new lattice tweet from higby

**Malorn** · 2013-03-03, 02:03 PM

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!

bpostal · 2013-03-03, 02:07 PM

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.

capiqu · 2013-03-03, 02:36 PM

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.

CrankyTRex · 2013-03-03, 03:00 PM

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.

p0intman · 2013-03-04, 01:06 AM

unexpected and most interesting. tentatively and very cautiously optimistic. now, where in this is the trap that must be there?

edit: to anybody who fears linear gameplay does not quite understand how this would work. i don't see that in this.

TheDrone · 2013-03-03, 02:34 PM

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.

Kail · 2013-03-03, 02:43 PM

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)

Chefkoch · 2013-03-03, 03:09 PM

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 · 2013-03-03, 03:20 PM

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.

Tatwi · 2013-03-04, 05:06 PM

Originally Posted by 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.

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

The primary failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is the piss poor communication and community building systems the game shipped with. The secondary failure of conquest in Plqnetside 2 is player will, they simply refuse to or don't care enough to coordinate a proper conquest, because "defending outposts is boring". And the final failure of conquest in Planetside 2 is low population coupled with a lack of regional population caps. Players want to fight epic battles, but the population only supports two or three of these at most. Add to that the fact that people can just keep piling in together, the population shortage compounds the conquest problem and makes it logistically impossible for one side to lock Indarside.

Fix those issues and the hex system will function as intended. Communication, community building, and population control can be fixed by SOE, but it is entirely up to the players to play the game properly. If players can't be bothered to do so, then the concept of a free form MMOFPS is simply a flight of fancy and we may as well go back to round based fps games, because At least they perform better and are easier to balance.

unAimed · 2013-03-04, 05:33 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

That is exactly how I feel.

The proposed system seems like an effort to force people to "play the game properly", without realizing that the players already can "play the game properly" and they simply don't want to (as is abundantly clear from beta until now).

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!

Tatwi · 2013-03-04, 06:05 PM

Originally Posted by unAimed

That's correct. And if a game isn't played properly then the rules of the game need to change - simple as that.

Implemenenting a Lattice system is a step in the right direction.
And remember - we already have a lattice system - the only real difference would be the reduction of available options to advance. And I wholeheartedly believe that there's some middleground between the 5-6 options we have now and only giving you 1-2. For some Places 5 will work and for others 3. The only problem is to figure out where the sweet spot is exactly.
We haven't reached it yet in my opinion.

So for these reasons I am 100% for implementing and then finetuning this new system!

These changes arent going to magically change the way people play. We're still going to see 40 tanks, 3libs, and 10 ESFs slamming away at outpost spawn rooms. In fact the proposed system will most likely just make this problem much worse.

The problem is not the system, it's the players intense desire to take the easy way out at all times. Feel free to quote me on that a few years from now.

As an example, two of us were defending Regent Rock last night when a squad of about 5 VS tried to take it. After handing their asses to them a couple of times, what did they do? They pulled MAXes and a Magrider lol... We heald them off for another couple minutes when our six or so helpers arrived. Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why? Was too hard for them I guess, which sums up a lot of how people are choosing to play this game.

Originally Posted by Kail

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?

Replying here in the interest of not cluttering the thread with useless nit picking.

We killed them in the base, we killed them coming back from their sunderer, we blew up their sunderer. I waited 15 minutes, alone after no more than 3 minutes, and they never came back. They had 15 or so minutes to pull up another sundy while we were fighting and another 15 minutes after to come back in some form, but instead I guess they just went somewhere else, because fighting a few random people was too hard.

The point being: No matter what the exact scenario is, folks in PS2 always seem to take the cheesy/easy way to "win", which is almost always the exact opposite of creating a fun and hard fought battle, and no amount of changes to the Hex System will "fix" this human behavior.

Kail · 2013-03-04, 06:55 PM

Originally Posted by Tatwi

Now that the fight was fair, what did they do? They ran away under the bridge and gave up entirely when we took out their sunderer. Why?

Because they lost their spawn point? I mean, isn't that kinda the point of blowing up an enemy AMS? And it sounds like you guys were better than them; They tried to take a base, you stopped them cold so they had to try elsewhere - isn't that victory?

Edit: In regards to ANTs

Anything ANT-like would need to be used actively, like a Sunderer; Needing to drive an ANT-type vehicle back and forth to areas where this is no fighting going on would be no different than ghost capping was when there was no adjacency rules. Which is why I don't think tying it to resources or "maintenance" of based really makes sense - something more along the lines of bringing an ANT to base's ANT-Pad instantly repairs all generators / SCUs, etc; things that have immediate effects on active fights.

Personally I'm inclined to just have more support vehicles / modules instead of a ANTs - Like a "turret" for a Lightning that projects an umbrella-like shield in an area around itself (as in hard-shields, no letting friendly fire through either), or a similar one for an arcing frontal shield. Something that allows players to set up mini bases, change how an enemy has to attack somewhere, etc.

But anyway, that's just about the ANT vehicle / truck concept itself; no comment about raw / refined resources at the moment

Dkamanus · 2013-03-03, 03:47 PM

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.

NewSith · 2013-03-03, 04:06 PM

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.