new lattice tweet from higby

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Mietz

There is only one question here.

Where the fuck is Figment?

He's either missing out on a great mechanics thread because hes drunk, or hes writing the mother of all posts that will end PS2 as we know it.

Actually, I have both sports and work during weekends. No coffee breaks to type essays.


Edit: In fact, Malorn had some feedback from me already many months ago on the general idea of lattices and hex revision systems regarding not connecting all hexes and having "side paths"/"indirect routes", "staging areas" and "main routes" and how to guide players both by map and vision and discussed zerg behaviour influencing principles (nearest base, "can see or not see next target", population suction effects, nice border shape fetishists, completionists, geographic features, etc). We kinda had the same ideas on some levels there and differed on other points.

So I'm curious to see what was done with the feedback as Malorn is fun to discuss this sort of thing with.

But as I haven't seen this worked out incarnation and don't see enough information (see NewSith's post) I can't really pass judgment. It does seem to have a more mental and physical guidance for players and that's always a good thing. I don't agree with the person who thinks the inbetweens should be coloured per definition. Could be a cosmetic extra later for "nice border shap fetishists" and "completionists", but wouldn't drive it as much.


It all ending on a red section does kinda feel like a number of dead ends. This might be down to how Indar is designed (currently) with the canyons all ending at the gate itself. Of course, if you can pass through the warpgates at some point or it becomes neutral or capturable, then that "dead end, must hold end point against all odds cause we can't move on" is going to feel different (but as long as the gate has fixed allegiance, those territories will probably be seen as too hard to control near the ends). So I wonder if having "split-plugs" there could work or even one major base just outside the gate to control the adjecent territory ("end-plug", like any base in such a line would be a "plug" or choke point that could slow down advances by good defense).

Plus it limits the options a bit. Where we have up to 30 targets per continents (to defend or attack) today, we'll have less. That should make it a bit more easy to direct combat as commanders.

But that's a bit much speculation on a single work in progress tweet. So I'm going to keep some reservations about it before passing judgment. I do see the potential, though it may still need more refinement and I still would expect the different capture systems to be carefully (re)considered under the new state. Speaking of which, I expect more predictable timers to come out of this due to the influence being more linear.

[capiqu]

I really wish Devs would give us a test server where WE, can test things out and give them imput before they make drastic changes to the live game.

As far as Figment, we need those Demomaps

[Daimond]

Originally Posted by Phantomdestiny

this was a tweet from higby

let the thread explode



http://www.planetside-universe.com/media.php?view=2322

https://twitter.com/mhigby/status/308044274384138240

WE definantly need a test server to test and tweek this, if needed. But I like what I see, it brings in a form of the lattice system from PS1 while improving apon it, as to not lose to much of what they have done in this game.

As you can see it appears that around Main Bases, they have keeped the curent style of hex systems. While on the other hand, gives you an expanded lattice system on the outposts only, with multi routes, alowing in some forms a possable predictable path, as they try and advance. You can still be flanked for all sides, but lest you know as they approch where you may want to consentrate forces on a peticular path they are taking. Alowing for possable accual pre-defence lines to be set up, before they get there, not trying to set somthing up after they have breached walls.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

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).

The way, I see it (from a standpoint of that guy in an ATV), even if you force attackers to stay on points, you will still have 10 people hacking 10 hexes simultaneously and 0 guys trying to resecure.

You're absolutely right that the Attack vs Attack mentality is player driven, however the problem is - you cannot punish people that do not want strategic gameplay. They have the same right to play the game, as strategy-utilizing players. If you allow freedom for both groups, on the other hand, both groups will suffer. You have to find a compromise (a harsh description of which would be "punishing both"), to actually lead to fun for both sides. It's very much like visiting a doctor when you need to reset a broken arm. In the moment of resetting, you'll feel even greater pain, than you are already experiencing, but if you don't do that, you'll remain crippled. So is with the system.


Allow me to elaborate on what PS2 Strategy is like at the moment: Imagine a 12-player Capture The Flag server. With one catch - there're 10 flags per side, randomly situated across the map. For 12 players, there are 20 flags. Even if you do want to defend, that is completely unfun and masochistic, since the only real option you have if you want to win is to go on a complete offense, racing for the captures with your enemy. This is a result of an overabundance of choice.

[Thunderhawk]

Bring this in soon, all I have to say, done enough Lattice posts discussing the benefits, this is a good compromise bringing in the direction of PS1 lattices mixed with the optional extras that exist with PS2 system.

Good, very good, but need more information regarding what is Malorn and Higby considering and how far they want to go to make this work.

Look forward to the development of this idea further, and would like to see if we could get more information regarding how they want to go with this.

[Baneblade]

I'll be impressed when I see what it looks like on say... northeast Esamir.

[Dkamanus]

Originally Posted by NewSith

The way, I see it (from a standpoint of that guy in an ATV), even if you force attackers to stay on points, you will still have 10 people hacking 10 hexes simultaneously and 0 guys trying to resecure.

You're absolutely right that the Attack vs Attack mentality is player driven, however the problem is - you cannot punish people that do not want strategic gameplay. They have the same right to play the game, as strategy-utilizing players. If you allow freedom for both groups, on the other hand, both groups will suffer. You have to find a compromise (a harsh description of which would be "punishing both"), to actually lead to fun for both sides. It's very much like visiting a doctor when you need to reset a broken arm. In the moment of resetting, you'll feel even greater pain, than you are already experiencing, but if you don't do that, you'll remain crippled. So is with the system.

Allow me to elaborate on what PS2 Strategy is like at the moment: Imagine a 12-player Capture The Flag server. With one catch - there're 10 flags per side, randomly situated across the map. For 12 players, there are 20 flags. Even if you do want to defend, that is completely unfun and masochistic, since the only real option you have if you want to win is to go on a complete offense, racing for the captures with your enemy. This is a result of an overabundance of choice.

But here's the thing. Ghost capping is only allowed on places NOONE is fighting even the slightiest against. And even then, ghost capping is limited by the number of hexes connected to a friendly hex. The maximum amount of numbers connected to a single hex is 6 (which is almost impossible to have), therefore, defending the hex that opens the other hexes is needed. You don't need to go against 20 hexes, you just need to go against 1 hex, hence it'll open more hexes.

There is no way for you to actually ghost cap a whole continent unless the opposing faction is letting you do it. And that's where the problem lies, not the system itself. I have already said about that earlier. The system should punish the faction further for not defending what it has (like in other FPS shooters, which punish the losing faction with actually losing the game).

In this case, a stricter, harsher resource punishment and systems like the loss of a tech plant not allowing MBT spawns are options that can surely help make people more inclined to defend their territories, before things turn uglier for NOT doing so. Smed likes to compared PS2 to EVE, though it would be necessary for stricter measures to make it look more like EVE.

Cattering to the CoD community by streamlining such a good system is asking to allienate even more your community with feelings that the devs REALLY don't know what they are doing. Which is already bad enough.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Dkamanus

But here's the thing. Ghost capping is only allowed on places NOONE is fighting even the slightiest against. And even then, ghost capping is limited by the number of hexes connected to a friendly hex. The maximum amount of numbers connected to a single hex is 6 (which is almost impossible to have), therefore, defending the hex that opens the other hexes is needed. You don't need to go against 20 hexes, you just need to go against 1 hex, hence it'll open more hexes.

There is no way for you to actually ghost cap a whole continent unless the opposing faction is letting you do it. And that's where the problem lies, not the system itself. I have already said about that earlier. The system should punish the faction further for not defending what it has (like in other FPS shooters, which punish the losing faction with actually losing the game).

In this case, a stricter, harsher resource punishment and systems like the loss of a tech plant not allowing MBT spawns are options that can surely help make people more inclined to defend their territories, before things turn uglier for NOT doing so. Smed likes to compared PS2 to EVE, though it would be necessary for stricter measures to make it look more like EVE.

Cattering to the CoD community by streamlining such a good system is asking to allienate even more your community with feelings that the devs REALLY don't know what they are doing. Which is already bad enough.

I guess, I can only add one thing. You're right again, yet there's just one thing, you need to understand... Allow me to do the comparisons again.


As I said above, it is the same as resetting one's arm. Though PlanetSide 2 has way more crippled limbs, and resetting them all at once may result in shock and patient's unconciousness. The devs are already feeding anaesthetics to the community, like these small, yet tasty changes (buggies, class revamps, account-wide unlocks, etc), but they still cannot fix everything at once, since as you can clearly see, even such matter as territory system caused such a wild commotion.


If they, say, implement, the lattice, generators and resource system revamps all at once, there's a high chance of losing a very big portion of the community that either can't or afraid to see the bigger picture. I understand why and what you're proposing, but you'll be surprised to know (I was, at least), how many people would actually EXPLODE with rage if suddenly you couldn't pull MBTs from sanc without a Tech Plant.


The game Sony released (again with comparisons) is like a cardhouse built without cards in critical supportive positions, and now they are puting in the missing cards. The more cards they try to push in at the same time, the bigger the chance of the cardhouse breaking down. Problem is - the majority of the people watching the process will go away if the construct fails. And even though it would not take much effort to rebuild it, the chance for getting more observers will already be lost.

[Figment]

Dkamanus, your argument is flawed entirely.

First off, ghost hacking should never be encouraged in the first place. Why? Because this is a game and ghosting is boring. Gaming is something you do to not get bored.

Secondly, less predictability leads to more offensive strategies and less defensive strategies, but also reduces the value of the offensive strategies, because the offensive strategies of the opponent will undo them completely as there's no way to hold on to what you gained with your previous strategy. In short, you completely devaluate any and all semi-long term and long term strategy.

Not having options also devaluates strategy, but in PS1 you had more options than you seem to be able to admit. Never drained Pamba in a Cyssor threeway fight over Leza, or a Zotz drain in a Naum stalemate I see. Just as shortsighted as 90% of the playerbase was then that never considered a drain on continent as a valuable alternative and only zerged the nearest base open to attack, or perhaps that one far away, linked base.

There was tons of strategy in PS1 from taking bases in the appropriate order to minimise resistance and optimise continent capture time, taking or leaving targets of opportunity, stalling for reinforcements, drawing people to other continents, you name it. I'm sorry, but even within the restrictions of the PS1 system - EVEN WITH CAPITAL RESTRICTIONS (which I hate, btw) - the amount of strategic choices are enough for 15-30 minutes of /c discussion PER CHOICE during a campaign.

Acquisition of "soft" resources (influencing the resource ticker) will never be considered a reason for defense. These aren't felt till long after the fact and often changes are undone anyway by gains elsewhere. "soft" resources are at most a reason for counter-offensives. When they're "hard resources" like direct benefits that are felt immediately in battle (like indeed, tank generation), then yes. Up to a point. It has to be considered viable.


When we're talking a defense though, we're talking about a concentration of troops, typically inferior in number. If you have superior numbered groups that can ignore the defenders (which have to be in place before the act of defense can occur), especially if you have a poorly defensible position, this concentration will be higher. It means this draws away potential defenders of surrounding areas. Especially if you also consider hardware differences (tanks) and temporal chokepoints.

If you then consider NewSith's example, then to fend off even a 1:1 ratio in defense may cause too great a temporal chokepoint for the defenders and attackers could have easily ghosted other terrain already - and if the position is indefensible, will likely get this too. UNTIL a massive counter-offensive takes place. Guess what happens in PS2 now?


Imagine for instance if you can defend one or two hexes against an almost even, but slightly bigger group, but there are 4 hexes to defend. If the attacker moves in large groups and splits up, the defender will have to split up as well. But since the defender is in a worse numerical position, even if you manage to hold two areas with 1:1 ratios, you'll lose others to shear population differences, simply because you can't be everywhere at once to defend.

The current system caters to nobody, not even CoD, because it DOES NOT streamline anything, but instills absolute chaos beyond any player(group)'s control. And to say a streamlined version caters to CoD crowd is just utterly preposterous, because all CoD is about is chaotic deathmatch! If anything, you'd think the current system (with all the bases designed like a deathmatch and next to no strategic flow value to territory) is more CoD than BF or PS.

Sorry, but you don't make sense and you seem trapped in tunnelvision of your own ideas.




If you make the current system punish players for not defending and force players to defend areas they know they can't defend due to base design, you're going to kill the game almost over night. If the bases were defensible there'd be something to say for that, because then defense could be fun. I play nothing but defense and I get utterly infuriated and frustrated by the lack of time and options to mean anything in a fight as defender, while you're constantly being outghost UNTIL YOU SAY FUCK IT, AND GO OUT AND OUTGHOST THEM.

Neither of which is fun and the current system is almost entirely to blame. Almost, because of the other design choices worsen the situation.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

Long post

Actually Figgy, he's right. The system itself, without anything else, would really add nothing, but only take away. But since it's Malorn's design we're speaking of, I am sure he has some extra-steps in mind, after the thing gets in.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Actually Figgy, he's right. The system itself, without anything else, would really add nothing, but only take away. But since it's Malorn's design we're speaking of, I am sure he has some extra-steps in mind, after the thing gets in.

I disagree.

Less can be more.

More can be less.

It's too early to say, but in this case, the current system is definitely more is less.

[NewSith]

Originally Posted by Figment

I disagree.

Less can be more.

More can be less.

It's too early to say, but in this case, the current system is definitely more is less.

Elaboration: with less choices, the size of an average fight increases. That's fun, true that, but it also works both ways, since we don't have NTU, Generators, Benefits worth of having and Inter-Continental Lattice. Small groups will have even less to do. He's coming from that angle.

[VGCS]

Originally Posted by Malorn

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!

sound like a good enough /vouch to me. Only thing I'm not clear on is how it's going to affect the flow of vehicles and that "balance" of resources which has always been widely criticized here?.... For instance I hate how often I run out of Infantry creds & always seem to have way too many Vehicle creds. I'd probably use those extra creds more often but the flow of reinforcements in these "hexes" usually meant I was wasting every point I spent because I rarely ever got any support when I drove in that direction from the nearest base. Most times I'd get rocket podded 500m in despite being under dense Trees while it was pitch black out.




Brainfart to go along with this: Y'know what we need?.... a /Bet option like CSS. Ya put how ever many points of extra resource you have like "Vehicle" creds down when you get near a contested base... and the longer it takes to capture or defend it, the more of those points are converted into that base's reward resource.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by NewSith

Elaboration: with less choices, the size of an average fight increases. That's fun, true that, but it also works both ways, since we don't have NTU, Generators, Benefits worth of having and Inter-Continental Lattice. Small groups will have even less to do. He's coming from that angle.

Which is why I've mentioned the other design elements like base layout.

Small groups in a choke system can actually perform a defensive and stalling role which they can't now. So I have to disagree with his assesment.

Intercontinental lattice is irrelevant at this stage (sadly) and NTU is not needed as long as defensibility isn't high enough for sieges to last.


I don't actually see any role for small groups in the current fight aside from zerg assistance (mini-objectives) and ghosting, because defense is pointless for small groups, offense is pointless for small groups aside from zerging together.

And while zerg-assistance will always remain, ghosting is not something to hold on to.

To say their role would decline in a slightly more restricted fight is laughable at best. If anything, small groups can start holding off zergs in defensible locations and block an entire "capture passage route". Look, we had a hugely restricted fight in PS1 and small groups were key everywhere. Why? Defensibility and blocking routes.

I'm sorry, but genholds isn't the only thing you can do. Even if those sort of strategic ops are much needed AND WOULD ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN THE NEW SYSTEM SINCE YOU COULD CUT OFF PATHS WAY BETTER IF EVERYTHING ISN'T DIRECTLY CONNECTED THROUGH SIX OR MORE ROUTES.

One could not block a PS1 capital benefit because of the shield without extreme measures (downing everything linked to that base). This mean that it was virtually impossible to deny benefits back then. But on continents like Cyssor, Ishundar and Searhus, with more links and more hubs WITHOUT capital shields, that wasn't the case at all. The current PS2 hex system passes benefits far more readily than a restricted system.

Bleeding an enemy dry by cutting them off would quite likely be much easier for small teams in the new system than the old. Especially if gens and other such objectives and mechanics are introduced.

[Phantomdestiny]

Originally Posted by Figment

Which is why I've mentioned the other design elements like base layout.

Small groups in a choke system can actually perform a defensive and stalling role which they can't now. So I have to disagree with his assesment.

Intercontinental lattice is irrelevant at this stage (sadly) and NTU is not needed as long as defensibility isn't high enough for sieges to last.


I don't actually see any role for small groups in the current fight aside from zerg assistance (mini-objectives) and ghosting, because defense is pointless for small groups, offense is pointless for small groups aside from zerging together.

And while zerg-assistance will always remain, ghosting is not something to hold on to.

To say their role would decline in a slightly more restricted fight is laughable at best. If anything, small groups can start holding off zergs in defensible locations and block an entire "capture passage route". Look, we had a hugely restricted fight in PS1 and small groups were key everywhere. Why? Defensibility and blocking routes.

I'm sorry, but genholds isn't the only thing you can do. Even if those sort of strategic ops are much needed AND WOULD ACTUALLY BE EFFECTIVE IN THE NEW SYSTEM SINCE YOU COULD CUT OFF PATHS WAY BETTER IF EVERYTHING ISN'T DIRECTLY CONNECTED THROUGH SIX OR MORE ROUTES.

One could not block a PS1 capital benefit because of the shield without extreme measures (downing everything linked to that base). This mean that it was virtually impossible to deny benefits back then. But on continents like Cyssor, Ishundar and Searhus, with more links and more hubs WITHOUT capital shields, that wasn't the case at all. The current PS2 hex system passes benefits far more readily than a restricted system.

Bleeding an enemy dry by cutting them off would quite likely be much easier for small teams in the new system than the old. Especially if gens and other such objectives and mechanics are introduced.

i'm pretty positive that if they introduce this prototype , they will later introduce other mechanics such as gens holds , ANTs , maybe resource convoys protection with the new resources introduced later , protection of mining the vehicles themselves? , we have yet to see what ps2 truly will be after the first year .