Lattice flow mechanic details (not the actual link-count, for once) - Page 2

exile · 2013-02-06, 06:00 PM

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

basti · 2013-02-06, 06:53 PM

Originally Posted by exile

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

Then tell me such a way.

Figment · 2013-02-06, 07:14 PM

Originally Posted by exile

All of this discussion of the "lattice" system is unnecessary. Most people agree that the game needs mechanisms to concentrate battles but there are plenty of simpler, more elegant ways to do it than clinging to the idea of the lattice just because it was in PS1.

What I like about this statement is that it means you didn't read a single word of the opening post and dropped to conclusions based on the title.

Why? Because it's about applying conditions to the hex system-lattice to make it more controllable without literally removing links.

exile · 2013-02-06, 07:32 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

What I like about this statement is that it means you didn't read a single word of the opening post and dropped to conclusions based on the title.

Why? Because it's about applying conditions to the hex system-lattice to make it more controllable without literally removing links.

I read the first 9 paragraphs you wrote, which were discussing the PS1 lattice system. And looking back now you continue talking about PS1 for about 15 paragraphs.

I'm amazed that anyone manages to get through an entire post of yours. I'm sure you have some worthwhile input but it is always buried under unfocused and unnecessary verbiage. I think your contributions to the community would be much more valuable if you would think a moment about the actual result you have in mind and try to communicate it in a straightforward, clear manner. Detailed examples can be used later to illustrate specific points, if people need them, but any reasonable mechanic shouldn't need pages of text to describe or justify.

Figment · 2013-02-07, 02:53 AM

Exile, you completely fail to realise the motivation and point behind my manner of writing. I have to explain in detail what it does and why for very good reasons. Yes, I explained ps1 system consequences of specific design details. Why? Because I realise most new players here didn't experience it and wouldn't understand without explanations anyway. That actually includes a lot of devs and at times the old players need a reminder how it worked again, what details existed or is talked about and what the goal is.

I don't give a fuck what you think is necessary. If I feel it is necessary, it is. People make dismissive irrelevant postings all the time that are too short to have valuable content and then you actually need to make new posts to explain concepts and then again because people havn't read all the replies first. I'm steps ahead of you and built up an argument that includes any necessary background information.

Now, if you would realise I first present a context, examples and then use new context and practical applications, you would realise I use a Vision In Productdesign (VIP) design approach. First I explain how things worked and how players interacted in the old context. Next I provide a vision of how they would interact in the future, why and why this is a good thing. But you only can realise what it does when you know the history of such limitations and the current context and why the PS1 context is relevant.

Instead, you expect me to arbitrarily say "let's combine the details for LLU, capital rules and link viability conditions to PS2 by adjusting how influence works", do you realise at all that nobody would understand what the fuck I'd mean by that? Especially new players? I'd be asked to explain each detail anyway, plus since people wouldn't have a chance to understand, I'd get more of the retarded "you just want a carbon copy of PS1" posts, like your first post in this thread.

What you call unfocused is simply providing a broader perspective and frame of reference and expecting and answering probable questions in advance. Apparently much broader than the narrowminded and short attentionspan thinking and forumpost expectations you hold. So I don't give a flying faeces about what you think of it and if you can deal with it in the way I post: Design concepts require deeper thought than 95% of the posts your average gamer is capable of or willing to put effort in: context, theory, practical implementation, side-effects, alternate uses, systems, context differences and alternate concepts, competition, abuse potential, etc. That largely includes design history of alternatives. They all have to be discussed and understood, otherwise you got a pretty crappy concept and you only begin to communicate it.

That you fail to understand why this post is not incoherent, might actually be a problem on your end. Because I had damn good reasons for the order and content of the opening post: I wanted to discuss the finer elements that within the lattice (which PS2 has as well), but since they are typically overlooked it needed a reminder. Besides, there is an intro and a conclusion. What more do you want?

Speaking of concise, next time just write tl;dr and get the hell out of my thread: it gets the same message across and doesn't contribute anything more than you did in two posts now. But that you didn't read the whole post is not my fault, but your attentionspan lacking. That you drop to conclusions is not my fault, but your prejudice and not reading the entire post first: I'm getting to the most important point at the end, since many only read the end and beginning if they want to know what it is all about. That you always fail to see structure in my postings is probably also because you lack understanding of my methodology and motivations, but considering the amount of people that do get my posts, this might be your error as well.

Please realise I don't want to talk to people with short attentionspans. They hardly ever have anything of value to contribute on a detail level. Please realise I don't want to have to retroactively explain things I could have defined clearly in the opening post.

You know, what always happens when someone makes a short post that can be interpreted in fifty ways and people have to fill in the gaps and create their own image of what is actually discussed. Why should I type in fifty arbitrary short posts throughout a thread what I can do in one at the beginning? Plus I really don't want shortattentionspan people to linger. I want meaningful indepth discussion, not superficial spam where people have incomplete information and need to be brought up to speed time and time again. Particularly those that only read the opening post.

Now stop derailing with your forumpost aesthetic demands and contribute or please ignore the thread.

exile · 2013-02-07, 05:47 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

Exile, you completely fail to realise the motivation and point behind my manner of writing.

What is your motivation for posting here? What specifically are you trying to achieve?

Originally Posted by Figment

Now stop derailing with your forumpost aesthetic demands and contribute or please ignore the thread.

I didn't actually demand anything, I was making a suggestion as to how you could communicate more effectively. Admittedly I was fairly aggressive about it, but that's because your pompous manner really bugs me :\

Figment · 2013-02-07, 07:24 PM

Originally Posted by exile

What is your motivation for posting here? What specifically are you trying to achieve?

I believe I just explained in excruciating detail in the previous post, it's about knowledge transfer, beyond simply communicating the solution alone. Why? Because it wouldn't fit with my target group. I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay: just look at the detail levels that are missing in PS2 from 10-100% driving speed controls to HUD solutions, to base layouts to why adjecency rules had to be implemented to not realising the Galaxy AMS was a bad idea.

To understand that, you have to ensure they see the bigger picture and understand previous cases and implementations and their (side-)effects, positive and negative.

- Establishing problem definition / frame of reference.
- Establishing design scope.
- Design (history) of alternatives on which the new design is based.
- Old context and interaction, vs new context and interaction.
- Visualizing the interaction of the previous system in the old context, particularly for new players.
- Refreshing the memory of old players on particular details of the old system refered to.
- Steering debate to focus on these details, rather than the lattice in general, which is what normally happens.
- Explaining new players some of the terms refered to and their impact, prior to them having to ask these questions (this is a courtesy, as well as a productive part for debate: everyone who reads it can ask directed questions and has some idea of what it is about).
- Explaining/establishing intended impact.
- Explaining/establishing objectives of design change.
- Argumenting particular method of implementation
- Concluding with a specific design suggestion.

I don't expect people to be fully aware and I want them to with as little distracting questions as possible. This is already way too much off-topic debate.

I didn't actually demand anything, I was making a suggestion as to how you could communicate more effectively. Admittedly I was fairly aggressive about it, but that's because your pompous manner really bugs me :\

It would be more effective to you perhaps. Yet if it had been really summise, it would result in a continuously off-topic derailment on definition and elaboration questions by people who simply miss the background information. Look at Rolfski's post, I'm not sure what info he doesn't 'get', but if I had straight gone for the new system suggestion, he might as well think it's a PS1 carbon copy since he wouldn't be able to compare the two contexts. Even now he has trouble with imagining what the terms mean and imply. I can't blame him for that, he simply doesn't have the same frame of reference and experience as I do, he has a different set, a different technical vocabulary. :/

As happens pretty much anytime non-PS1 (resecure) vets participate in a debate. Simply because they don't have the same(ish) vision, frame of reference, experience or scope (or understanding of that of long time peers) to appreciate particular design details without background information. They literally have no idea what "LLU" means and the PS1 wiki is hard to find. They don't intuitively have insight or recall from memory what unit acquisition rules were in place and how say a base hack or capture changed those. They simply never experienced it and its consequences.

They can't really know how enemy's responded to combinations of such systems psychologically, logistically and pre-emptively and in which situations, offensively, defensively or in what configuration and which flows occured, group size, unit types used, deployment method, routes used, speed of capture, response times, ease of capture, resecure priorities, etc. etc.

The impact is often a butterfly effect many don't even see. Let alone if they experienced neither the butterfly nor the aftermath.

If I'd start playing EVE or WoW now, I wouldn't have the balls to suggest to know what systems works or wouldn't work and what impact they'd have. Until or unless I had seen something in action in a very similar context, so one could know the context well enough to be able to predict how changes would likely effect something. Why? Because one must be able to accurately scenario build before one can pass judgment. Since it is unlikely new PS2 players can come to understand through play experience, they need to be informed differently. Anticipating questions and explaining concepts in advance saves us all time and helps discerning differences on a detail level.

Kerrec for instance often simply assumes/assumed I want a PS1 carbon copy of something, simply because he's unable to compare the sometimes subtle, other times massive differences between the two and because somewhere I referenced some system or solution from PS1. Now, I can't blame someone like him for not seeing the difference (if it's not carefully explained in both old and new context and each aren't seperately evaluted on merits for that context), but I can fault him for not accepting when someone else might have a substantially better vantage point.

So sorry, but I'm not pompous, nor exactly arrogant either. I'm simply aware not everyone has equal weight and knowledge in debate. Which isn't meant disrespectfully, it's simply a fact of life that most people don't dare point that out because they think it's rude. I'm not saying I'm omnipotent or omniscience. But when one bluntly suggests an authority distance (even if argumented) this is usualy confused with sheer arrogance, whether it is true or not due to expecting a politically correct subtle answer.

To me it would be arrogant for one who is unaware to assume otherwise based on ego alone...

exile · 2013-02-07, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Figment

I believe I just explained in excruciating detail in the previous post, it's about knowledge transfer, beyond simply communicating the solution alone. Why? Because it wouldn't fit with my target group.

I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay: just look at the detail levels that are missing in PS2 from 10-100% driving speed controls to HUD solutions, to base layouts to why adjecency rules had to be implemented to not realising the Galaxy AMS was a bad idea.

So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Originally Posted by Figment

It would be more effective to you perhaps. Yet if it had been really summise, it would result in a continuously off-topic derailment on definition and elaboration questions by people who simply miss the background information.

Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!

Originally Posted by Figment

Look at Rolfski's post, I'm not sure what info he doesn't 'get', but if I had straight gone for the new system suggestion, he might as well think it's a PS1 carbon copy since he wouldn't be able to compare the two contexts. Even now he has trouble with imagining what the terms mean and imply. I can't blame him for that, he simply doesn't have the same frame of reference and experience as I do, he has a different set, a different technical vocabulary. :/

This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.

Originally Posted by Figment

So sorry, but I'm not pompous, nor exactly arrogant either.

The below quotes show that you really are:

Originally Posted by Figment

I'm well aware the devs aren't fully aware of all the sub-systems and details that had an impact on gameplay...

...As happens pretty much anytime non-PS1 (resecure) vets participate in a debate. Simply because they don't have the same(ish) vision, frame of reference, experience or scope (or understanding of that of long time peers) to appreciate particular design details without background information...

...Now, I can't blame someone like him for not seeing the difference (if it's not carefully explained in both old and new context...

Mietz · 2013-02-07, 09:29 PM

Originally Posted by exile

So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!

This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.

The below quotes show that you really are:

Can you stop derailing this thread?
If you have beef with him, duke it out over PM FFS.

bpostal · 2013-02-07, 09:32 PM

In the interest of trying to get this thread back on topic before Hamma shuts it down for the bullshit that's going on for pretty much the entirety of the second page...

Originally Posted by Mietz

PS2 will not have this level of defensibility.
The dev team repeatedly stated that they don't want the hours-long base assaults/defense from PS1 and instead want to have multiple moving fronts with quick assault and re-take.

I'm not sure you will ever see a defensible (PS1 defensible) base in PS2. The game in its entirety of design and philosophy simply doesn't allow for it.

There is one base that you can hold for hours against an overwhelming number of assaulting forces. You know the one:

|\/\/\/|
-------

Okay, so that's a pretty shitty ASCII Crown but there ya go.
Granted they just 'nerfed' the defensibility by opening up the flow of combat (and I should probably note I haven't been to the crown since the WGs have been flipped) BUT the sheer popularity of the crown should at least show a desire for long, drawn out assaults/defenses.

exile · 2013-02-07, 09:39 PM

Ok, sorry. Allow me to contribute constructively to the thread. Here is a summarised version of the OP, for those who didn't get through it:

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

The issue I'm addressing is the inability to "lock" areas in any way once they are captured which leads to the bordering regions frequently change hands without you being present to defend. This leads to frequent ghosting and unpredictable timers. I suggest a fundamental change to the influence rules to address this, as follows:

- You need a minimal amount of influence to start a hack on an adjecent region (e.g. 40%)
- Once the hack is started it is not effected by influence.
- There is only one Control Console per base to hack and hold
- The moment on which a link is starting to get hacked determines the duration of the hack and hold timer
- Standard timers for bases are created for set percentages of influence, with larger bases taking longer (up for debate):
- A resecure doesn't require a hold, just hacking the terminal back to be under your side's control?
- Influence doesn't determine the resecuring holding time (for abase that is yours, but hacked by enemies), but the time it takes to actually hack the terminal itself (resecure time)
- Infiltrators can cert into a new skill to speed up hacking.

I also propose a new mechanic to create a focus for fights within a base. It is modeled on the LLU from PS1 and requires what is essentially a "flag" object (suitably styled for the genre, a glowy energy source or something) that spawns at an existing base and needs to be transported from this location to the Command Console of the target base in order to complete it's takeover. The "flag" will self destruct after a certain amount of time (which could be effected the amount of influence when it spawned) and must be delivered before that happens.

With these changes you would still have the same adjecency options, however, at times you'd have to create links by capturing a bit more surrounding territory first. This provides a bit more focus, without forcing extremely specific routes, since influence could be terrain occupied on opposite ends. However, it allows some territory to be temporarily safe. The change in capture system and reduction of control consoles would allow single wave resecures to be succesful. That should for instance increase the importance of Galaxy Drops.

UI support to make these mechanics clear for new players is, of course, vital.

Discuss.

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

Let me know if there is any vital information that I haven't communicated.

Mietz · 2013-02-07, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by bpostal

In the interest of trying to get this thread back on topic before Hamma shuts it down for the bullshit that's going on for pretty much the entirety of the second page...

There is one base that you can hold for hours against an overwhelming number of assaulting forces. You know the one:

|\/\/\/|
-------

Okay, so that's a pretty shitty ASCII Crown but there ya go.
Granted they just 'nerfed' the defensibility by opening up the flow of combat (and I should probably note I haven't been to the crown since the WGs have been flipped) BUT the sheer popularity of the crown should at least show a desire for long, drawn out assaults/defenses.

Yes, Crown stalemates are legendary and people flock to them.
The same was the case with Tech Plant pre-nerf.

However even with the TP, the defensibility only went so far as to delay the attackers success for a set amount of time.

Currently defensibility even of the Tech Plant and Crown variety only functions as a choke, but not as defense.
I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

In PS1 as I understand this was actually possible.

It would be preferable to have actual defense instead of continuously delaying the inevitable (base flip). This is only compounded by the problem that currently bases and hexes have little strategic value and so a concentrated force might be fighting at the Crown, but will quickly be isolated.

I hope this makes sense.

bpostal · 2013-02-07, 10:12 PM

Originally Posted by Mietz

Yes, Crown stalemates are legendary and people flock to them.
The same was the case with Tech Plant pre-nerf.

However even with the TP, the defensibility only went so far as to delay the attackers success for a set amount of time.

Currently defensibility even of the Tech Plant and Crown variety only functions as a choke, but not as defense.
I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

In PS1 as I understand this was actually possible.

It would be preferable to have actual defense instead of continuously delaying the inevitable (base flip). This is only compounded by the problem that currently bases and hexes have little strategic value and so a concentrated force might be fighting at the Crown, but will quickly be isolated.

I hope this makes sense.

It makes sense (I saw your previous post about how it's 4am where you are) and now that you point it out, I haven't seen (personally) too many instances of the defense getting pushed way back into the base (the tower proper in the case of the crown, and the superstructure of the tech plant) and then pushing the offending empire back a hex or two.

What we have currently in these locations is similar to pushing the CY to get an ANT in. It buys you time and is a nice little 'fuck you' to the other faction when you go from 10% to 40% NTU but it's only a delaying action.

In the interest of not becoming a larger hypocrite than I already am and derailing this thread myself, I'll state the fact that I personally believe that what you're referring to is an issue of supply lines and logistics (towers in Planetside, unlike the hard spawns surrounding a facility in PS2, didn't have any vpads.) and leave it at that.

Getting back on track: With adjacency % requirements and longer cap timers as is suggested slowing down the pace of strategic engagements, bases would gain some permanence. (since they're not flipping constantly)
I should say though, that the influence % shouldn't apply after the hack has gone though. That'd just bring us back to where we were at the start of beta with bases flipping because you failed to hold some ancillary outpost.

The important part of slowing cap timers (while not the direct purpose of this thread, more of a happy side effect) down would be the increase in viability of resecure and fast response gameplay. Mmm...Fast response.

As to the reimplementation of the LLU: As far as I'm aware, it's still on the list of 'things to do' and once it's in, will kick some ass. The sticky part that I see is that in Planetside, your LLU could be inside the enemy base, seconds from being capped but as long as you had an Advanced Hacker at the CC, you could resecure the base without having to track down and destroy the LLU carrier.

Whole bunch of rambling but I think ya see where I'm going with this (or will once you get some sleep!)

ShadetheDruid · 2013-02-08, 03:20 AM

Originally Posted by Mietz

I've never seen a facility actually being -defended- as in where the defending faction beats back the assault. All we get is a more drawn out combat, not actual defense.

I've actually seen this more than a couple of times now since the update (might be something to do with the defensibility updates, certainly makes me think they had some sort of positive effect at least).

Just last night I was fighting a the Crossroads Watchtower (as NC, against the TR). They had both of the outer capture points and were almost finished with the cap, but we actually managed to make a last minute push and resecured (and took the fight to them instead).

We could even get out of the spawn room and defend the stairs from the garage area, which makes a massive change from what it was like before.

Figment · 2013-02-08, 04:49 AM

Originally Posted by exile

So, your target group is the dev team? And you are writing design documents for them because you don't think they are even capable of understanding the implications of your gameplay suggestions? Both of the examples you use in that ridiculous statement have perfectly legitimate justifications as design decisions. The fact that you see them as clear indications of a failure in design just shows the lack of subtley in your own thinking, not a shortcoming in the devs'. Again, I refer you to the Dunning-Kruger effect.

You are not seriously suggesting the devs understand all subtleties of PS1 and even PS2's systems? They didn't even comprehend the obvious flaws nor bigger implications of galaxies as AMSes: every single point of critique in beta about gal-AMSes I had already predicted prior to alpha footage, based on the mere suggestion of a Galaxy as AMS.

"Experience lad, you should learn to appreciate it." -Kup

There are so many examples. Hell, most of the defense spawnroom design updates of the previous patch can largely be attributed to my critiques and suggestions. The exact execution is theirs, but I've told them how and where to use specific design elements in great details and the difference between early iterations and the current spawnrooms are huge, so is their impact on defensibility.

I'm simply saying that playing and developing say Everquest doesn't make you understand Planetside on a command and therefore tactical and strategic flow level. And no, they don't always know. Not by a longshot. Some might, but I will assume otherwise to be certain, because I don't know who does or doesn't and if they transfer this knowledge within the team or keep it to themselves.

FFS, if they all already know everything, why are we here providing feedback and correcting them all the time?! Don't make the arrogant and stupid claim that devs always have a good idea what they are doing, are always fully aware of alternate systems and know everything of importance, never overlook details, always understand every minor aspect or notice every minor aspect.

I hope you didn't want to imply that, because it would make you look rather stupid. It'd rather share too much just in case, than too little to not offend someone by suggesting there is a chance they didn't notice.

Considering none of these systems are in place at any point in time since alpha, I believe it save to assume they either didn't look into it, missed it, or didn't realise the importance of these details. I know for a fact that Malorn was in part hired because he does have more experience than the other devs with this.

Define your terms clearly and independently and explain your point, there is no need to reference "background information", it's just noise! You have created your own off-topic derailment within your own post!

That was you.

This is exactly the problem, you haven't clearly defined your terms and concepts at all! If you had just defined them without any reference to PS1 they would stand on their own merits, as they should.

Disagree, much more speculation would occur on the impact and much more questions would have been asked. LLU discussion is fine, been there done that now.

The below quotes show that you really are:

No, they show that you interpret them as such. As I pointed out before because you aren't capable of distinguishing between arrogance and blunt but fair critique on authority positions and knowledge.

Why are you so arrogant to assume otherwise, if all the evidence suggests the contrary?