outfits as zerg-fits and such, implying that they do not incorporate any tactics or strategy into their gameplay.

Well then, what is this "zerg" you constantly blame for taking over your precious, strategically viable, Indar?

Sad fact: They tried adjacency restriction on Hex in Beta, but quickly removed them. Despite divided feedback at the time over it's implementation they stated it was "too restrictive", "didn't fit their vision for PS2", and that they "were going to continue to work on Hex and make it a more robust system"

Since beta they've done no work on Hex, they've added none of the support features that would make it better. Despite anything they've "said", they did -nothing-.

All they did was release a pre-coded port of PS1's lattice. Was probably an alpha coded feature they just didn't use (Heck it might even been in the alpha build.. ?)

What truly makes anyone think they are going to spend any more effort on Lattice then they did on Hex?

Going by their current MO. What we got, is probably all we're going to get.. maybe another port or two of some other PS1 systems, -maybe-. Think they might still have some beta-coded ready item/certs they're sitting on to slowly dole out to string us along a few more months.

Implants? 10 bucks the list implemented is all the ones we already saw in beta.. and everyone here will tout it as "new" content.

"New" content would mean they'd have to go down the hall, hat in hand, and ask the coders and programmers (That "used" to work on PS2, but are now working on TNBT *cough* EQ3 *cough*.) and see if they can work it into their busy schedule to make a few items for PS2.. won't happen much

Somewhere around year 3 SOE's business plan will green light an "expansion" for PS2, and assigning them a small expansion team. This expansion will release some new content (guessing some re-skinned vehicle variants), and a new system that will divide the community in it's buggy implementation. After that.. static euphoria for whoever is left..

Pretty sure this is all we can look forward too.. Ah well

-Met

someone suggested that the hex and lattice work together, the lattice only connects resources while the hex makes it viable to capture any territory connected to warpgate.
other possible fix would be if the sunderer had at the utility slot a device that would make the base capturable if deployed there, and for the so called ghost capping problem, simple, you can only take a base with at least 6 people.

I agree, lattice is awful!

First, I want to mention I'm enjoying this conversation with you.

I agree about thousands of players in the same battle.
But a battle the size of a continent, not a building block. But that was already a problem under the hex, it's just more obvious with the lattice.

The problem here is that we are comparing a system that had 9 years to mature and is pretty much going nowhere further to a system that barely has 6 months of real use and hasn't had any patches/updates since its inception.

The hex makes big fights happen reliably under certain conditions, notably balanced alerts, while keeping several size of meaningful fighting.
I think there is more potential for improvement in there, by studying what makes it tick and what doesn't, and promote the aspects that work.

Personal experience doesn't really matter to that. I could say that a full Indar is full zerg everywhere in my experience, but it can't change the fact that there is another deeper way to use development resources than the lattice.
Something more sustainable on the long run.

That again is due to the hex has never been finished.
Common suggestions that have never been tried were that cut off territory cannot cap anymore.
I personally tried suggesting a softer limitation in the form of cut off territory give half influence, doubling the capture/re-secure times.
Or having resources actually matter would be another way to look at it, one that would not only strengthen the capture mechanics but also give some sort of end goal.

It just doesn't make sense to me why ghostcapping was bad and this isn't?
It is hypocritical that under one system, a small group of people impacting a larger group is bad, and not in the other.
Especially since, like you said, ghost capping had a lesser impact.

And my concern is more on the "hard limitation" nature of it. If it was something like doubling, or even quadrupling capture time for the zerg that would be fine as there would still be an element of choice.

That element of choice I mentioned is really important to game design. Optimal strategies are not good.
If there is one move that trumps all others, it means that all other moves just add to complexity and might as well not exist.

What we need is a set of viable choices that all have pros and cons dependent on context.
The lattice does not provide that. it provides equally valued choices(lanes) but neither have pros or cons and there are no different contexts.

I am using a definition of anti fun that isn't a matter of taste.
In short: Something is anti-fun if it removes game play directly or indirectly.

Optimal strategies are anti fun, because they make all other choices virtually non existent.
Removing previous gameplay trough a patch is anti fun.
Switching to lattice doesn't add any new concepts, it only removes some.
You could not defend removing air from the game by saying "but you can still use tanks".

Obligatory gameplay is not good for the game.
I think what you want to get is more "obligatory goals".

Right now, aside from certs, there are no goals, regardless of system.
Mandatory gameplay may look like a semblance of structure and focus, but it isn't.
It's a flat out cop-out of bringing in any sensible goals in the game. In essence, it's a band-aid fix.

If certain bases had advantages or resources had value, then you'd have obligatory goals. You would know what is valuable for both the enemy and yourself to own, and you could anticipate based on that. As you said, form strategies around them.

Having various ways of approaching those goals are only positive for the game. Rather than force players in one game style, having several all sharing the same over arching goal would be increasing the life time of the game.

The way we experience the game currently is a non factor. It is a honeymoon phase. I personally feel that our command chat went completely silent since the introduction of lattice. It only ever comes to life during alerts.

I agree with that. I'd even go as far as saying it is always good.
And I find it weird you make that argument in favor of the lattice. Maybe it's personal prejudice, but I find it reduces the skill cap while increasing the barrier of entry slightly.

The amount of skill tested and the depth at which they are tested are both reduced.
As an example, there isn't much thinking anymore when looking at the overall map, so the valuation skill cannot be exploited linearly anymore.
It's a binary test of valuation skill, either you know how to load balance troop, or you don't. Which in itself is a low difficulty test.
In the context of an improved hex system with a proper set of global goals, you can have a smoother curve of skill.

On the other hand, the barrier of entry is raised on the tactical level.
In order to know any success at all, you need a minimum amount of experience and dedication.
My definition of success here is having a notable impact on the situation you are in.
And at the same time, no new tools have been added to the tactical level, it isn't deeper. The skill ceiling has remained the same.

I don't see their value as being meaningful.
Again, this comes down to the notion of forced gameplay compared to goals oriented gameplay.
Adding intrinsic value to facilities won't add any meaning to them as they'll still be mandatory steps of the ladder.
It's just a step that unlocks a side buff like a talent tree.

At a grander scale, improving the facilities buff under the lattice system will create a snowball effect for the winning factions.
It may be desirable once we have 11 continents and continent locking as well, but as of now, it isn't.

However under an improved hex system, it would make them more important to reaching the goals of the game, hence more gameplay creating.

Planetside was not designed to be a never ending 3-way. This unfortunate reality was/is the result of too few people playing PS1 and too few continents in PS2.

Exactly, this is one of my main point.

In itself, the current hex system isn't good enough, but it has a great potential for improvements.
One that just hasn't been explored yet.

The lattice is more or less done. None of what they could add it now couldn't be of increased value in the hex system.

Stuff like the NTU silos and the ant runs were great gameplay, but mediocre mechanics in their implementation. They were there only to reduce the flaws of the lattice by killing fights that devolved in too much of a stalemate.

Under the hex, they could be reintroduced gameplay wise (more fun) but by being a more meaningful goal (more fun too)

The feeling is mutual! It's sad to say it's almost more engaging than the actual game sometimes.

See I don't think it's fair to say that lattice has had 9 years to mature, because PS2 hasn't been in development nearly that long, and the lattice system has only had a couple of months to be developed on a completely new engine.

Since it's a new engine, it's not a copy paste. They had to make sure they could even make it functional first. The dev's are still exploring the capabilities of this new engine, so lattice on this engine is actually a very new thing. The concept is old, but in order to improve on lattice and for it to mature, they first had to make sure it was even possible to create lattice. Now that it's made, there is no telling how much it could improve. It could improve in ways that you and I just haven't imagined yet.

The thing I really didn't like about hex is that when the big fight did actually happen, it was over as quickly as it started. If you beat an enemy group, most of the time(At least in my experience) they split up or just left. When my outfit gets beat, we typically come right back and try again, so we don't lose out on the experience if we lose. But, and I'm going to sound arrogant when I say this, we don't usually lose. But if we win, it sucks, because the fights over and we have to go searching for it again.

But we don't know that, as I said above, this engine has much more ability than PS1's engine did, so the concept of lattice being improved in ways we haven't imagined yet is entirely possible. It isn't limited by the same boundaries of PS1.

That argument could be made for hex too, but when I look at both of them in their basic form, basic lattice wins out over the basic hex, so it's only natural that I want to stay on the path of what keeps the game more interesting for me. No matter how improved hex gets, I simply cannot visualize all the glorious fights and coordination that I do with lattice.

The same again can be said for lattice, that it's not finished. The soft limitation you're suggesting here might be a more feasible suggestion though for lattice or hex alike. I surely wouldn't mind testing it.

Because ghost capping discouraged the big fights, where I said earlier how big fights in the hex typically split up, that was the result of it; ghost capping. And, when ghost capping happens, it turns into cat and mouse gameplay a lot of the time. So, if you win a big fight and the enemy goes to ghost cap or get around you, then your group gets split up and chases them down, it's not fun for a lot of people. Everybody likes playing together, and when we split and do end up closing our doors for the ghost cappers, it's not really worthy or story telling. It's not a big display of coordination. Once you plug the holes, you go back to trying to find a big fight or marching to another goal, and then it happens all over again, and you split up, etc. It's a repeating cycle.

Now in lattice the new style of going behind enemy lines also repeats itself, but it can be dealt with better too. Leave a squad behind to defend while the rest push up. Since the meta-game or "Optimal Strategy" hasn't completely sunk in yet, it's not a glorious duty to sit around and wait. But once everybody catches on, what's going to happen is the big groups push forward and the base they left will end up being a small squad v squad fight while the ally and enemy zergs fight ahead of them. That's the idealistic concept anyway. But that's cool, small fights inside of big fights. At least, I think it's cool.

And by the way, the hypocritical thing can be flipped on you too, if you're in favor of ghostcapping but not in favor of the lattice version of it. It doesn't make sense in my perspective how you liked ghost capping but get infuriated at the lattice version of it. But our two opposite perspectives is what makes good discussion and feedback.

I agree that optimal strategies can be bad, but in this case it isn't the end-all of strategies. You can use it, but the enemy can prepare for it, so it isn't always feasible of the enemy prepares for it. At the same time, manpower put onto the base is manpower that's not on the frontline, so coordination is key for things like this. Now, I think it should take a minimum of 3 people to hack a point to begin with, so that in lattice it takes a coordinated effort to go behind enemy lines instead of the solo infiltrator halting a big group. At least with 3 people, it's most likely that those 3 people are coordinating with each other.

As I said before, it's a risk reward thing. If you send troops behind the enemy to sever their secure link, you're losing troops on the frontline, and if you don't send enough and they get wiped out, then you've wasted troops and the enemy is banging on your door much closer to your cap point. You risk defense by sending them, the enemy risks offense by leaving men behind. I think it's a balanced optimal strategy.

But lattice did add to the game, it added structure. It added the concept of having more weight behind your decisions, that surely affect you in the long run. The player driven goals are still there, you can go wherever you want, but you can't do it in a straight line. You have to follow the structured path, so you choose your strategy carefully. Coordinate with your men to decide if you're going to go full on down one lane, or split your forces up into multiple lanes to force your enemy to divert forces and split theirs too.

The definition of "Anti Fun" is interesting to me. If it's an objective reality, why am I not having less fun with lattice? Fun is different for everybody, so you cannot define fun since it isn't a constant. In that same respect, even if it's in a dictionary, I don't believe you can define the absence of fun either. The word "Ain't" is also in the dictionary, but it wasn't a word originally created in the english language.

I could agree to that.

Ehh I don't know, it's entirely possible that our experiences are responsible for our current positions for or against lattice. After all, first hand experience is most of what we have. I don't think we should discredit experience, since that's what keeps a player or causes retention of players. I know that I've been experiencing really engaging gameplay with the lattice so far, and that very well may be because of a honeymoon phase but until things get a bit more long term I guess we won't know for sure.

I wouldn't deny that I might be a bit bias towards lattice, I was one of the ones asking for it since beta. If you were around then, you might remember OrangeSoda's two big threads about it, I was a supporter for his lattice suggestions.

While I suppose it's technically true that reduces skill cap in valuation, I think it raises in other situations. Stalemates are more common with lattice, as well as more defined frontlines. I think it takes more skill and coordination now to break those stalemates and crack the frontlines. The alliance on my server has been macro-managing different outfits to bring certain equipment and take certain positions against frontlines or stalemates. Once the whole outfit-specialization features make it in, this will add another layer to that type of coordination. That's where I see the skill cap go up.

New tools are coming though, one step at a time we'll reach that. And once lattice has had time to develop, I wouldn't mind testing hex again either after all the new tools and features come in to see if it's better then compared to lattice. I'm talking about outfit-specialization, resource overhauls, revamped facility buffs, interlink facilities, and all the improvements that come in the time it takes to get all that in. I seriously wouldn't mind testing the two systems against each other with all the core features done and functional.

Again, in time when all the core features of this game are implemented of and functional, I wouldn't mind testing hex and lattice side by side to see what's different because right now there's no telling what will be better when all that is in the game.

We can both make assumptions, educated guesses, and what have you. But, the hex has had a lot more development time put into it and for the majority of the vocal community it hasn't been what you'd call an ideal experience. Now, lattice isn't ideal in its current form either, but when compared to hex, lattice has not really been improved on. They made it as functional as it was in PS1 and it's already enhanced the gameplay. We'll find out soon if that's due to a honeymoon phase, but we'll just have to re-visit it when that happens.

My perspective comes from my experience. And my experience with hex even as it's been improved over the months and months of development was a diminishing one. And now a super basic form of lattice hits the game and I'm having a lot more fun again, that's what I have to go off of right now. So I can't just throw my experience out and discuss what's on the surface. It encourages me to support the lattice, at least for long enough that the devs have time to really improve it, to see for sure if it's what I really wanted and to see if with the new engine it can be improved beyond our conceived boundaries. I hope you see where I'm coming from at least.

I get where you are coming from.
You know, I do see that some have fun with this new circumstances. I can't deny that.
But most of the players I play with, aside from a couple, do not. And I can't deny that either.
Our in game experiences cancel each other. They are both valid, yet opposed.

I think it's pretty much observational biases of what we expected and wanted. Or simply, how our respective server communities behave coupled with the fact there was a double xp week end and that patches always bring in large population spikes.

That's why I'd rather ignore in game experience and go about seeing the objective side of things.

Going on from what I know about game design literature, lattice system has less depth, less breadth, less potential for evolution and less long term appeal.
It is simply put, a bad game design.
There is a reason why the devs have resisted so long before giving in to the community.

And from the recent history of video games, streamlining has rarely yield positive results while they went acclaimed by communities on their launch. Long term appeal is much different than popular appeal. Gamers don't know what they need.
I have no idea how long the short term bonus for the lattice will last, and no means to predict when, but it will grow stale.
Player driven concepts is the core of MMOs and their longevity. There is a reason UO and EVE are still alive and progressing, and every themepark except wow have failed. Even wow is losing millions of subs now.

You are correct that this instance of the lattice is pretty new. But the concept is old and explored. It has flaws that has been proven as negatives in other games.
The hex system is pretty young both as an implementation and as a concept as well. The few implementation that existed before have all been moderately successful.

Aside from that, I really doubt we could see any meaningful upgrades to the lattice system, or at least I cannot see any.
Maybe I'm not being creative enough, or maybe I have an easier time grasping more open systems but there is more room for playing with concepts under an hex based system.
I often ask people for suggestions that would broaden my perspective but haven't seen anything that wouldn't work on the hex system. Most changes people bring up are usually territory system independent.
Most actually would even turn out better under the hex system.

One of the reasons why people have such a hard time finding improvements is that the lattice is a graph and the hex is a valued graph. Whatever applies to graphs also apply to valued graphs as well, but not the other way around.

Also, the valued part of the graph is where all the depth could be added. Just answering the questions "What is value?"and "What has value?" would permit an infinite combination of solutions. And several answers to those questions could be implemented at the same time and complement each other.

I've seen the argument of "your decisions have more weight under the lattice", but I don't see it as true, quite the opposite.
With the ability to redeploy, picking a lane has no weight at all, and is easily reverted. It reduces permanence.
None of the lanes have more value than the others, so you can't go wrong on that. It reduces the ability to do a mistake.
The only notion that has an impact on your decision is the population load of the various lanes. And in some cases, the population composition.(tank/air zerg, Infantry only, randoms or organized, etc) But this existed under the hex and isn't anything new.

This goes back to game play potential and antifun.
The definition of "anti-fun" I use isn't saying that the game cannot be fun, but it removes fun potential from it.
Large fights will always be fun, but if the price to pay is to remove other activities, then it is too high.
There should definitely be an attempt of having the best of both worlds.

Wouldn't your decision have more weight if it wasn't "which lane needs the most people?" but "Should I save the tech plant, for the MBT, or should I save the air tower, because we're low on air resources, or we should get the barracks to raise our population cap on the continent?" Then you'd have another layer of questions, the oen present in the lattice, "What should I bring?" and "how many shoudl I bring?" And finally Tactics: "How should I use what I brought?"

The opportunity costs(weight) for each of these decisions is way more interesting and enjoyable for those that enjoy those type of things. If those three fights are equally large fights, and they should, then we'd be set with a system that pleases everyone.

To be frank, I regret not following the forums before. I was stuck with the devs announcing that's they'd never go to lattice so I dismissed the idea completely.
The implementation on the test server came out of left field to me, and had I known I would have entered the discussion sooner.