new lattice tweet from higby

[ChipMHazard]

Rush lanes, eh? Heh, that sure brings up images of mile long traffic jams

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Your next steps, from what I can tell from this very thread is putting a layer of some "strategical depth" (I imagine it is based on values of territories, since it is the most common suggestion). But you cannot take this step right after you implement a continent with capturable bases and nothing else on it.

Why so? Because such idea is based on the belief that people following strategy is a majority. That statement is incorrect, which is easily proven by checking out many objective-based modes in different games (be it BF3 rush, a typical CTF, or any take'n'hold type of game). Many people play just to shoot stuff, even in PlanetSide.

Example: Why should I go to base A that the strategy tells me to if I can go to base B, because I can?

The first step to take after what I put in my original question is to make something easily readable for people not interested in strategy. In other words, you need to put some limit to FORCE such people into participating in strategical play. If you compare PS1 and PS2 (and one core difference between having some uncapturable territories on a grid against plain capturable hex grid, essentially lattice vs current hex system) you will see that in PS1 zerg contributed to strategical gameplay, unlike in PS2.

---
TL;DR I'm not asking you to give me an elaborate design scheme. I'm saying that the third step after having land and bases is having some sort of limitations. What are these limitations you propose?
---

Because otherwise we're back to to square one, Closed Beta, where everything was capturable and people captured everything creating chaos, completely ignoring the adjacency system (strategy incentive), that by that time was only affecting the speed of a hack. Such way of things nobody liked.



Nobody is "smashing your bar". One of the key strategies behind properly presenting an idea to sceptical people is to prove you are right, not to prove they are wrong. Otherwise the idea gets dumped. And while people will go away as if nothing happened, you yourself will not be so indifferent.

The validity of the criticisms towards the lattice are not more or less valid depending on any alternatives I can present and their quality. Period. In order to present yourself as someone who would score positive on an IQ test it would be best if you were to pretend you understand this and then act accordingly.

Stop trying to derail the thread by simply imagining, inventing, shitting your twisted interpretation of "my idea" which you have not even taken the effort to read.
I will be more than willing to entertain any crazed ramblings on my idea in the appropriate thread.

[Azren]

This may just get me back into the game, along with a bunch of my outfit mates.

[J Baley]

I love this. Can't wait to hear more about.

[TheDrone]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

"It's the PS1 lattice, only more". This doesn't fix the issues the PS1 lattice had and this doesn't fix the issues the hex has now.

There are other, superior ways to add predictability while not completely cutting out most strategic depth.

There was an ideal way to cap a PS1 continent, there will be an ideal way to cap a PS2 continent. I'm not exaggerating by predicting there will be only a handful of possible ways to experience each continent.

The lattice offers only complete determinism and can not infinitely (or even sufficiently) generate new experiences as there simply aren't enough variables.

As for small-outfit action... Sure err... What will they do? There are say 7 fights going on on the map at all time. All of them on those MOBA lanes, and all of them zerg-vs-zerg (as there are vastly insufficient tools for the zergs to be directed and direct themselves).
What will be the activities these squads can engage in?

As for not set in stone... I don't believe that. By posting that pic Higby has basically made sure there is no other option. Can you imagine the mob's reaction if this, or something extremely similar, wasn't implemented? The outrage would be complete and the downfall of the game would most certainly be the result of whatever system implemented.

[capiqu]

Originally Posted by bpostal

There is nothing about this that does not get my mouth watering.
From what I can see; this system stresses the links between bases, emphasizes the actual geography surrounding the outposts/towers/facilities (adding in, from my point of view, more unconventional lines of assault on a given hex) and just looks less cluttered overall.
We need a test server so I can play with this, like right now.

Ay AY, test server. so says Hamma, so says Bpostal so say we all.

[Kail]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Few things I wanted to add. First, it's not the PS1 lattice. PS1's lattice excluded many objectives (like dozens of towers per map) and was facility-only. This model includes all capturable locations and uses hexes for a (hopefully) more readable and intuitive map. Our goal is more predictability and readability, which is the key property the PS1 system gave that is missing. This system is a bit of a combination of PS1, current PS2, and Battlefield Rush. The operating name of the design is "Rush Lanes."

With this effort the general rule being used for connectivity is 3-4 connections per territory. By comparison, PS1's lattice had 2-3 connections per major facility, and the current PS2 system has about 5-6 connections per territory. So it's a little more open than the PS1 lattice, but significantly reduced from the current PS2 system.

For folks concerned about small squad action...history shows us that you shouldn't be all that worried. PS1's system was more restricted and small squad action thrived. Part of the reason is that predictability works both ways; if you can reliably predict where the zergs are you can also use that information to avoid them. I think it will actually help the small squads find each other so you get those small squad fights more consistently. As someone who ran a small PS1 leetfit for many years, I'm confident that this will make small squad gameplay better.

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

With the reduced connections, will it still be possible to cut off territory from an empire's warp gate? I would hope it still would be - and as an aside, when considering resources / base benefit changes, making it more punishing for that to happen (ie, making getting territory cut off a high risk/reward option)

[CrankyTRex]

I have mixed feelings on it.

The game is sorely lacking in structure, so that part of it is good, but I don't think it solves anything to just force everybody into channels, which is what this looks like it's going to do. My expectation is that everyone is going to get funneled into a couple of paths such that it'll actually turn the game from join the zerg/get run over the by zerg/ghost cap to just join the zerg or don't do anything.

Malorn mentions BF3's Rush being part of the inspiration, but I hate Rush. They designed all the maps with Rush in mind instead of Conquest and it totally ruined the game for me. It just makes everyone come down incredibly predictable routes that one side or the other can camp to their hearts' content.

Further, at least in Rush one side has to take the objectives or they lose. In PS2, there's no ultimate win or loss, so it would not surprise me if the game turns into WWI, with each side dug in and a no-man's land in between them.

[Chefkoch]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Again, all prototype and it's a work-in-progress, nothing is set in stone, so keep the feedback coming!

Any chance to make MBT & Libs have a Techplanet requierement and only be spawnable on "big" Facilities and not every tower ?

This way the tank zerg might be a bit smaller.

[Rahabib]

I am not excited about this. I think that defining resources would funnel action just as effectively if not better and bring more meta game elements than just funneled territory control.

[Dkamanus]

This isn't something Im actually expecting and WANTING to go live. This will actually streamline the fights and will make the strategic level of the game MUCH more poorer. And this WON'T fix the metagame, since it also involves rewards for continent locking which aren't present. Allow me to elaborate:

Let us think Hvar Tech Plant as an example. Around it we have Sandstone Gulch mine, Indar Bay Point, NC secure data lab and Quartz Ridge Mining. Those 4 places is what secure Hvar Tech Plant once taken. Considering that you only need to take Indar Bay Point to open adjecency and start a Hvar Cap.

Considering the defending faction, they'll most probably be on Indar Bay Point trying to stop an advance. If people want Hvar to open easily, they'll either have to go through Sandstone Gulch Mining or NS Research Data Lab, so adjecency can be opened, and force the defenders to either secure what they have or lose it all.

This is critical in a game like this: Options. With the new lattice system, options will diminish a lot, mostly because NOW, predetermined path are whats necessary to actually grab bases on the map. Anyone with more the 2 months of PS2 can actually understand the current adjecency system. To actually counter attacks, it is quite easy to presume their next attacks and be able to repel them.

This new lattice system will focus things NOT for the sake of strategy (since smaller outfit will still be rolled over by larger outfits) while also killing an important part of the game that is ghost capping. People complain and moan and bitch about ghost capping, but they only do so because they ALLOW it to happen.

Not only that, actual flanking manouvers in a strategic level (NOT A TACTICAL LEVEL) won't exist anymore, since now you can't force your enemy to go after you to actually try and avoid you to lose adjecency. I remember we once saved Hvar just by pod dropping on NS Research Data Lab and resecuring it, giving us precious minutes to get in and resecure Hvar.

In that image, the bridge leading to arroyo torre. With the current system, there is an incentive to go there instead of going back to Tawrich and then go for it, like in the new system. The game, as it is now, rewards Fast Striking movements and slower formations as well. When the new system arrives, pre determining paths will create EVEN more stalemates and promote even bigger zergs.

And don't think for one second that those zergs will break up, cause they won't. This will promote EVEN more zergish outfits on the advantage. For those saying they hardly find good fights, they aren't looking at the map hard enough. I'm NEVER out of fights, me and my outfit, due to a simple map check always.

I do some capping work as needed (on Indar, where fights are always constant) and I can actually cut enemies off as well. This is possible thanks to the hex system, which allow free flow of battles. It allows for clever base taking and different types of holding a front without actually fighting for the base you are now. Decoy manouvers are also a lot used in this current system.

With the new system, you are bottlenecked to 4 options of paths, which can be predicted even by the most retarded of players (Which should be punished for being so retarded), and bring the zergs to one place, where once smaller, organized and smarter outfits could outmanouver and actually be of use. In this new system, smaller outfits will lose a lot of their purpouse.

This WILL NOT bring a metagame. We want reasons to fight. I already fight a lot in this game, and since there is no real objective besides fighting, there will be no point in this as well, as we won't be able to claim anything for our empire and win something from that (while punishing the other two empires).

This will only diminish the utility of smaller outfits, which can very effectively capture a lot of territories when people don't want to defend them. They can cut resources quickly. Outmanouver sluggish armour column formations. I like big fights, and I also like to outsmart other empires. If I'm not allowed to outsmart and use the current game systems to actually make your small outfit effective. This will pit small outfit vs. larger outfits, making the need for zergish outfits MORE apparent.

This isn't something that will be good for the game. It is only made to promote the "SIZE.ALWAYS.MATTER" stupid PR campaign, where it doesn't rewards gameplay, nor skill, nor map coordination. ONLY.NUMBER. At least of now, zergfits are very limited due to the sheer amount of players. They are a liability, and should be so. A force to reckoned to fight, but HARD to organize, and effectively conquer the whole map.

I don't like this system so far. I would need for information about it, but as we all feel it will be, I say no. This isn't PS1, it´s PS2. Changing a core mechanic already on the live game will make people be turned off.

[MrBloodworth]

Originally Posted by Malorn

like dozens of towers per map

Towers in PS1 were not isolated, they were connected to bases for the most part. Towers in PS1 are to Forward satellites of PS2.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by TheDrone

The validity of the criticisms towards the lattice are not more or less valid depending on any alternatives I can present and their quality. Period. In order to present yourself as someone who would score positive on an IQ test it would be best if you were to pretend you understand this and then act accordingly.

Stop trying to derail the thread by simply imagining, inventing, shitting your twisted interpretation of "my idea" which you have not even taken the effort to read.
I will be more than willing to entertain any crazed ramblings on my idea in the appropriate thread.

I hate IQ tests, they always show something around 30...

But, well, arguing with a hothead is never good. Let's just say, I'm glad you are not part of the dev team, since your current attitude is such as which makes empires fall.

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

This isn't something Im actually expecting and WANTING to go live. This will actually streamline the fights and will make the strategic level of the game MUCH more poorer. And this WON'T fix the metagame, since it also involves rewards for continent locking which aren't present.

Alot of your points miss the other side of the coin. The more choices there are, the more unpredictable the zerg is, the less defensive strategy is involved.

As for smaller outfits - while it sounds so epic, when you use words like "flanking" and "outmaneuvering", what happens in reality is there are 10 guys hacking 10 different hexes simultaneously, while NewSith is riding around all alone in his ATV all across a continent trying to resecure hexes, that nobody else cares about, since it's easier for everyone to do the exact same thing these 10 fellas are doing.

In other words, the system is trying to negate the very core problem of PlanetSide 2 - the game consisting of Attack vs Attack, as opposed to Attack vs Defense.

[DirtyBird]

A selective cropped image of a small corner of Indar with paths that are already predefined.
It's way too early to get sucked in to the hype with that small titbit.
However it ends up it will definitely needs extensive testing(test server) on all continents.

[Dkamanus]

Originally Posted by NewSith

As for smaller outfits - while it sounds so epic, when you use words like "flanking" and "outmaneuvering", what happens in reality is there are 10 guys hacking 10 different hexes simultaneously, while NewSith is riding around all alone in his ATV all across a continent trying to resecure hexes, that nobody else cares about, since it's easier for everyone to do the exact same thing these 10 fellas are doing.

In other words, the system is trying to negate the very core problem of PlanetSide 2 - the game consisting of Attack vs Attack, as opposed to Attack vs Defense.

Simple solution. To actually cap something, people must stay on point all the time. This adds strategic value and Tactical value as well. The problem with ghost capping is the fact that noone is on it at the time, as now to flip a base you MUST have people on point all the time, hence the flipping stops.

If noone is falling back an resecuring our lines, we MUST suffer the consequences of those. Without them, the game will become EVEN more stale then it already is. The Attack vs. Attack mentality is one that the players create, not the devs. People must be willing to fall back sometimes and resecure our possessions.

By pidgeon holing zerg formations against each other, you are creating new crown, which by themselves are problematic for making the game flow go to a complete stop. Harsh punishments should be instilled to the faction that doesn't protect its territories (in this case, resources - kinda).

As others have said, MBTs and liberators should only be able to be pulled from large facilities. I agree. There's nothing more stupid then actually be able to pull powerful vehicles from almost every place. I say restrict sunderers to towers as well, so a supply line must be established for a better metagame.