The 3-way mistake?

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-05-28, 12:54 PM

(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 · 2012-05-28, 01:00 PM

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.

MacXXcaM · 2012-05-28, 01:20 PM

Originally Posted by Mastachief

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

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...

Stardouser · 2012-05-28, 01:04 PM

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.

Snipefrag · 2012-05-28, 01:10 PM

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.

Coreldan · 2012-05-28, 01:25 PM

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.

Purple · 2012-05-28, 04:38 PM

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

Chinchy · 2012-05-29, 01:21 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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

kaffis · 2012-05-29, 09:34 AM

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · 2012-05-29, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by kaffis

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 · 2012-05-29, 09:55 AM

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

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

Meecrob · 2012-05-29, 10:06 AM

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

.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-28, 02:12 PM

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 · 2012-05-28, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

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.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-28, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

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.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

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.