The Third Empire

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

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

Originally Posted by LordReaver

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)

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.

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

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

Originally Posted by Bags

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