Yes, large battles are usually zerg v zerg but any organised squad can get a whole lot down within a battle as large as that and given that bE have stated they want 500+ player battles, it's something you're going to have to come to terms with.

The lattice focused the fights and ensured that the smaller side actually has a chance to defend against a larger one. Before the lattice the larger side could simply send the bulk of its force to one base and then a squad to every other base they can capture, the smaller force of defenders can't defend all those bases so they lost a lot of territory much quicker than what it was after the lattice was introduced. As for handing the victory to the biggest side, I'm calling BS on that. As I said just before, if the smaller side is mobile enough, they can defend against the larger faction because they know where they are going to strike and can effectively prepare for major assaults.

'Repetitive' to and fro is going to happen, almost regardless of how they set things up. Unless they create a new continent every time one got captured, you are going to have to refresh the continent and start the fighting anew. Otherwise the game is over after a month because the biggest faction snowballed until it was unstoppable.

1. Then squads of players will just ghost-cap, it won't stop ghost capping at all.
2. If the bases are designed by a competant designer (ie anyone but SoE) the bases themselves will provide an advantage to the defenders making it harder to capture.
3. There is a very thin line when you try to make bases important, because if they provide tangible bonuses then once you take a few of the enemies bases, you get a snowballing of the bonus effects. As for unique bases, it's a nice goal but ultimately it requires more and more work on the devs part and given that many Imperial bases/cities would be based off a template having them be similar isn't an unreasonable expectation.

Or the defenders couldn't muster the men required to adequately defend it. It isn't always about what you want to defend, but rather what you can defend. In most cases un-important bases are left to ghost cappers if the manpower isn't available while the stronger, more defensive ones, are defended.

You do realise what universe this game is set in right?

>Meatgrinder being a bad thing
>40k

lol k

So your saying that EC should be Zerg or nothing?

Fair one, a smaller side can prevail given the right circumstances. But the lattice system provides very little leeway in terms of strategy. Picking your battleground becomes a redundant tactic when the battleground has to be the next bottleneck in the lattice. Without the lattice a strikeforce can attack wherever it feels it has an advantage.

I wasn't only refering to the landscape. Mainly it's playstyle thats my concern. The typical zerg experience of "spawn n spam" gets old really quick. Yes there are variations on zerg warfare but by enlarge its hard to feel effective when there are hundreds of other players aiming at the same targets or disabling the same defences. More strategic options allows for more play styles to be utilised.

1. Read my post again. I 'm not suggesting ghost capping should be stopped. I'm suggesting there should be more incentives for a defence to be mounted (i.e. prevent "it's just a loner, leave it go we'll get it back later.")
2. Bonuses as in XP bonus. Not easy mode bonus.
3. Spot on. I should have made it clearer (I was on my phone with the boss not so far away ).It depends on whats important about them, strategic benifits or large RP generation would definately cause problems. There should some scope for that type of benifit but it shouldn't stack or be OP. Access to certain instances or limited use heros would be cool.

Not sure on your point there. If the defender can't defend it the attacker should be able cap it.

Yes it's Warhammer 40,000. A universe built around a table top STRATERGY game that I have been following on and off since the early/mid 90's.

Nice and constructive thanks for that.

Just a quick query Trovanus & Tronadium. Your'e both merhine players right?

Read it again, "the larger battles are usually zerg v zerg". When numbers get large having good micro of squads quickly becomes impossible without some experienced squad leaders and even then the 'follow the herd' mentality is hard to overcome for social animals such as ourselves.

Without or without the lattice you can choose what you want to defend. With the lattice however, you can much more easily pick which bases to preemptively garrison because the attackers have a limited amount of options. It also creates chokepoints at large facilities which tend to be very good defensive bases.

If the devs are smart they'll make the continent big enough so that the zergs can fight over major bases, leaving the less important bases, on the flanks, the realm of groups of solo players and single/double squads.

1. Defenses are always mounted when the players are available, true ghost caps only occur when all defending players are tied up elsewhere (usually because of pop imbalances).
2. Eh, bases designed to be defended aren't easy mode, they still need to be fought over. It's just easier for the defenders to get into position than the attackers. Exp should be given for a successful defence (ie driving off an enemy) because a defender exp bonus just makes players only defend to maximize exp gain, otherwise a good idea.
3. I can get behind that.

Population imbalance plays a big part in attack and defence, if the defender is under-popped they don't get the luxury of choosing the bases they want to defend, they have to defend the bases that allow a smaller force to hold off a bigger one.

My point was that 40k is basically built around giant meat-grinder battles (hence popularity of IG, SM etc). Not having them in-game would detract from one of the biggest draw 40k has.

I'm a B.Raven fan first and foremost (hence the termi librarian), but unless they make the starting lineup I'll be playing Eldar. I find the eldar weapons and Aspects much more interesting than the SM's arsenal.

Still not sure on what your point is. You seem to be advocating the lattice system but without any clear reason why. And your contradicting yourself.

Do you wish to restrict the battlelines to easily predictable locations and force direct conflict? You want to limit attackers options. It seem you would like the opposistion to be limited into playing how you want them to play.

If less is more why build a game world as big as Arkhona? "We have created a massive game world. But you can only attack this bit!"

If (when) population imbalance is an issue then the smaller faction should look at strategies that allow them to avoid direct confrontation with an overwhelming enemy and succeed in completeing objectives that don't require large scale territory control. i.e. an eldar strikeforce has an objective to take out a forge. Given that eldar will probably be under populated, they are on an imperial world and in keeping with their fighting philosophies a hit and run strategy should be employed. With a lattice system that option isn't there.

Your assumution that 40k is a meat grinder and SM & IG are popular because of this is wholly wrong. SM&IG are popular due to the amount of fluff published about them, thus giving them more exposure. The meat grinder thing... well dunno where that came from.

40k is built around a "rock,paper,scissors" type mechanics, not a meat grinder. The mulitude of troop types and armies have varying levels of specialism's that make them good at certain things and poor at others. You have to assess the situation and use the right tool for the job (if you want to play as Eldar I suggest you look into this, else you'll die...alot!). Why would GW invest in such a variety of troops and armies with their own unique rules if 40k was just a meat grinder. DoW 40k on the other hand is just a mindless meat grinder.

If we forego ghost capping too much, then what will be the point of Deep Striking?

Well, since you put it that way, yes. Go ask any PS2 vet on how bad ghost capping was before and after lattice and anyone who answers truthfully will say that ghost capping before lattice was a terrible problem which lessened significantly after lattice was introduced. It does restrict the options of the attacker but it makes more much more interesting gameplay.

Go look at how the lattice actually works. It isn't a single line connecting the factions, it creates connections between bases that would logically be connected (by supply lines and such).

Before lattice

After lattice

The gameworld is still just as big and you can still choose what part of the continent you fight on, but the base to base attacks are more directed to create more battles and less ghost-cap.

You do realise EC is a shooter don't you? Direct confrontation is the main reason people will want to play it. Yes IRL avoiding the bigger guys, launching guerilla attacks etc is the right thing to do, but this is a game and as such you need it to be workable by the majority of people (unless aiming at a niche and EC is not aiming at a niche). I've suggested ways to make eldar gameplay more like how they work in the lore without forcing them into only hit and run tactics.

Ok ok, I oversimplified why the SM/IG were popular but I think we have quite different ideas on what constitutes a 'meatgrinder'. A meatgrinder is another word for attritional warfare, typically lots of manpower is used to make only small gains, WW1 being the quintessential meatgrinder. The entirety of the 40k universe is built around huge battles that costs (m/b/tri)illions of lives that ultimately don't make much of a difference to who has galactic control.

Also DoW is a meatgrinder? only if you are playing the Ultimate Apocalypse mod or wrongly...

I'm not sure if you've played a class based shooter before but the classes in a typical one (Battlefield for example) are much more like the Aspects of the Eldar than the 3 generalised roles of the SM's.

The thing i learned by playing planetside 2 is that when the pop are 90% for one side and 10% for the other , you can't do anything. that's what i fear with a lattice system out there.
what are the 50 eldar players gonna do when they are hit by the ravaging zerg made out of the overpop spess merheen will probably have ? One of the few way to counter zerg would be to attack surrounding facilities and split the zerg , which you can't do with lattices.

That's not what I observed in the game at all. Rather, when we had the hex system, zergs turned into these massive meteors that would rocket around the continent in any direction they chose, and if they ran into excessive resistance they could turn on a dime and ricochet off to the side to find an easier fight. It was only with the introduction of the lattice system that these zergs would actually be forced to collide.

Now, that didn't end up being the game-changing fix people were hoping for, because zergs could form more easily with the new system and the sheer scale of the new fights meant that squad level strategy became even more meaningless, given how PS2 has zero tools for commanders to actually direct their troops effectively. Without a strategic overhead, the larger fights simply became even more meaningless than the cloud of little ones that had existed before, and we traded one evil for another.