The 3-way mistake?

[Bobby Shaftoe]

(Originally to be posted in the "Fear of the zerg" thread)

Yes, PS1 was a global 3-way, the fights themselves were generally 2-way affairs at release and with good pops.

Based off the Indar map and other information (3 conts, permanent foothold bases) I'm dissapointed they appear to be catering for 3-way fights instead of 'golden nostalgia age' of multiple 2-way fights that were the norm for a couple years after release. (at least on Werner)

3-ways were boring* and any advancement you made was more than likely not a result of your empire doing anything amazing, just the 3rd empire hitting whoever was the current filling of the sandwich.

*I'm sure we've all had multiple experiences of having a 3-way on one cont on one day, logging off and coming back maybe the next or even 2 days later and the fight still being there.

It's also a little surprising since 3-ways rarely happened until the server pops started dropping to levels where there was really only 1 large fight going on. Yet on launch, pops should not be a problem (maybe over pop?), however they've created a continental system that you can not get kicked from and promotes a perpetual 3-way.

It also removes one of the defining 'win' objectives that existed in PS1. Tactically you could cap a base/tower; Strategically you could lock the continent you were fighting on; Grand Strategically you could dominate Auraxis (rarely occurred). As it stands, it looks like they've made 'strategic' wins almost impossible (let alone Grand Strategic) and in doing so removed a discrete 'victory/end game' condition that used to exist. How many times would someone say, "I'm going to log off after we cap this base/cont"? It was a convenient gameplay/chunk of time (in addition to getting the xp).

I don't understand the logic of using a 'strategy' that the players developed as a result of low pops to ensure people still had at least some fun fighting and implementing it as the standard model for large (full server) populations.

Lattice system, hex system or any other variant of objective manifestation isn't going to change the fact that at any one time, 2 empires will most likely be focusing on 1 on the same continent.

[Mastachief]

I came in here expecting something about 2 dudes and a woman .....

I am concerned that with the lacking ability to remove and empire from a continent the fights just wont be right and it will result it a 24/7 3 way battle. I think with only 3 continents to start with this will on serve to make it worse.

Even if you can fly around the main fights and come in from behind.

[Stardouser]

To be honest, I've been thinking about MMOFPS since before even WW2 OL came out, and I never envisioned anything but a 2 faction war. I don't see any problem with 3 factions, it's simply the small continent size instead of one large megacontinent, that worries me. I always thought WW2 OL was a tad too big, but not by much.

I always thought the megacontinent would make more sense because if you concentrated your forces, the enemy could slip around you, and if you spread out too much, the enemy could concentrate- making for complex strategies.

[Ieyasu]

the problem with not having 3 factions is how could Ozziking take a tower that the other 2 factions were fighting over and hold it for 3 hours that way?

things like that used to always make me laugh. Im sure I cant be the only one.

[Baneblade]

You need wild cards, the third faction is the wild card.

[Snipefrag]

I agree with you to some extent, capping continents was some sort of victory. In a three way this is pretty hard to achieve without numerical superiority, a question to the devs would be.. If you're down to just your safe area (warp gate) does the same hold true with regards to hacking a base? Since you only have 1 adjacent piece of land does that mean it will take a long time to hack?

If so this goes at least some way to disincentivising enemy players from sticking around when their empire has been booted off a cont. Means a big invasion will be needed to regain a foothold.

[Mechzz]

Yeah, 3 continents and 3 factions is maybe starting to seem a bit crowded. I hadn't done the math that says a Reaver going full-tilt on AB can cross the continent in 2 seconds minutes. It took what, a few 5-10 minutes? to fly over a PS1 continent.

I did enjoy 2-way fights and wonder if we can encourage them this way:

Each empire starts on day 1 with positions on all 3 continents.

When one gets zero-based, they lose that foothold for, say, 48 hours. Each empire can't go below 2 footholds. So they can always fight on the other 2 continents while they are locked out of the one they lost.

The 2-empire continent has a win based on territory owned at the end of 48 hours, at which point the 3rd empire is free to come back and join in.

That would give the "winners" the victory condition we were looking for in other threads, AND it would give the winners a 2-way fight for 48 hours.

Thoughts?

[Ieyasu]

He could try to scare them away with his rap video's.

that might just work. I ran around with the guy a few times and had fun, but the rap was always playing in the background :rolleyes:. One thing I can say abou Ozzi is that he was extreme. I told him about how I was using phase change cooling on my cpu to get higher stable overclocks and he built a homemade system and froze his not long afterward.

[Turdicus]

If an empire is pushed back to their warp gate then taking an adjacent base won't be difficult since an entire empire's strength would be concentrated on one base and the defending empire has to deal with that and the other war they are fighting. Dynamically it should balance out, making it certain that there is never an end to the fighting.

I don't know if this is a great idea or not though, maybe they can make it so that if an empire is pushed back to a warp gate that gate is disabled for a certain time, acting as a continent lock. That's still a possibility and it would solve the problem of the perpetual three way (which in another context would be a great thing, ironically).

edit: Mechzz beat me to it =(

[MacXXcaM]

I came in here expecting something about 2 dudes and a woman .....

http://www.funny2k.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/T-Shirt/like_a_boss_gtfo_meme_face_shirt.jpg

on topic:
I always liked the idea of a 3 factions war in Planetside. I liked to see all 3 factions in a battle and one of them slowly getting wiped out.
Also, I don't want to have one kind of enemy only...

[Coreldan]

I'm not really concerned. Yes, 3 ways will happen especially at the "T" section of the map, but we have to remember most of the map is not around that section. There will probably always be a 3-way going on, but majority of the fights would still be good ol' faction vs. faction.

I like three ways, not as the primary way of fighting but it's a nice change at times.

[Mechzz]

edit: Mechzz beat me to it =(

Don't worry, that will never, ever happen again!

It is a cool idea though, isn't it?

[BlazingSun]

Hello Bobby.

Nice to 'see' you. About your post - I share your concerns. The 'foothold bases' (cannot be captured), which each empire has on each continent, are the real problem!

[Mastachief]

We need a lattice of sorts and home continents.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

You need wild cards, the third faction is the wild card.

So you think having an, effectively, 33% RNG in a massive team based tactical/strategic game is a good thing?

Having that large an unknown variable makes things frustrating, not fun, especially since it's more likely to turn against you the better your empire performs, the more I think about it the more it seems like they want some semi permanent 'frontline' grindfest going on.

[Turdicus]

The hexes are a more elegant solution to the problem the lattices were created to fix. Backhacking was the problem and both the hexes and the lattice try to fix it. I think the hexes are a better solution though, since it allows for much more open ended gameplay, with fewer restrictions.

[Raka Maru]

Perhaps the uncappable foothold idea as it is now, would go down easier if they were actually warp gates rather than faction bases. imagine being able to GO to any continent you want that is not pop locked. This is what we have in PS2.

The Mega-continent idea seems good in theory, but it will cause overpop problems when the fighting bunches up in areas causing server lag. They could offset this by having artificial zones that you cannot enter, but that would break immersion. Thus, they already broke it out to these 3 continents, and you cant get in if it is pop locked. I think this is done correctly on the dev side. Expansion is expected post launch and growth can be unlimited if done right.

Losing the victory condition by capturing the entire continent will be bad tho. Perhaps if they turn the planet RED when the TR boot everyone to their footholds, that can be the WIN, with XP, Victory announcement via big screen base TV, fireworks, chat announcement, or whatever. Remember that after the TR roll over you in Ish, we will be going through those gates to take your other continents.

Now, since all hexes are RED, you will have difficulty getting anything else done on that continent after our VICTORY. You will find everything takes much longer to capture and go somewhere else. Maybe there should be a continent BONUS.

Double teaming will always happen at some point, it's the commanders duty to maneuver away from that position when possible. I don't see a perpetual stalemate happening unless pops go way low again like PS1.

[Stardouser]

The Mega-continent idea seems good in theory, but it will cause overpop problems when the fighting bunches up in areas causing server lag. They could offset this by having artificial zones that you cannot enter, but that would break immersion. Thus, they already broke it out to these 3 continents, and you cant get in if it is pop locked. I think this is done correctly on the dev side. Expansion is expected post launch and growth can be unlimited if done right.

There are other ways to prevent too many people from fighting in the same area if we have one large continent. A cap on too many people spawning from one particular base, for example. Since 2000 people won't be able to suddenly spawn at one base, in order for that to ever happen, people would have to spawn from increasingly farther away and intentionally drive to the same point.

I don't know exactly how they do it, but WW2 Online is one huge mega continent and they do something like this. It definitely creates a front line, too. I think the front line in that game can be 100 miles across. Just go to their website and see it on their campaign map: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

And I will say this - when other companies start responding to PS2 with their own MMOFPS, I don't think the small continent idea is going to be that popular. They will find other ways.

[Xyntech]

The way I see it, the continents of PS2 are sort of like 4 PS1 continents glued together. Across 4 continents in PS1, you may have a VS vs NC fight one one, a NC vs TR fight on another, a TR vs VS fight on a third and a massive clusterfuck 3 way on Cyssor.

Imagine this all happening on a single continent in PS2 instead of on 4 separate continents. There are large battles lines, with multiple hexes along the line where fights can occur. Along the far edges of the NC/VS border, there will be mostly 2 ways. Wherever the three sides converge, there will likely be 3 ways.

Don't forget that sometimes even the zerg got a bit sneaky in PS1, choosing to fight one of the smaller branches of one of the enemy empires forces while the bulk of that enemy fought with the other enemy empire elsewhere. If one side starts getting their asses kicked in a 3 way fight in the middle, the smart outfits and possibly even the zerg itself may choose to muster their forces against a slightly more vulnerable, less contested piece of land while the other two empires finish trying to battle it out in what used to be a 3 way.

The 10 continents of PS1 used to hold 500 (then 400) players. That's 5000 total. If they manage to achieve their goal of 2000 players, that's already 6000, 1k more than the first games servers. Early on, during peak hours, you would have battles raging across all 10 continents, so how would 3 continents (sharing similar numbers of players) be so radically different? A little different yes, but not entirely different.

Similarly, during off hours the servers tended to settle down a little, with more continents getting locked and only some of the continents having massive raging battles still going on. PS2's equivalent would either be having all 3 continents settle down a little during off hours, or having one of the 3 continents go mostly quiet (say if one empire managed to take most of that continent and managed to keep a hold of it), while the other two would still have battles of varying size going on.

[SniperSteve]

What you are describing makes me think your OP topic should read: "No Continent Capturing: A Mistake?"

[Xyntech]

What you are describing makes me think your OP topic should read: "No Continent Capturing: A Mistake?"

I think that having regions within continents that you could capture would be a nice substitute for this. Give a region benefit instead of the continent benefits from the first game, along with that sense of accomplishment of seeing a clear objective achieved.

Imagine the pride an empire would have if they did manage to capture an entire continent, holding all if it's regions at once. That would be like an intermediary victory between locking a continent and locking all continents in PS1.

[KTNApollo]

The majority of fights will likely be two ways, and then the third faction will decide to roll in from behind and cause some chaos. There will be some stalemates, yes, but war has stalemates.

[ringring]

I agree with the OP.

Interminable 3-ways are boring.

However it does depend on the overall server population verus the territorial space available.

The best solution is more continents. (I've said this before :/ )

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Double teaming will always happen at some point, it's the commanders duty to maneuver away from that position when possible. I don't see a perpetual stalemate happening unless pops go way low again like PS1.

Unfortunately, it seems the very design of the continents forces 3-ways.

There were multiple base groupings on several continents that created boring 3-way day(s) long grindfests.

One side benefit of the lattice system (apart from giving fights some sort of 'form') meant that the off cont links to each other held significant strategic value, opening up other avenues of approach to taking a new continent, now it seems that each cont is essentially a sealed off independent environment for perpetual 3-ways. You may counter with, well the hex system lets you try and cap anything, so how is that different to before the lattice was implemented and everyone played musical bases? You then say, well obviously capping something deep behind enemy lines takes a long time, so then how likely do you really think that is going to succeed? (Long supply route and surrounded...)So then we're just back to the point where it's a 3-way grindfest.

[Graywolves]

There's been some fun 3-ways.


Only times I find 3-way frustrating is when she wants another ma--


I mean when I'm having a good proper battle and then the 3rd empire decided to tower power us(don't see that happening) or when the other empire has decent population, the empire I'm already fighting has superior population, while mine has the least and the 3rd one decides that helping the bigger empire by kicking the smaller one is the best strategic decision.

I do have some memorable 3-ways though and they can be fun. But this is the internet and many people will decide they just want to be frustrating (which is a very viable tactic).

[Raka Maru]

There are other ways to prevent too many people from fighting in the same area if we have one large continent. A cap on too many people spawning from one particular base, for example. Since 2000 people won't be able to suddenly spawn at one base, in order for that to ever happen, people would have to spawn from increasingly farther away and intentionally drive to the same point.


Wouldn't it get frustrating if your empire didn't actually get pushed back, but you are forced to spawn further away then drive back (into the lag)? This solution would just cause driving time but not actually prevent going back to your squad. Plus if your mission objective is there, you will have to drive/fly back anyways.


I don't know exactly how they do it, but WW2 Online is one huge mega continent and they do something like this. It definitely creates a front line, too. I think the front line in that game can be 100 miles across. Just go to their website and see it on their campaign map: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

And I will say this - when other companies start responding to PS2 with their own MMOFPS, I don't think the small continent idea is going to be that popular. They will find other ways.

I agree that Mega continent sounds fun and in the future it will be possible with advances in hardware, speed, and code.

I believe the mission system is trying to handle this in a way where new missions will go to less populated areas, but this still doesn't prevent others from going wherever they want.

When the time comes, we should see the continents getting larger.

[p0intman]

3-ways aren't boring, what are you talking about? most fun ive had in PS1 is from a three way brawl over a single base.

[IMMentat]

Planetside forced 2 way fights most often because the lattice system tended to favour a tug-of-war style engagements until the squishy middles of the continent were opened up then it became similar to the situation mentioned by Mastachief.
I came in here expecting something about 2 dudes and a woman .....

The planetside method of base-capture was to hold a single defensible location for 15 minutes also meant that you usually ended up with an attacking force occupying the local tower while the defenders held the base itself. This left only (destroyable) vehicle based spawn options for the 3rd empire, resulting in a poor foot-hold from whick to maintain an assault (assuming there was even a Lattice Link).

PS2 changes the capture method to a weighted capture and hold sub-type where all 3 empires can be in the running for a base/outpost win at the same time.
While the Hex-grid (and squad spawning) system could well mean equi-distant spawn and vehicle options for all sides involved, making the average 3-way fight a lot more open to speculation.

At the least it should make for more interesting gameplay.

[Purple]

i loved the massive 3 way battles. it was the only game i could get them on and it was epic. for those of you worried g there will most likely be 4 large battles at once on a map three 1V1 and one 3 way

[Raka Maru]

Unfortunately, it seems the very design of the continents forces 3-ways.

There were multiple base groupings on several continents that created boring 3-way day(s) long grindfests.


True, it seems that 3-ways are being designed, but I got to thinking about it a bit more and the incentive may not be there for one faction to join that battle, if they are fighting a weaker force (and winning) on another continent. Do you want to get more XP and resources by fighting a smaller force elsewhere, or do you want to fight just to get your butt kicked by invading an ongoing fight between 2 well dug in superior forces?


One side benefit of the lattice system (apart from giving fights some sort of 'form') meant that the off cont links to each other held significant strategic value, opening up other avenues of approach to taking a new continent, now it seems that each cont is essentially a sealed off independent environment for perpetual 3-ways. You may counter with, well the hex system lets you try and cap anything, so how is that different to before the lattice was implemented and everyone played musical bases? You then say, well obviously capping something deep behind enemy lines takes a long time, so then how likely do you really think that is going to succeed? (Long supply route and surrounded...)So then we're just back to the point where it's a 3-way grindfest.

I remember well the pre-lattice era. Back-hacking was regular and annoying, but it worked. The difference now in PS2, is that back-hacking will be annoying but less successful, probably impossible without a huge force. Alerts will go off, re-secure teams will fly in.

Actually, I'm hoping it will work like this, but can't be sure until it plays out.

[xIIDeAdLyIIx]

After watching a game play video I can say that there will be 3 way battles going on at some point. The objective is to capture territory and if one factions sees an operability for a cheeky cap I don't blame them for going for it.

However, if one faction attacks a base that is far away from the third faction there is no point in that third faction going for the capture, especially if they will suffer heavy penalties for not owning any territory near it.

I think that battles will be spread out around the continent with big battles at the main facilities and smaller but still meaningful battles at the outposts.

Wait for the Beta and if there is a problem I'm sure that it will be fixed.

Just chill.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Wait for the Beta and if there is a problem I'm sure that it will be fixed.

Just chill.

Unfortunately, the maps have been 'hand crafted' with the 3-way in mind, changing them to a more 2-way centric style would mean shifting the locations of several bases, starting locations and the 'transitional' terrain between them.

[xIIDeAdLyIIx]

Unfortunately, the maps have been 'hand crafted' with the 3-way in mind, changing them to a more 2-way centric style would mean shifting the locations of several bases, starting locations and the 'transitional' terrain between them.
I meant in terms of balancing so a faction would have no reason to attack a base which they are not near. I think that if people do go out of their way to have a 3 way battle that's fine, I just don't see any reason to double the amount of people shooting at you.

[LegioX]

Always like the victory conditions when i played ww2ol. You had 24/7 battles going on, but maps would take months to finish, with one side coming out the victor.

Would be nice if we could incorporate one huge sever map spanning different planets. Then when one side wins it restarts. Use to be good for bragging rights for the allies/axis in ww2ol. Good ol days.

[SgtMAD]

I meant in terms of balancing so a faction would have no reason to attack a base which they are not near. I think that if people do go out of their way to have a 3 way battle that's fine, I just don't see any reason to double the amount of people shooting at you.

Dude, I am going after your tech plant every time, I don't care if it's near or not,if i can deny you tech vehs or the resources needed to make those vehs then that's going to be a priority target in any fight.

the threeway will happen no matter what you do short of banning an empire from that cont.,once one empire gets tied up fighting another,the third will start taking the ground of whichever empire they decide to doubleteam first,which will then cause the doubleteamed empire's front line fight to collapse due to having defend bases/resources that are needed to be combat-effective that are being taken by the third empire.

this can go on for days,

we called it CyssorSide.

that's the PS meatgrinder and the same game mechanics seem to be in PS2

[SKYeXile]

Yea this was one of my other concerns, without been able to kick an empire off cont, every fight will be a 3 way fight. there simply wont be any diversity in the battles since every empire will always be on cont and be coming from the same direction.

[berzerkerking]

After reading this thread I HAD to post this vid :rofl:http://youtu.be/Pi7gwX7rjOw

[Turdicus]

its not gay if its a three way...

[Sledgecrushr]

I guess basically what we need are states within these continents. Each of these states would be made up of several hexes. The winner being the group in control of the most states.

[cellinaire]

The one thing about the OP's points that irks me the most is the "compared to 2-way contention, 3-way just won't be fun at all" thing he seems to keep insisting on. Yeah of course there's a possibility that you're right, but how can you be so sure?


(and guys, for the last 8+ months I've already seen this kinda threads in this forum like, what, 5~15 times? Still no need for consolidation or sticky thread?)

[Bobby Shaftoe]

The one thing about the OP's points that irks me the most is the "compared to 2-way contention, 3-way just won't be fun at all" thing he seems to keep insisting on. Yeah of course there's a possibility that you're right, but how can you be so sure?


BF3 Metro 24/7 is fun, fy_iceworld 24/7 servers are fun, 3 ways are fun, do you actually get much done... no.

To the average 3-wayer who just wants a fun fight, is there really any difference between 1000v1000 and 666v666v666?

To the average 2-wayer, is there much fun in taking a 33% RNG into account for everything you want to try and do tactically and strategically, or would you prefer if the enemy you were fighting were the ones responding to your actions?

We want fights to move, progress and advance based on our actions, the very map is setup to keep a perpetual 3-way going, essentially a huge 24/7 Metro point B grindfest with Tanks/Aircav taking the place of grenade/m320 spam.

It's too late for me to attempt an effort post but I will later.

As a parting shot:
In PS1 there was a mechanism for 1 Empire through their actions to create 3-ways via lattice links.
In PS2 what mechanism exists for 1 Empire through their actions to make a 2-way occur? (inb4 leaving the cont and letting the other two just fight)

[Stardouser]

BF3 Metro 24/7 is fun, fy_iceworld 24/7 servers are fun, 3 ways are fun, do you actually get much done... no.

We want fights to move, progress and advance based on our actions, the very map is setup to keep a perpetual 3-way going, essentially a huge 24/7 Metro point B grindfest with Tanks/Aircav taking the place of grenade/m320 spam.


BF3 Metro isn't fun for everyone. There are major pockets of resistance to DICE's philosophy of focusing only on meatgrind maps.

And I can tell you I would not be playing PS2 if it were what you just described, a perpetual grindfest. Grinds should be able to happen but not perpetually. There should be a balance between dead time between firefights and travel time to the next firefight, but cutting dead time/travel time to zero is not balance.

[Stardouser]

Listen to Bobby. Well respected PS1 player that can contrast BF to PS for you.

I don't get it. It sounds like he is advocating a perpetual grindfest. It's always hard to tell what people mean, but that sounds awfully like a battle with zero dead time(to plan the next move, flank, etc) between component firefights. Not sure why anyone would log out of Metro to have the same thing in PS2?

[Stardouser]

No he is not. He is pointing out to you the similarities between that map and PS2.

Ah, so he's on our side then...if I understand correctly now...

So what makes this happen? The smallness of the continent and the resulting inevitable entrance of the 3rd empire into the battle? In other words, the close proximity of any 2 way battle to the borders of the map in any direction will very soon result in the 3rd empire pushing into it?

[Pyreal]

Does a faction have to sequentially capture hexes?

I mean this: In order to capture Hex 5, you must first capture Hex 1 thru 4 in order.

[SKYeXile]

Does a faction have to sequentially capture hexes?

I mean this: In order to capture Hex 5, you must first capture Hex 1 thru 4 in order.

You dont have to have a hex touching the hex you want to capture, however if you do, the cap timer willbe shorter if you own nearby hexes to your target hex.

[bkx]

It's not gay if it's in a 3-way

[Chinchy]

I'm not really concerned. Yes, 3 ways will happen especially at the "T" section of the map, but we have to remember most of the map is not around that section. There will probably always be a 3-way going on, but majority of the fights would still be good ol' faction vs. faction.

I like three ways, not as the primary way of fighting but it's a nice change at times.


You also need to remember TTK's are a lot faster so skilled solo talent will shine just a tad brighter than dull in this game. Compared to PS where you had to rely on lemmings to back you up. Battles should be a lot more fun and fast paced, not to mention from the footage I saw infantry combat outside doesn't seem to be like PS stick your dick in the meat grinder type of game play we are used to. 3 ways could be a lot of fun to play if not, very pretty to watch. :P

[Sabot]

A well organized assault can use 3 ways to their advatage. IMO this game only works as well as it does because of the possibilty of a 3 way. Only in PS and in DAoC has PvP worked as well as it did... and that was only because we have three factions clashing. I mean you all know the problems with only 2 factions and only 2 way fighting all the time. Pop. imbalances due to a number of reasons, entire armies circumventing fighting all together because it's easier to just cap as fast as possible... the list goes on.
I say embrace the three-way... use it to win.

[Dreamcast]

3 way is awesome.

When a battle turns to be 3 way, is just so much fun.

[Shade Millith]

I'm going to go against the grain (At least the grain of the first page) and say that I LOVED a good threeway.

It was also a needed equaliser to prevent total domination. Two factions is all well and good, right up until one side starts dominating the other. With only two factions, there's nothing that can be done, you simply get pushed back until you can't be pushed back anymore, then get camped in by a larger, better equipped force.

With three factions, the winning side is going to be the one with all the land, thus the third empire is going to attack the winning empire while they're busy.

[The noob]

I suspect that the hex system might eleviate some troubles with this. If everyone pushes towards the center of the map at once, of course you'll get a three way. If you decide to push alongside the borders into an empire's territory, you'll likely only get a response from the faction you're pushing into, and not the third one, since they may have no territory nearby, they likely won't take the effort to participate in that fight since they'll likely have too large of a cap penalty to compete.

[Kalbuth]

Ah, so he's on our side then...if I understand correctly now...

So what makes this happen? The smallness of the continent and the resulting inevitable entrance of the 3rd empire into the battle? In other words, the close proximity of any 2 way battle to the borders of the map in any direction will very soon result in the 3rd empire pushing into it?

Imho, exactly that. Conts are too small for the number of players envisionned. As well as number of hexes which are too small to, creating too few objectives.

There's 2 way to looks at this, the old PS1 way, and "something else".

In the old PS1 way, your objective is going to capture the whole continent. With 3 continents only and sanctuary for each faction, you can forget about doing this, and the issue is in fact the lack of continent in this case. More conts, and you'll spread each armies across conts, resulting in 2-ways on some conts, and 3-ways on others. In this case, solution will be to wait, because new continents are supposed to be released in X months, etc...

In the "new way", your objective is going to capture only a sub-set of the whole continent. Because everything is bigger, capturing only a portion of a map can be a success in itself. We could go so far as to consider a base as the equivalent of a PS1 continent, in terms of work and time needed to capture it. Who knows, maybe?
In this scenario, 2-ways are happening on a local basis, like 2-ways are happening on a continent-wide basis in old PS1 system.
There are drawbacks imho in this way of thinking :
* Map is small, and has few Hexes. That makes very few sub-set of continent possible, which means the few 2-ways occuring are easily reachable by the 3rd army, and interesting to them beause "not that far".
I don't see how SOE can correct that seeing how they describe the map making process (hand made, etc...)
* There is NOTHING technically preventing a 3-way. In the old PS1 days, the lattice layout could prevent completely an empire X to enter a 2-way fight between Y and Z, because they had no way to reach the cont through the lattice network, so they couldn't even put a hack attempt on any base.
In the hex system, there's nothing. Any empire can attempt anything, anywhere. They have a safe zone everywhere, and can try taking an hex anywhere.
This could be solved by putting some kind of lattice between continents disabling the safe zone on cont X if empire has no "link" to it, and adding the equivalent of PS1 Sanctuaries to make a "link check" for each continent. A king of going backward.

I think the better hope we can have is that SOE adds new continents asap after release.

[SGTalon]

3 way battles are great, It just means more targets for my MAX to mow down.

I personally loved turning battles into 3 way fights. And when you are a defender and a 3rd faction comes in and hit your attacker, it makes for a great time.

I don't see a problem with this. I have a feeling that we are reading too much into this whole foothold thing. If the continent is sufficiently large, and there are enough bases, the number of factions is not really going to be an issue.

I suppose one way to look at it is, if this were reality, and we had a planet that we were fighting for against 2 other factions, would we want these arbitrary limits put on what we could do? Would we want all these stupid rules about what we can attack and what we can't?

If you had a base that had to be linked to the other one before you could capture it, wouldn't you go in and rewire some stuff to remove that stupid link?

Reality is our goal, not random rules. No arbitrary gameplay mechanics. We want realism... well future realism :)

[Kalbuth]

Reality is our goal, not random rules. No arbitrary gameplay mechanics. We want realism... well future realism :)
I'm sorry, but talk for yourself. Gameplay >> realism, in case of Planetside

[kaffis]

I'm not really concerned. Yes, 3 ways will happen especially at the "T" section of the map, but we have to remember most of the map is not around that section. There will probably always be a 3-way going on, but majority of the fights would still be good ol' faction vs. faction.

I like three ways, not as the primary way of fighting but it's a nice change at times.
This. The majority of the front will almost always be a two-way.

Most of the time, there will be one 3-way meeting spot on the front that may or may not have a big fight around it.

Sometimes, another 3-way might pop up.

This isn't terrible.

[Kalbuth]

This. The majority of the front will almost always be a two-way.

Most of the time, there will be one 3-way meeting spot on the front that may or may not have a big fight around it.

Sometimes, another 3-way might pop up.

This isn't terrible.

This is entirely dependant on the size of the map vs number of players and vs number of hex on it. I don't see much hex on the screenshots unfortunately

[Coreldan]

This is entirely dependant on the size of the map vs number of players and vs number of hex on it. I don't see much hex on the screenshots unfortunately

http://i19.photobucket.com/albums/b164/Coreldan/indarhex.png

[Meecrob]

Ide like to give my 2 cents here. The PS community seems a bit schizophrenic. At one time their screaming "we don't want one man pwn machines", but now when i read this it seems people do want the ability to influence a battle of 2000 people by backhacking with a squad of 10.

This.... does not compute to me :huh:.

[Kalbuth]

Ide like to give my 2 cents here. The PS community seems a bit schizophrenic. At one time their screaming "we don't want one man pwn machines", but now when i read this it seems people do want the ability to influence a battle of 2000 people by backhacking with a squad of 10.

This.... does not compute to me :huh:.

Mmmh, no. The point is about being able to "do something" on lower scale than zerg-fest, not "win the war" on this scale ;)
Gen holds, backhacks didn't win the war back in the days, they helped doing it.

@coreldan : spot on, on the map you show, I see 2 hex with 2-way potential, the VS / NC westernmost ones. All the rest has 3 empires in close proximity and having a legitimate claim on them.
Note that they group hex togethers, I'm counting grouped hexes, not individual ones, as fighting objectives.

[kaffis]

@coreldan : spot on, on the map you show, I see 2 hex with 2-way potential, the VS / NC westernmost ones. All the rest has 3 empires in close proximity and having a legitimate claim on them.
Note that they group hex togethers, I'm counting grouped hexes, not individual ones, as fighting objectives.
And this is only because it appears that NC made a successful push East that was then cut off by the VS, leaving the NC with an orphaned section between what is likely to devolve back into a TR/VS front.

Like I said, occasionally, you'll see that kind of "secondary" opportunity for 3-ways pop up. But I doubt it will be the norm.

[Xyntech]

I've made a mock-up of how I'm assuming the battles are intended to spread out in general. Click to enlarge:

http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3766/battlelines.png (http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/3766/battlelines.png)

In the mockup, I have the VS being underpopulated on the continent. The NC and TR are reacting to this by trying to push the VS back towards their foothold.

The NC have the highest population on the continent, and are using raw numbers to try to take control of as many bases as possible. The TR and VS are reacting to this by trying to remove all access to one of the resource types for the NC.

The TR have a more mid range population and are mostly trying to hold their lines. As a result, the NC and VS are having a hard time gaining much more of the TR's territory.



If battle lines work the way I think the devs are trying to make them work, we will have plenty of 2 way battles. The 3 ways would mostly happen in the parts of the map where all three sides battle lines converged, but beyond that I don't think the empires would have much interest in forcing a 3 way.

Tactically speaking, it's probably better to try to backhack the enemy than try to jump into the middle of the other two empires 2 way battle. For those players who absolutely want to fight in a 3 way, there will probably be a few to satisfy them, but I think most other players will often stick more to their 2 way battle lines.

It will end up being somewhat democratic I guess. If players end up wanting to fight in 3 ways, then those players will make more 3 way battles happen. If players end up wanting more 2 ways, they will automatically tend to avoid getting into 3 ways as much as possible.

I think it will balance itself out. There will be as many 2 ways and 3 ways as the players want.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

I think it will balance itself out. There will be as many 2 ways and 3 ways as the players want.

The fights have to have some sort of 'form' otherwise it'll just be a huge clusterf*ck of 10v10v10 in every single hex. Aka TDM on a large scale.

Every resource has the same value whether it's on the 'frontline' or next to your foothold, why not just backhack the ones deep in enemy territory, you can say, well you don't get resources from those hexes unless they're connected by friendly hexes to your foothold. Ok but denying them to the enemy is just as good as if we were getting them. So you manage to successfully take a rear area resource hex, the enemy frontline weakens as they pull back troops to resecure the area and surrounding hexes that also got hacked/capped. Your frontline advances a couple hexes, great. Now, however, you've got a larger rear area of vulnerable hexes which subsequently gets successfully capped, now your frontline weakens as you fall back to resecure it and the enemy pushes back to where they were a couple hours before. So after all that hard work/fighting by both sides the net change was zero.

You can then counter by saying that the further away from your foothold the hex is the larger the resource gain (in order to actually have some sort of frontline incentive around the middle of the map with higher resources there). The problem with that then means that whoever gets the first 'breakthrough' on the front is then subsequently getting more resources from those captured hexes and could begin to snowball from that. You could then argue that the inverse distance/resource relationship then disincentivize the deep strikes in the first place (it's only 20 resource instead of 50 etc and it's so far in enemy territory, way too much effort for the result etc). So why would people be willing to do that? You might then say the mission system, yes that could work but then the enemy empire is doing exactly the same thing.

This hex system is just going to be insanely hard to actually get right, even then I think it's just going to turn into either 'frontline' grindfests or the map looking like a patchwork quilt, even before taking into account a third empire.
The whole system is designed to keep the equilibrium of 33%-33%-33% aka Cyssorside, where nothing really happens.

[Xyntech]

The fights have to have some sort of 'form' otherwise it'll just be a huge clusterf*ck of 10v10v10 in every single hex. Aka TDM on a large scale.

The form is going to have to come in with how easy it is to hack hexes that are already touching your own territory, vs how hard it is to hack hexes that are completely surrounded by enemy territory. Currently we don't know enough about how they plan to achieve this, but it will be essential that they get it right, or else it will often degenerate into the clusterfuck you predict.

On the other hand, if they do get the battle lines right, the front lines will be where most of the fighting happens. Back hacks will still occur (unless they make it almost impossible to hack isolated bases, which I really hope they don't), but the vast majority of the fighting will be based around taking territory that is close to yours and defending territory that is close to the enemies.

That last part is actually another variable, whether it will be worth it to defend a hex instead of just letting it flip back and forth, but we saw defense XP awarded in one of TB's videos and losing a hex would lose you those resources, so I think there will be incentive to defend territory, isntead of just letting the enemy have it. Allowing them to have it would also potentially allow them to take even more of your territory. Thus, battle lines would be drawn and attempts would be made to hold them.

One thing I do strongly disagree with you on is that fights will always degenerate into 3 ways. Even if the system was broken and the "front lines" were meaningless, I still believe that a lot of the battles would be 2 ways, a clusterfuck of 10vs10's if you will.

Just because we have 3 sides doesn't mean that they will always seek each other out. As I said in my previous post, the 3 ways vs 2 ways will mostly work itself out. If a lot of players enjoy 3 ways, there will be a lot of 3 ways. If a lot of players enjoy 2 ways, there will be a lot of 2 ways. Either way, there will always be at least a few 2 and 3 ways, as long as there are at least a few people who enjoy them and seek them out.

This hex system is just going to be insanely hard to actually get right, even then I think it's just going to turn into either 'frontline' grindfests or the map looking like a patchwork quilt, even before taking into account a third empire.
The whole system is designed to keep the equilibrium of 33%-33%-33% aka Cyssorside, where nothing really happens.

I agree that it will be tricky to get right. I hope the devs know what they are doing in this regard, because it will be a fine balancing act to get it just right. But if they do get it right, I stand by that mock up I made. I believe that cyssorside will only happen in that central cluster, happening to mostly be spread over 3 major hex grids in my hypothetical scenario. There will be just as much room for 2 ways, of every pairing.

With the larger bases and greater number of captureable points, along with the higher populations, these continents really will behave much more like an amalgamation of multiple continents from the first game smashed together. It will be less likely now that an empire will be entirely pushed off a continent (footholds not withstanding), but pushing them back a long ways will be the PS2 equivalent of kicking them off the continent, in regards to how much real estate they would have lost.

Kicking an empire entirely off of a continent won't be unheard of either. Take any four random PS1 continents, and then kick an enemy entirely off of them, including at least one of them being a home continent. Foot holds will not stop this from happening, although it may be a rarer event than it used to be.

Anyhow, I'm confident that 3 ways will work themselves out. If the TR are actively seeking out a VS vs NC fight to crash, it's because they enjoy a 3 way. 3 way seekers will seek out other 3 way seekers, the same way 2 wayers will seek each other out. Certainly there will be times when a good 2 way is ruined by unwelcome guests, or when an epic 3 way is ruined because one of the sides gives up, but that's Planetside for you. It won't be all of the time. There will be plenty of room for whatever the player base decides they want.

And if they player base decides that they do want to mostly do 3 ways, there is nothing that any of us will be able to do to stop them. There is a reason Cyssorside was always raging. Players enjoyed it. I liked it often enough. I don't want to do it all of the time, but it's good fun now and then. I just hope that the playerbase tends to agree with me, that 3 ways are good, but in moderation.

[Mechzz]

This hex system is just going to be insanely hard to actually get right, even then I think it's just going to turn into either 'frontline' grindfests or the map looking like a patchwork quilt, even before taking into account a third empire.
The whole system is designed to keep the equilibrium of 33%-33%-33% aka Cyssorside, where nothing really happens.

In a world where nobody can die and nothing can be truly destroyed, nothing ever really happens.

Which is why I still think that if a faction gets zero-based it should be reduced to 2 footholds (on the other 2 continents) for 48 hours. So the "winners" get to slug it out for that time to see if they can zero-base the remaining faction.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

Kicking an empire entirely off of a continent won't be unheard of either.


You make some good points but I think it will actually be impossible to kick an empire from a continent, due to the sheer concentration of their forces (even when 2:1 double teamed) bottled up in the last few hexes around their foothold and near non existant supply line distance, all the while you've now got a massively extended 'frontline' with the 3rd empire and a huge amount of vulnerable hexes in your hinterland.

With regards to the clusterf*ck 2-ways rather than 3-ways, there's no reason for them not to be 3-ways, you might want to deny the resources in the hex to the current owner but the 3rd empire wants to deny them to you both.

It doesn't really matter if 2 sides want a 2-way fight because the 3rd side is always there ready to jump in when they want to, not you, it is out of your control.

In PS1 you could at least mitigate the occurrence of a 3-way by keeping guard of your off cont links or block hacking etc, stopping drain attempts etc, the reason they were even trying for the 3-way in the first place was because they didn't have anyone else to fight, ie low pops.

At release there were ostensibly 9 2-way (home)conts and 1 natural 3-way cont (Searhus). They then introduced a free form 0 homecont system which was fun for a while (after sorting out zerobasing problems) and then the 3 sets of 2 Home conts and 4 benefit conts, with Cyssor getting the dropship benefit, which essentially made it the de-facto global target ensuring 3-ways in perpetuity there (until swapped with new Oshur, no one went there). It did bring up some ridiculous situations however, including the benefit owner not even having to bother fighting there since the other two empires were locked in a stuggle to lock it and secure the benefit for themselves, all the while the owners enjoyed the benefit on other continents.

It eventually got to the point where each empire really only had enough for one poplock, reducing the poplock numbers didn't really allieviate that, since it would then be for example a TR(133)vsVS(133) poplock fight and the NC poplock and spare (166 being the old poplock number) having a total of 66(2x33) people to fight against, spread between 2 empires, essentially a 2+:1 advantage in both fights, so they'd cap the 2 conts they were fighting on and then just join the other poplock fight after gaining the links and making the ubiquitous 3-way grindfests that 'defined' PS at the end.

3-ways only became prevelant due to the developers forcing the situation, ala Cyssorside and then due to low numbers.

[MrBloodworth]

3 Empires is not a mistake.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

3 Empires fighting globally is not being discussed here as a mistake, merely the forcing of 3-ways as the 'normal' continental mechanic.

A lot of people seem to say that the 3-way is a sort of balancing mechanism but why should an empire that's getting hammered get a reprieve because of a someone else?

If your empire fails at tactical/strategic execution you should be punished for it, not the empire that is beating you, as they are now such an attractive target to the third empire for backhacking (which they can do at any time, without having to bother with links). It negates any sense of accomplishment because half (ie a 2v1) was nothing to do with your empire.

[Xyntech]

in a game where rounds reset, 2 sides is fine, but you can't allow one side to gain too much momentum in a persistent shooter. everyone needs a chance to play and have fun. the 3rd side is critical to balance.

when we talk of an empire being impossible to kick off a continent, let's not forget that there will be two other entire continents, each one also being the equivalent of several ps1 continents. I think it would be perfectly possible, even if somewhat uncommon, for an empire to get pushed off of one continent and keep fighting on the other two.

planetside had times when one empire would lock the entire world, all 10 continents. so don't tell me an empire won't hold every territory on at least one ps2 continent occasionally, much less 2 sides simply pushing the third side out of the continent temporarily.

even cyssor got capped quite a bit.

I also think that limited numbers of players will also help prevent constant 3 ways. if all of your players are already fighting in a central 3 way and several 2 ways along your border, you simply won't have enough people to carelessly throw at the other empires 2 way. I certainly wouldn't consider 10 NC, 128 TR, and 116 VS a 3 way.

[Bobby Shaftoe]

you can't allow one side to gain too much momentum in a persistent shooter.

the 3rd side is critical to balance.

I think it would be perfectly possible, even if somewhat uncommon, for an empire to get pushed off of one continent and keep fighting on the other two.

planetside had times when one empire would lock the entire world, all 10 continents.

I also think that limited numbers of players will also help prevent constant 3 ways

Except momentum stopped as soon as the continent was capped. That was the reset, the fight moved on to another continent.

The 3rd side should be critical to balance GLOBALLY, not in each and every fight.(which isn't possible with how they've set it up)

Population should not be a problem in a f2p game, ever, especially something as unique as this, there are many many grindy, uninspired, mind numbing fp2 mmos out there that still have thousands of people playing them, if PS2 (and its higher quality) can't match them with same model, then MMOFPSs won't work. Sub fees, broadband not being prevelant and beefy specs were major hinderances to PS getting and keeping decent populations. Now broadband is ubiquitous, it's free to play and they claim the game engine scales down extremely well (to be proved).

Population is what it boils down to, if they get full pops, then it's just a 3way grindfest, on each cont, if they don't, people will probably take the easy route, zerg one cont fully and 'cap' it whilst the other empires do the same to the other 2 conts, one cont each, sounds thrilling...

Can you tell me how many world dominations actually occurred with decent pops? I know there was at least 2 or 3 on Werner before pops nosedived, how many on the US servers? So that was 2/3 'win' conditions over YEARS of game time. Why shouldn't there be a rare 'win' condition like that, all that hard work and you get to say, we captured the world!

[Malorn]

3 sides is vitally important. When once side gets too powerful, the other two keep it in check. It worked extremely well for DAOC and Planetside 1, apart from the double-team issue (for more information you can read my manifesto where I go into detail about the double-team cat-and-mouse game played on Emerald).

However I think the real issue the OP was getting at was that the continents seem set up for a perpetual 3-way battle and thus stagnation and no sense of accomplishment. The moment one side gains any ground in one direction the other empire will hit them and they'll lose it. And not putting your foothold at your back protecting that area means you are in a less-secure position.

Quite simply I think this problem solves itself if the continents were bigger. Indar seems too small and with 2000 players I easily see it becoming a stagnant 3-way with some small ebb-and-flow with progress only really coming when one side has a significantly larger population.

With larger continents there's more room to maneuver around and capture sub-regions.

I like the idea of sub-regions on a continent having strategic value and benefits. I believe that's intended to be the whole point of the resource system - each territory has value with different regions having different value. I think that only works out when each empire has the same resources used for the same commodities, however.

If Indar was 3-4 times its current size I don't think we'd have nearly as many concerns over stagnant battles. But it just seems small when one can fly across it in less than a minute.

[Malorn]

Can you tell me how many world dominations actually occurred with decent pops? I know there was at least 2 or 3 on Werner before pops nosedived, how many on the US servers? So that was 2/3 'win' conditions over YEARS of game time. Why shouldn't there be a rare 'win' condition like that, all that hard work and you get to say, we captured the world!

While I agree with you in the need for global strategic value. I personally love global strategy and dedicated a lot of my PlanetSide 1 time studying it and getting extremely good at predicting movements and recognizing battle patterns.

I was also there for the first two world-locks in PlanetSide history (both NC Emerald).

As someone who was there and actively participating and coordinating efforts with a handful of other CR5s I can tell you how it happened - population and diligent CR5s. The world-locks occurred in the middle of the night when population was extremely low and our faction had 45+% of the pop. That was enough to pin the other empires in with a small population. Since defending was relatively easy we used small squads to resecure while a larger force took bases. We also had a few great CR5's (Cailet and Halsey) doing ANT runs and countering drain attempts across 9 continents (Drain attempts were mostly being managed by the handful of Enclave online to do it)

The world locks were a great propaganda piece but I'll be the first to call a ***** a ***** - it wasn't a huge achievement because it was only possible due to extreme population differences in the middle of the night when there weren't any large organized outfits on to stop it. The VS and TR lost the will to fight and by the time it was done I think some of them had even switched over to NC characters or simply logged off for the night because they didn't care enough to try to stop it.

Global lock isn't a good goal for the game. Moreover it is detrimental - when you're sanc-locked you can't do anything. It's frustrating and boring having very few options as a player. It encourages people to log off or go to a different server and that isn't what you want to happen in the game.

There are other ways to create the sense of achievement other than denying the entire game world to 2/3 (or more accurately 1/2) of the player base.

[Jimmuc]

the problem imo is the footholds and there only being 3 continents at first. when they start adding on the others..do we really want 6-7 constant 3-ways? i think there is too much focus on the epic 3 way battles and it's eclipsed the epic 2-way battles. Higby talks a lot about the meta-games of PS2 but he seems to be forgetting about the global war meta-game. why not allow us to form our own battle fronts? allow us to attack who we want and only want? what happens when i get bored of the 3-way, go off to find another battle only to find 6 other 3-ways going on? sometimes you only want fight one other side (don't just tell me to move to the other side of the map)

in short-term the footholds are an great idea since it allows for huge amounts of data collecting but it will be a problem in the long-term.