The Third Empire [Archive] - PlanetSide Universe

LordReaver

2011-02-13, 06:32 AM

I'm a philosopher, so you will notice I like to think about core and other deep concepts.

People have always tried to figure out why there are stalemates. Usually blaming something for being unbalanced. This however, is entirely incorrect. Ideal balance actually promotes stalemates, hence why no side makes progress.

The real reason for stalemates, is that we have had a third empire. Two is fine, and four or more is also fine. The number 3 is the basic problem. It is an odd number. For example, empire A is attacking empire B, then empire C shows up. Empire C is forced to attack one empire, or split up and attack both. In either case, an equal amount of people from A and/or B are required to repel C. Thereby making it so if any side gains ground, they also start to lose ground.

Some of you may be thinking, that which ever side has better strategy/tactics/skill will pull ahead. Well, this is true, however, the more people there are the more diluted those become. This is why small fights tend to be really fun.

The reason a fourth or more isn't a problem, where as three is, is because instead empire C could attack empire D instead of A and/or B. Any odd number is less than ideal, but it's only really bad with three. Another problem does arise from adding a fourth empire though. Which is population, the more empires, the lower population becomes for each. This is why the ideal solution is to remove the third empire.

As to which empire would be best to remove, I would have to say it is the Vanu. The TR is about speed and numbers, the NC strength and damage. These are good opposing ideals that are no better than the other. VS however, is about "technology"??? Nothing about the VS is rock, paper, scissory. Also, it's hard to take an enemy seriously, when they are wearing purple and teal. We even call them "Barneys". Next thing you know, they will put out a new rainbow themed logo. Aside from that, the VS would be best to go, with all their stuff being distributed amongst the TR and NC.

Tikuto

2011-02-13, 06:53 AM

I like the understanding that Auraxis being a new planet and a new world suggests a struggle for survival of humanity, new foundations, enw competitors, new possibilities, new land. Isolation and deprevation, a devolution from being cut by the Wormhole collapse. --- A new world.

On this new planet are alien monoliths and crystals that is an energy source amongst others, also wielding harmful alien bio-chemical adhesive and more importantly the existence of the Vanu Sovereignty. Keep in-mind "new World" where humanity is beginning to start-over from the circumstances.

Here's my thoughts: PS Renewed Backgrounds (http://www.planetside-universe.com/forums/showpost.php?p=557946&postcount=42)

Solution:
Three empires is the way it is and the PlanetSide we enjoy. What could happen is the victimized empire (2:1) would engage higher defences in the vicinity automatically to push the two stagnant enemies away. Triggered only by nearby enemy concentrations on the map (within SOI), this statisticly and mentally improves morale of the victim Empire at the cost of facility energy-drain.
This emphasises a fairer battle and a greater importance of nanite transport (the ANT, which hopefully is not a ground unit this time).

LordReaver

2011-02-13, 07:18 AM

If one side is getting beating down, then there isn't a stalemate, and therefor no problem. What you suggests promotes stalemates.

Tikuto

2011-02-13, 07:23 AM

What you suggests promotes stalemates.Not entirely. The faster energy drain, which is the side-effect of 'increased defences', secures a stalement to a quicker end unless the other empire fail to intercept incoming ANTs. The fight progressses faster with the increased energy draining.

loledits: It could be a command option like orbital strike. Problem being, though, is command in PS:1 was always a big mess to me. Wasn't done right at all, in my opinion. I've always said a game is made fair by balance and control, and PS:1 didn't have effective control on alot of systems..

CutterJohn

2011-02-13, 08:15 AM

Planetside is one, giant, 8 year long stalemate. By design. There is no win condition. The only, very marginal, 'win' you could get was to control an enemies home planets, which could only happen if one empire had the majority of the population.

For land. For power. Forever.

Stalemate.

And the vanu is not about "technology". They emphasized mobility and versatility at the expense of survivability and pure killing power. Weapons with insta AP mode. MAXs with jump jets. Tank and buggy both the fastest, and both able to traverse water.

DviddLeff

2011-02-13, 08:18 AM

The third empire makes PS work the way it does; without it you would get one faction dominating all the time, and the other empire on the back foot constantly due to lower population or worse leadership.

If any one empire is dominating in PS then the other two can strike it and force it to split its forces, allowing for fairer fights.

Canaris

2011-02-13, 11:48 AM

I would hate to see any of the three Empire removed

otomotopia

2011-02-13, 02:29 PM

Reaver. First of all, you're mostly right in your theories. The only definitely false part is that the Vanu are just about technology; that is the basis of their ideals, they are a technocracy, if you will. Someone above outlined their specialties above: they are the middle ground and the versatile.

But your main point revolves around the opinion that the stalemate is a 'bad' thing, that you 'have' to win or it's no longer 'fun' and/or it's just pointless. But because planetside is persistent, I think it was fun just to log in and know that your enemies are attacking you somewhere right now. The war always went on, with or without you. There was a win condition, which was obtainable. It was never a bad thing NOT to reach it.

(Note: yes, I realize that was a double negative XD)

I SandRock

2011-02-13, 02:36 PM

Three factions works the best in a PvP game. See DAoC for instance. It actually works to balance things out. You often have some form of population imbalance, or one side happens to be really good or skilled, or perhaps a combination of both. If one sides start dominating, then the other two empires will be more likely to cooperate to some extend against their 'common enemy' and then betray and backstab eachother when it seems suitable.

It also means that a low pop empire can still win a defensive battle. If both empires decided to duke it out in the courtyard then they will weaken eachother. Allowing the low pop defensive empire to pick them off.

Two factions makes for very boring gameplay, compared to three. It's very straight-forward one on one without much complication. Pretty much a bottle-neck fight. Three factions makes things much more interesting, more tactical, unpredictable and engaging. Which is all good in my eyes :)

To prevent no progress (fighting over the same bases/continents all the time) they could work with lock-out time to promote moving up.

As to which empire would be best to remove, I would have to say it is the Vanu. The TR is about speed and numbers, the NC strength and damage. These are good opposing ideals that are no better than the other. VS however, is about "technology"??? Nothing about the VS is rock, paper, scissory. Also, it's hard to take an enemy seriously, when they are wearing purple and teal. We even call them "Barneys". Next thing you know, they will put out a new rainbow themed logo. Aside from that, the VS would be best to go, with all their stuff being distributed amongst the TR and NC.

PS. I hate you

PPS. Rock paper scissors isn't good. Its boring :p

Rubius

2011-02-13, 02:40 PM

I've formed my conclusion based not just on Planetside, but other PvP MMOs as well.

I disagree with the OP. Three factions allows for much more diversity as far as strategy and planning goes, and makes battles far more interesting as it adds a whole new dimension. Two factions makes things linear and over time, repetitive. Four or more factions is just a mess. Three is the perfect number here.

Also, game balance is important and it isn't the game balance itself that leads to stalemates, it's the players own individual skills. It allows one side to be creative and outsmart the other based purely on intellect and skill, rather than on game mechanics.

Evilmp

2011-02-13, 04:57 PM

remove the vanu?

those are fighting words, sir.

Grimster

2011-02-13, 05:03 PM

Iam fairly confident that the Planetside sequel we will see released is going to include three factions.

Anything else would be a major sensation and probably dissapoint a lot of players. Three factions is one of the cornerstones with Planetside and a important part of the game.

Getting backstabbed in the bunghole by TR when you are fighting VS is a part of the game even if I hate it just at the moment when it happens. :)

Bags

2011-02-13, 05:20 PM

Read the blog by PSN's chinese publisher... PSN will include most of the old content + new content. I'm pretty sure if they left out the vs PSN wouldn't include most of the old content.

I SandRock

2011-02-13, 07:19 PM

Read the blog by PSN's chinese publisher... PSN will include most of the old content + new content. I'm pretty sure if they left out the vs PSN wouldn't include most of the old content.

Meh most of the old content can mean a lot when you're talking about game publishers :P I mean, they could make 1 faction an NPC faction (which was an option to vote on in the survey).

I certainly hope not. And from what we've seen so far it doesn't look like it'll happen. But I won't rest easy till I hear it confirmed by a dev. Been disappointed by anticipation way too many times in the past ;)

<-- video game skeptic

TRex

2011-02-13, 08:54 PM

Like it or not , 3 is a magic number . Thats why daoc and ps were fun as pvp games . That 3rd faction keeps the game flowing and adds that element of surprise .

You only have to look at warhammer online to see what happens in 2 ways: you just end up with zerging from one end of a map to the other and back again, and the larger side becoming larger and larger as a result.

The real problem , if any , is that of the fourth empire and those that jump from empire to empire . You watch the pops in current planetside , fridays usually NC pop jumps to 40% , then by sunday it might have swapped to tr and so on. I liked it much better when you rolled a side on a server and that was it . I used to have VS on werner / NC on emerald /TR on Markov. Your outfit meant something , and your enemy was also a familiar friend (albeit one who was trying to kill you ofc) who you saw every day . Many times you would be down to your last base on a cont or even the whole world, and would fight tooth and nail to dig in . I remember once just running back and forth from an equipment terminal to the back door , just dropping ammo and med packs/ rep cannisters to keep defence going, then going front door to do the same. Epic stuff, no kills for me that night but it was more important to survive and keep the empire running.

CutterJohn

2011-02-13, 09:19 PM

You watch the pops in current planetside , fridays usually NC pop jumps to 40% , then by sunday it might have swapped to tr and so on.

This can be easily solved with a more intelligent mechanic for swapping teams, by restricting swapping to the overpopulated empire, and giving a bonus for swapping to an underpopulated one. You wouldn't even need punitive timers then.

I would prefer the freedom to play on whichever team I wished. I have made plenty of friends from the other team, people I killed, or who killed me, and we got to talking. I would frequently switch to that side and play with them.

Hamma

2011-02-13, 09:55 PM

Very good point on the empire switching. As soon as that was allowed it changed the entire dynamic of the game. There need to be much heavier restrictions on it or it needs to be disallowed in my opinion.

Tool

2011-02-13, 10:10 PM

This can be easily solved with a more intelligent mechanic for swapping teams, by restricting swapping to the overpopulated empire, and giving a bonus for swapping to an underpopulated one. You wouldn't even need punitive timers then.

I would prefer the freedom to play on whichever team I wished. I have made plenty of friends from the other team, people I killed, or who killed me, and we got to talking. I would frequently switch to that side and play with them.

However there are those players who choose to play one empire exclusively and would be possibly punished or unable to play their chosen empire if it's currently the most populated.

But I do understand and share the desire to play on different empires, sometimes on one server. The most logical and least detrimental is going back to one empire per server, it may not be the best solution but it seems to be the most balanced of choices.

Sifer2

2011-02-13, 10:51 PM

I see some others have already beat me to it mentioning DAOC. What they say is correct. When it comes to PvP focused MMO's you want at least 3 factions not just 2.

The reason for that is because when its only 2 inevitably one gains the upper hand and a mass exodus occurs of people jumping to the winning side an its a huge zerg an ruins the game. You can see this happen time an time again in any 2 faction MMO that had PvP.

3 However creates a strange system of balance where by if one faction is starting to gain too much ground the other 2 decide to gang up on it. Rather than just feeling like they can't win an switching sides. So no removing the 3rd Empire would be very bad for Planetside IMO an would result in one Empire being pushed back to Sanctuary on like every server from lack of manpower.

Truth is if in real life it was that Black an White with only two countries fighting for control of Earth. One or the other would have won long ago.

CutterJohn

2011-02-13, 10:52 PM

However there are those players who choose to play one empire exclusively and would be possibly punished or unable to play their chosen empire if it's currently the most populated.

There is no possibility that those people would be punished because they aren't swapping. They would simply log in as per normal.

Example. Assume VS has a 45% population.

VS player logs in. Logs in just fine.
NC player logs in. Attempts to switch to VS. The game chastises him and prevents him from switching.
VS player logs in. Attempts to switch to NC. The game thanks him and sends him there.

[/quote]But I do understand and share the desire to play on different empires, sometimes on one server. The most logical and least detrimental is going back to one empire per server, it may not be the best solution but it seems to be the most balanced of choices.[/QUOTE]

One empire per server is more detrimental, as you no longer have a mechanism to affect short term population imbalances, and the strategy for long term population imbalance is depending on new players(yay, your reinforcements are a bunch of scrubs), or players deleting their current characters(generally unlikely).

The one and only reason it was bad was because of poor implementation. Players could switch to any team, no issues. Meaning if one side had 60%, the other two sides could and would bail and switch to the overpopulated empire to avoid being farmed. Get rid of that ability and it no longer has any downsides. Promote the hell out of the overpopulated side switching teams, and you have an active method for keeping populations balanced.

Sifer2

2011-02-13, 11:00 PM

Even if they create a mechanic like that though to encourage you to jump to the underpopulated side an not allow you to join the overpopulated one. Is that what we really want? For the game to just be a side switching fest? I mean it happened eventually to the original but that was more due to lack of players overall.

I think the idea of faction loyalty an going with the more natural counter to the Zerg in the form of 3 empires is preferable. At least to me anyway. I would rather they go that way an limit faction switching severely like in early Planetside. An if we have lack of players again they can just implement side switching. But hopefully Next is more successful.

Tool

2011-02-13, 11:01 PM

I see what you mean, I was thinking you meant changing empires at any time but what you said makes sense. Perhaps part of the issue stems from seemingly broad empire imbalances. It's obvious certain empire weapons excel in their respective areas and in an FPS or any game for that matter, players will tend to choose the best option.

So, if empires were relatively the same with regards to performance rather than operation, people wouldn't really feel the need to change empires or choose the one that has the best tool pertaining to their chosen playstyle?

Grimster

2011-02-14, 03:12 AM

CutterJohn

2011-02-14, 04:43 AM

I think the idea of faction loyalty an going with the more natural counter to the Zerg in the form of 3 empires is preferable. At least to me anyway. I would rather they go that way an limit faction switching severely like in early Planetside. An if we have lack of players again they can just implement side switching. But hopefully Next is more successful.

Its a game. I can't feel loyalty for any of it because its all fiction, and irrelevant to gameplay anyway. Sure, I have a favorite, but it was just a favored set of equipment. There was nothing else to be loyal too. Just a color, a small blurb of RP, and a few weapons. Your contributions weren't even permanent.

So no. I feel no loyalty, and think the concept is quite silly. Being forced to stick to one empire on a server won't make me appreciate it, just obligated to abide by the rule for lack of any other options. Sure, I will have loyalty to friends, and want to play with them, but like any fps, playing with them is oftentimes playing against them.

In other words, its like being loyal to Red over Blue in TF2. Fine for a forum gag, but pointless in game. :cool:

So, if empires were relatively the same with regards to performance rather than operation, people wouldn't really feel the need to change empires or choose the one that has the best tool pertaining to their chosen playstyle?

Sure, that would be fine and lead to more balanced populations. Try convincing people that the empires should be more equivalent though. :D

I'd be for it, because a game can be perfectly fun even when everyone has the same weapons, but for some people its a huge part of what made PS great for them.

I SandRock

2011-02-14, 05:57 AM

I agree with Sifer2. I enjoy the faction loyalty you had back in the old days. I get it why you are allowed to have characters on several factions due to that you only have one server nowadays. But I think we can assume that when the Planetside sequel arrives we will at least see three servers. One european and two american one for the west and one for the east.

I played 95% of my time as NC on Werner but when I wanted a change of scenery I usually logged on to one of my VS alts on Emerald which worked fine for me even though I am located in Sweden. Sure I had higher ping but it sill was very playable for me.

So in my opinion having characters on several factions on the same server should be prohibited and I hope it will be.

Very good point on the empire switching. As soon as that was allowed it changed the entire dynamic of the game. There need to be much heavier restrictions on it or it needs to be disallowed in my opinion.

Agreed on all counts. It also opens up the possibility of exploiting. Farming kills etc. + Spying.

Once you login to your character on one side it should start a cooldown that lasts 3 days. That means you have to play on the empire for 3 days before you can switch. And if you do switch, you have to play on that side for 3 days.
No cross-empire communication

Preferably no empire switching at all on the same server if it was up to me.

Grimster

2011-02-14, 06:09 AM

Tool

2011-02-14, 06:25 AM

Perhaps then there should be more and better incentives for playing a single empire instead of jumping ship whenever odds are not in your favor. The current ones don't get the job done and what else could be in their place, I don't know.

Come to think of it, MAG has some type of veteran system in which players could change factions after they obtained a certain, if not max level. In which I think they'd start from scratch. I'll have to read up on that but it's not a terrible idea if it's only allowed one character per server.

I SandRock

2011-02-14, 06:26 AM

no cross-empire communication?

I always liked that. I would just settle for simply not allowing playing on more than one faction on a server. I always enjoyed when you nail someone and they start bitching at you over /tell

Or last week when I got ambushed by 4-5 TR Reavers(at least it felt like 4-5 Reavers) in my AA Max and I managed to take one of the Reavers down with me in flames which happened to be Tigersmith. I had to at least say hi. :D

Well if you can only play on one side cross-empire comm is probably ok. It's just that if you do allow people to play on both sides in any form or another I'd prefer not to see cross-empire comms. It makes it too easy for say a TR alt playing on NC to relay certain surprise attacks to one of their TR buddies. You can still do this if you have each other on MSN or steam but at least it makes it a little harder :)

CutterJohn

2011-02-14, 07:42 AM

In what way would empire switching be detrimental to the game if there were limits in place to prevent switching to an overpopulated empire? Please be specific.

I SandRock

2011-02-14, 08:16 AM

In what way would empire switching be detrimental to the game if there were limits in place to prevent switching to an overpopulated empire? Please be specific.

Kill farming. Population could still switch constantly between the 2 non overpopulated ones. Spying. Tactics are hard to keep unique. Let's say an outfit has a specific tactic and one of their members loves to switch sides constantly... he can then tell those tactics to his other empire faction and they'll know exactly how that outfit operates.

What's the problem with a 3-day cooldown? Make up your mind what faction you want to play with :P

The whole "BARNEYS ARE LAME!" "NC ARE OP!" "TR ARE SHIT" is cool. You need a sense of faction and enemy. Everyone being all merry and happy and cheerful hopping around hand in hand in the playground just ain't what a PvP game should foster :P

But I wouldn't mind different ruleset server if the population can support it. One where you can switch faction as you like and one where you can't.

CutterJohn

2011-02-14, 10:01 AM

Kill farming? How could that work? Switch and let a buddy shoot you? Was that ever an issue in PS?

Who cares if the population switches between the 2 lesser populated empires, so long as none gets a major advantage? If TR has 40%, and NC and VS keep swapping back and forth and stick around 30%, nothing really changes. And I'm not necessarily saying NO timer. There could be one, but I don't feel its necessary.

If there are subscription free accounts, or free trials, spying will just be a fact of life. Practice some opsec. Besides.. How much can a spy mess up in a game like this? You should see what happens in eve. Months or years of work has been lost/stolen by spies. In PS you lose what.. A few minutes?

Tactics are secret up until they get used against someone who can recognize what they are seeing, which will not take long. It won't take very long for those tactics to spread. Plus, since the empires have different weapons, they aren't directly applicable anyway, and may not even be possible.

All a pvp game needs to foster is friendly competition. Its a game played by peers for fun, not a war. If you love RPing your empire and sticking up for them, by all means, do so. Don't expect me to play along.

Oh, and what's the problem with no cooldown? Its just a game, nobody should mind what faction you want to play with :P

I SandRock

2011-02-14, 10:09 AM

Firefly

2011-02-14, 01:12 PM

Get rid of Fourth Empires (again) and keep out that stupid fucking Black Ops bullshit. Leave the three empires. Fighting the same empire over and over is yawni-yawnson boring. One of the things that drew me to the game was the possibility of a double-team whether I was on the receiving end or the giving end. Can you tell I worked in porn?

Hamma

2011-02-14, 07:33 PM

The only thing cross empire tells was ever used for was talking smack. I'm not a fan of talking smack :lol:

[Tell] pwnsaucer2: OMG I OWNED YOU ON THE INTERNETS HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAH

Tool

2011-02-14, 07:44 PM

To be honest, I remember empire populations were pretty much a non-issue when the games entire population was very healthy. When it dipped below that nominal level where poplocks could happen on multiple continents, population imbalances became more apparent.

My assumption is the idea behind the three empires didn't take in the long term issues of dwindling populations and the effects of overpopulation wasn't apparent as it is now. Simply a design oversight.

Warruz

2011-02-14, 08:20 PM

I just wish it was locked per server. Having pride in ones faction helps make the game more interesting making that long drawn out fight that you won feel even greater with no worries of people hoping sides.

Iv tried all the factions and hated VR, was ok with NG, but became attached to TR. And will forever remain TR!

Hamma

2011-02-15, 09:38 AM

Likewise :D

CutterJohn

2011-02-15, 09:50 AM

I wish I could care. Then it wouldn't seem like an arbitrary limitation for no good reason. :/

I SandRock

2011-02-15, 11:46 AM

And this is why cross comm sucks:
We said in sanctuary broadcast to load up gals and go for cery, took maybe 5-10mins, we come out of the warp gate and TR airplanes are there waiting for us...

>_<

Canaris

2011-02-15, 12:08 PM

And this is why cross comm sucks:
We said in sanctuary broadcast to load up gals and go for cery, took maybe 5-10mins, we come out of the warp gate and TR airplanes are there waiting for us...

>_<
Ah you broke the first rule of counter intelligence, never shout out where your going, shout out where your not really going and at the last few moments before take off have the CR5 leaders or whatever switch the destination to the true place and launch for it. Keep em guessing :)

Aractain

2011-02-15, 01:40 PM

Yeah, I was often part of a invasion zerg but we wern't told where we were going until we launched.

I SandRock

2011-02-15, 03:43 PM

Yeah that was the usual tactic. This wasn't really well organized, just 2-3 gals of people in sanctuary who got themselves organized ( i just jumped aboard) and decided to go somewhere :P

But it's still reason for me not to have cross empire comms.

LordReaver

2011-02-17, 09:06 AM

The reason stalemates are bad, is because it means people start doing the exact same things and see the exact same things. This, leads to boredom. Have you never logged on and thought, "Damn it!, it's the same battle I was in last night!!"? That's exactly what I want to get rid of. There doesn't need to be "win" conditions in order to not have a stalemate. The battle just needs to keep changing location is really all that's needed.

If there are too many people on one side, you have an incentive problem. That problem can be over powered weapons, or something as simple as a cooler look. For example, the reason people jump to the "winning" empire, is because there is no real incentive to defend, but you do get rewarded for conquering. That also has a amplification effect, where the more one sided it gets, the more people want to go to that one side. Meaning, it's an entirely different problem that needs to be dealt with.

It doesn't really matter what the VS do, they don't have an opposing belief system to the TR or NC. I was not wrong calling it technology, every single advantage they have is technologically superior. That's not a core philosophy, they are just smarter. I suppose if the VS were re-imagined with emphasis on being the middle of the two extreme it would work. This would however, make them pretty much generic. Currently they are just too different from the others. None of this changes the fact that the number 3 is terrible.

That being said, the third empire is obviously not likely to go away.

If RPS is such a boring game, why is it one of the most popular games in history? ;)

No cross empire communication doesn't change anything for the better, it just desocializes the game. I can't see limited cross coms as bad though. Like a comall timer to prevent abusive people.

Canaris

2011-02-17, 10:19 AM

I've been booting your theory around my head for the past few days and I've come to a conclusion I think removal of the third faction would create more stalemates by just having two sides go head to head.

The third faction creates a chaos factor that works well. The NC and TR are at a salemate on a certain Cont, the VS shows up and requires one side the other or both to commit troops to fight them off breaking the stalemate.

The VS are dominating the world map, requiring the TR and NC have to show a little wisdom and link arms however temporary in order to affect a shift in beating back the dominating side.

We've seen it and it does work.

I SandRock

2011-02-17, 10:31 AM

None of this changes the fact that the number 3 is terrible.
.

And this is where you are utterly wrong. 3 IS the magic number

Bags

2011-02-17, 12:02 PM

None of this changes the fact that the number 3 is terrible.
.

But three's a prime number! That's got to count for something, right? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gl1_b_pyPMs#t=00m06)

LordReaver

2011-02-18, 12:59 AM

You also need to remember how the side that gets hit by the third empire just ignores it, until they start hitting vital bases, and then they just go and duck down in an interlink or other hard to penetrate base. Only when a good leader steps up to the plate will an empire maintain the offensive while being double teamed.

Two teams does not create stalemates. You can just look at any other game or sport or whatever and see that it works. When stalemates do occur, they'd might last longer, but they wouldn't happen nearly as often.

Bags

2011-02-18, 01:00 AM

They're not going to remove an entire empire; end of discussion.

Grimster

2011-02-18, 04:43 AM

They're not going to remove an entire empire; end of discussion.

Agree :)

Timantium

2011-02-18, 08:13 AM

Thanks to the OP for his/her completely unbiased approach to which empire to lose. If you are that butt-hurt because some "barneys" killed your "blueberry" or "cherry" self, then buy some tissues.

On a serious note, your argument makes no sense. Two empires can impose a stalemate just as easily as three. The addition of a third empire actually makes it easier to break one.

Two empires (of equal pop) = easy stalemate. If one empire has overwhelming numbers, then they can open multiple fronts and conquer.

The only way three empires allows for a stalemate is if one empire has enough population to completely defend on two fronts. The third empire opens up new conflict to keep the battle dynamic. Case in point: last night, VS lost much of cyssor to the TR because VS were fighting NC and TR on ish. VS did not have enough pop to adequaltely respond to the TR numbers on cyssor so they lost 5 bases while they fought NC on ish.

Stalemates are epic in planetside, the game is not supposed to end (so it's all kind of a huge stalemate).

It would be sooooo boring with only two empires. It would kill things like tower camps, gen holds and all the smaller scale skirmishes that are really fun.

Manitou

2011-02-18, 09:01 AM

I have to agree that three empires seems to be the "sweet spot" for maintaining a well rounded conflict. There is always the dynamic of the third empire which you have to consider when planning to invade a continent/planet.

I see it as the three-legged stool concept. You have the bare minimum to keep the stool usable - remove one more though and it is useless.

Firefly

2011-02-18, 09:05 AM

Everyone complains about getting double-teamed, but the reality is that in a three-way Planetside fight, SOMEONE is always going to end up the third wheel. So it's going to seem like you're getting double-teamed even if it's not intentional and by-agreement. Just like in porn - someone's always getting double-teamed in a three-way, unless they daisy-chain that shit.

Hamma

2011-02-18, 11:54 AM

:rofl:

Yea I think two empires would create a shitload more stalemates. That's just my opinion though.

I SandRock

2011-02-18, 12:54 PM

That's just my opinion though.
No it's not. Stop trying to claim things as your own!

basti

2011-02-18, 07:43 PM

:rofl:

Yea I think two empires would create a shitload more stalemates. That's just my opinion though.

I could back your opinion up if i want to, with several pages of text why 3 is the magic number that works, and why 2 is a bad bad bad idea, as well as 4 or even more.

Fact is, hamma, you need to start removing the crap threads with opinions that are just there to troll people. Like this thread, or the headshots one. We all know that this stuff is a bad idea, there is no point to discuss this over several pages, just because the OP doesnt want to stop trolling...

Tikuto

2011-02-19, 06:08 AM

Hah! May be true but Hamma is admin and you're not. Don't you be tellin' big cheese what's mouldy and what's not... :lol:

Besides, the BFRs Revisited thread interests me, still.

basti

2011-02-19, 06:27 AM

Hah! May be true but Hamma is admin and you're not. Don't you be tellin' big cheese what's mouldy and what's not... :lol:

Besides, the BFRs Revisited thread interests me, still.

The BRF thread is interresting, but this here is just throwing arguments at each other, while the side that clearly is wrong just doesnt stop. That is a troll, not a discussion. Otherwise you end up like Forumside, and im pretty sure nobody wants that.

I SandRock

2011-02-19, 06:40 AM

while the side that clearly is wrong just doesnt stop

I'm sorry but who are you to say who is wrong and who is clearly right? This isn't such a clear-cut case. I'm AGAINST headshots but I don't think those for them are undeniably clearly wrong. They have their points, I just personally don't like headshots. PERSONALLY.

It seems like you just call everyone a troll that disagrees with you :P

basti

2011-02-19, 06:46 AM

I'm sorry but who are you to say who is wrong and who is clearly right? This isn't such a clear-cut case. I'm AGAINST headshots but I don't think those for them are undeniably clearly wrong. They have their points, I just personally don't like headshots. PERSONALLY.

It seems like you just call everyone a troll that disagrees with you :P

It seems like i really have to start collection all those links and walls of text to make you understand. I would actually LOVE to have headshots, but i know how the entire idea would end: Im running throuu a stairwell headshotting people left and right, and those who get shot just get frustrated. But wrong thread. Im just going to post walls of text now, and god show mercy if you dont read them fully and comment to every single statment made. :>

I SandRock

2011-02-19, 07:02 AM

It seems like i really have to start collection all those links and walls of text to make you understand. I would actually LOVE to have headshots, but i know how the entire idea would end: Im running throuu a stairwell headshotting people left and right, and those who get shot just get frustrated. But wrong thread. Im just going to post walls of text now, and god show mercy if you dont read them fully and comment to every single statment made. :>

"It doesn't matter what YOU think. - The Rock " :p

It's alright if your opinion is that it's stupid and you'd just end up owning everyone with your leet skills which you don't want. But opinions are just that. There is no scientific fact or natural law against headshots in PS2.

But you're right nonetheless. It shouldn't be in :lol:

Hamma

2011-02-19, 02:36 PM

:confused:

Yea I'm not going to start removing threads just because I or someone else disagrees with the content. :p

LordReaver

2011-02-19, 05:29 PM

I am unsure if I am capable of explaining my topic any further in a forum environment. Besides, it was really just food for thought, I never really had a goal in mind.

snip

So you imply I am biased. Yet I provided philosophical reasons for "if you had to remove a third empire, which one would it be?" rather than whining about something that is or is not in the game. What I do find interesting, is that you are have a VS avatar. So it would seem, that your response could be summed up with "bias".

snip

Your posts here actually fit the definition of trolling far more than anyone elses. You are the only one throwing around the term troll while not providing anything to the conversation at hand.