dangers of stat whoring

moosepoop · 2012-04-06, 10:07 PM

hi guys, i just came back from a 2 hour battlefield 3 session with a gaping asshole. my team had been relentlessly raped due to team stacking.

what is team stacking?

team stacking is the phenomenon in a shooter where all the skilled players all switch to one side, while all the newbies stay on the other. this way the veterans can pad their stats, xp and k/d.

this was not a big problem in bad company 2 because there were 32 players max. however, in bf3 there can be up to 64 players. having a handful of skilled players stacked on one side in bc2 was annoying. having 20+ skilled players on one side turns into cold, merciless and relentless rape. the game became unplayable, spawn death, base rape, etc.

this happened because bf3 catered to the call of duty crowd, who are obsessed with stats. i am having nightmares about cod fans team stacking on planetside 2, a galactic tide of endless rape.

i think planetside 2 really needs to downplay the stats aspect of the game, or at least alter them to favor teamwork. for example, emphasize base captures and support acitivties over k/d.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-06, 10:14 PM

I on the other hand see good times ahead and another FC blanketed leader board.

Vash02 · 2012-04-06, 10:17 PM

I think the one empire per server limit will limit empire hopping somewhat.

Juniata · 2012-04-06, 10:32 PM

PS1 had stats for a long time and I never felt it took away from any teamwork aspects of the game. If anything, it just showed who was more a waste of life playing 24/7. Obviously the two games aren't synonymous, but I think it would be interesting to have stats again, especially if they include information that's not only related to kills.

moosepoop · 2012-04-06, 10:22 PM

the only deterrant i can think of right now are high xp bonuses for low pop factions. but im not sure if it will help much.

those cod players have ruined bf3. they are sadistic monsters that enjoy playing cheap and unfairly and get off at griefing and humiliating the other team. they dont care about fun or sportsmanship.

bf3 is a teamwork oriented game. its not meant to be played like deathmatch. so the cod players workaround is stacking the teams and raping one side. the same thing will happen in ps2 except on a huge scale that might cripple the game.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-06, 10:29 PM

pretty sure you will see more of a benefit than just XP, with less empire population your faction will gain more resources for the land it holds in comparison to the larger faction holding the same ground.

moosepoop · 2012-04-06, 10:35 PM

resources wont matter. currently in battlefield 3, its not the noobs that team stack, its the hardcore stat whoring veterans.

the problem is that one side might use overwhelingly cheap and unfair tactics, using the most op, unbalanced and glitched vehicles/weapons, etc. on a scale never seen in planetside 1.

Originally Posted by Juniata

PS1 had stats for a long time and I never felt it took away from any teamwork aspects of the game. If anything, it just showed who was more a waste of life playing 24/7. Obviously the two games aren't synonymous, but I think it would be interesting to have stats again, especially if they include information that's not only related to kills.

ps2 wants to cater to modern casual gamers who have a vastly differnt mindset than the "good old days". you got a lot more sociopaths who dont play for fun but for POWER.

listen guys i know this topic sounds bizaare and far fetched, but many battlefield 3 servers right now are UNPLAYABLE. on bf3 i can switch servers. on planetside 2 this can break the game.

SKYeXile · 2012-04-06, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

resources wont matter. currently in battlefield 3, its not the noobs that team stack, its the hardcore stat whoring veterans.

the problem is that one side might use overwhelingly cheap and unfair tactics, using the most op, unbalanced and glitched vehicles/weapons, etc.

well good for them, if they have no resources to pull advanced vehicles and are are still owning you, grats to them.

Outfits in planetside get off on using the most cheap and easiest tactics to pull off a "win"..OUTNUMBER THEM 2:1 WITH MAXES! You either curl up in the fetal position and take it, or have everybody pull out AV and AV maxes and rape their face in.

If something overpowered or good is ingame expect people to use it, learn to counter it or just use it yourself, there is no honour in gaming.

Stardouser · 2012-04-06, 10:42 PM

Battlefield 3 focuses on twitch skills, and has little to no focus on strategic or tactical skill. Planetside will hopefully be a game where preparation can affect matters as well, which should even things out even if the elite guys all stack to one empire.

moosepoop · 2012-04-06, 10:58 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Battlefield 3 focuses on twitch skills, and has little to no focus on strategic or tactical skill. Planetside will hopefully be a game where preparation can affect matters as well, which should even things out even if the elite guys all stack to one empire.

in bf3, the teams are scrambled at the beginning of the match. its when one team begin to win that the team switching happens.

all the new players end up on one team with no idea what to do, while the other team is coordinated, uses strategy, uses the terrain, sunlight etc, fights ferociously, and supports each other with teamwork.

and the other team proceed to mercilessly rape the newbies to oblivion to farm k/d.

what may happen in ps2 is that one side be permanently sanc locked in their uncappable base, with no way to break out, because the majority of the leaders and tacticians are on the other factions.

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

well good for them, if they have no resources to pull advanced vehicles and are are still owning you, grats to them.

Outfits in planetside get off on using the most cheap and easiest tactics to pull off a "win"..OUTNUMBER THEM 2:1 WITH MAXES! You either curl up in the fetal position and take it, or have everybody pull out AV and AV maxes and rape their face in.

If something overpowered or good is ingame expect people to use it, learn to counter it or just use it yourself, there is no honour in gaming.

ps1 outfits care about their factions. they win for their factions.

in ps2 you will a lot of players that dont care about their factions. they just want to win.

Captain1nsaneo · 2012-04-07, 01:13 AM

Don't lose sleep over this.

SniperSteve · 2012-04-07, 01:27 AM

There is a big difference between PS and other shooters. In other shooters, what team you are on is basically just a color difference. It really means nothing. In PlanetSide, I wouldn't be caught dead playing Vanu or NC, because I am TR. It doesn't matter if we are loosing terribly or rolling the enemy. I will always be TR because that is my faction. So team stacking (or 4th empire as it is called in PS) isn't a big deal. It is there, but doesn't seem to be as big a deal as in other small FPS games.

Blackwolf · 2012-04-07, 01:31 AM

Originally Posted by moosepoop

hi guys, i just came back from a 2 hour battlefield 3 session with a gaping asshole. my team had been relentlessly raped due to team stacking.

what is team stacking?

team stacking is the phenomenon in a shooter where all the skilled players all switch to one side, while all the newbies stay on the other. this way the veterans can pad their stats, xp and k/d.

this was not a big problem in bad company 2 because there were 32 players max. however, in bf3 there can be up to 64 players. having a handful of skilled players stacked on one side in bc2 was annoying. having 20+ skilled players on one side turns into cold, merciless and relentless rape. the game became unplayable, spawn death, base rape, etc.

this happened because bf3 catered to the call of duty crowd, who are obsessed with stats. i am having nightmares about cod fans team stacking on planetside 2, a galactic tide of endless rape.

i think planetside 2 really needs to downplay the stats aspect of the game, or at least alter them to favor teamwork. for example, emphasize base captures and support acitivties over k/d.

Not seeing a problem. If an outfit can organize itself and get it's bleep together and keep it together, they deserve to wipe the floor with anyone that crosses their paths without the same level of teamwork and dedication. And even an elite outfit with over 100 members (and this is a dramatic exageration of what I suspect will actually be possible) functioning together in organized teamwork (at the same time), they are still standing against the projected thousands.

Quality > quantity, but not > quantity

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

well good for them, if they have no resources to pull advanced vehicles and are are still owning you, grats to them.

Outfits in planetside get off on using the most cheap and easiest tactics to pull off a "win"..OUTNUMBER THEM 2:1 WITH MAXES! You either curl up in the fetal position and take it, or have everybody pull out AV and AV maxes and rape their face in.

If something overpowered or good is ingame expect people to use it, learn to counter it or just use it yourself, there is no honour in gaming.

Also this. Other shooters most people are familiar with are little more then Roman gladiatorial combat matches compared to Planetside's WWII scaled warzones. Set rules, set team quantities, set parameters and variables. In PS you'd better be prepared to face 3:1 odds because half your empire decided to ignore the fool on global and charge into the caves (or whatever PS2 equivalents there might be). And just as often, you might get "lucky" and find yourself facing an army 1/3rd your size because the third empire is hammering at their butts. At which point you just have to pray your command structure thinks ahead a bit and plans on how to avoid that 3rd army long enough to wipe out the enemy in front of you.

It's cheap, it's dirty, and it's anything goes. But the number of players involved means it's never boring

Stardouser · 2012-04-07, 01:38 AM

This reminds me...so each continent should hold like 2000 players, that's 6000 per server. 3 servers = 18000 players. Now, I know not everyone is going to play at once, but, if that's all they are planning to do initially, I think that's going to massively underestimate the demand. I assume then, that 3 servers to start off with is what the Beta will start with, full release will surely have more servers.

With that said, there is a danger of organized squads from PS1 going to their chosen empire en masse and causing some empires on some servers to get the shit end of the stick from day one. Because, even if they give some sort of exp bonus to underpopulated empires, that's only going to attract new players with no outfit affiliations. Those kinds of players will take weeks before they even start joining squads.

Blackwolf · 2012-04-07, 01:43 AM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

This reminds me...so each continent should hold like 2000 players, that's 6000 per server. 3 servers = 18000 players. Now, I know not everyone is going to play at once, but, if that's all they are planning to do initially, I think that's going to massively underestimate the demand. I assume then, that 3 servers to start off with is what the Beta will start with, full release will surely have more servers.

With that said, there is a danger of organized squads from PS1 going to their chosen empire en masse and causing some empires on some servers to get the shit end of the stick from day one. Because, even if they give some sort of exp bonus to underpopulated empires, that's only going to attract new players with no outfit affiliations. Those kinds of players will take weeks before they even start joining squads.

Uhh, question. How did you conclude that there would only be 6000 players per server?

And why would you want more servers? Pure PvP games like Planetside thrive on fewer servers and more controlled continent pop locks. Unlike other MMOs, population density is vital to Planetside. Shooting the indestructible trees only amuses one for so long.