One-empire-per-server really needs to be reinstated

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by ItZMuRdA

With all due respect, that is a very poor analogy. There are many more people that benefit from this for legitimate reasons like playing alongside outfits and friends they've known for years, if not almost a decade now. On the flip side, there is absolutely no benefit to leaving your valuables on the sidewalk.

Likewise, let us realize that it is very easy and fast to create a second account, whether you are a griefer or a legitimate player looking to play with friends. The big difference between either of these activities is how invested the person is in them. The griefer does not care about the account or the character, has likely spent little or no certs or station cash on it, and in most cases prefers to make a second account so it cannot be tied back to him or his primary account. The legitimate players, on the other hand, especially now since this feature has been active for over two weeks, have spent plenty of time and resources (both in the form of certs and real money via station cash) on their characters. To then go back and further restrict that is a huge problem for them, with little to no effect on the griefers that you are all supposedly trying to target with this.

I'm sorry, but this really isn't the right solution. I love this game and plan to play it for years to come as I did the original, but if SOE randomly decided to reinstate 1 empire per server, let alone even restrict my choices in a free to play game by implementing an empire switch timer, after I have spent a bunch of time and money on each of my characters, saying that I would be disappointed would be putting it very lightly. It wouldn't be so easy to just create a new account when I've got 3 characters above BR20 and one at BR50, all with station cash spent on them; but that griefer would have absolutely no problem creating another BR1 on a fresh account. I can only hope this message is getting through to you guys. Please find a different approach and don't cause a serious downgrade in quality of life for so many of us that have been enjoying the innocence of playing multiple empires on a given server.

NO NO NO

Im not making the case that the cons are stronger than the pros.

Im pointing out that its a fallacy to say that because someone can over come a barrier with signifigant effort that the barrier is there for not effective in general.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

NO NO NO

Im not making the case that the cons are stronger than the pros.

Im pointing out that its a fallacy to say that because someone can over come a barrier with signifigant effort that the barrier is there for not effective in general.

A valid point "in general," but even you say that you aren't making the case that the cons outweigh the pros here. All of us on the other side of the coin, however, are making the case that this simply isn't the right solution, given the much more widespread negative impact on legitimate players for little or no gain in the griefer department.

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

The people going on how cros faction play is fine because you cant stop serious griefers are deluded.

I don't think it's so much because they're deluded as it is they are 4th Empire players and will make any argument to support that way of playing.

[Figment]

Guess what was one of the reasons why I said servers should have been large enough for 30K people at the same time by simply having more copy continents on the same server. Hell, we could have been getting experience with a large scale intercontinental meta-game by now. >.>


"BUT NO, THE IMMERSION LOSS OF TEMPORARILY HAVING THE SAME CONTINENT A FEW TIMES OVER!!11one!twelve! D:"

Silly forummers don't plan ahead. Servermergers are coming. Accounts will require multiple characters on different empires per server.

Hey was that the same reason as to why we got multi-chars per empire when Johari and Konried were about to merge with Markov and Emerald? Why yes, yes it was (and why Werner got it too despite Jackson not ever really being that interesting). And did we learn from it? No, not all of us...

But what did they do to dampen the chain reaction of masses of people wanting to switch empire? They added a long duration switching timer! D: EGADSES. But since we have free accounts now, who needs to wait? Just make a spare account! So why bother adding a timer...



Of course not. Why use experience from the past? That'd be silly.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

I don't think it's so much because they're deluded as it is they are 4th Empire players and will make any argument to support that way of playing.

It's no secret that I play all 3 empires, and the same can probably be said for most people who share my side of this debate. I can guarantee, however, that I've never sat there and decided to switch to a winning empire. That concept seems very foreign to me for a number of reasons.

First, and perhaps most prominently, it isn't even very lucrative to switch to the winning team unless you get off on seeing that VICTORY message when you take a base. It is usually very boring following the zerg steamrolling the underpopulated defenders for your small chunks of capture experience. Not only is it boring, but I tend to get a heck of a lot more exp from actually killing people than I do from capturing bases. I think anyone who is reasonably skilled and has a basic knowledge of the game would find more efficiency in going for kills, doing support activity, etc., than just capping bases as well.

Secondly, many of us that play multiple empires have played PlanetSide for a very long time and have grown with various communities. I'm not sure if you played the original, but the community was a huge part of the game unlike any other I've seen in my 15+ years of online gaming. In PlanetSide 1, I took on a ridiculous feat of leveling 12 different characters to BR23-25 and CR5; 4 characters per empire. Over the course of that and while playing thereafter, I came to know and become very friendly with hundreds of wonderful people among the ranks of many of PlanetSide's premier outfits. That being said, I haven't ever anticipated the release of a game sequel like I have PlanetSide 2, and much of that anticipation came from the desire to hook back up with old friends and have some fun like old times. Since I was a rather large part of the PS community, I know literally hundreds of people who share this sentiment and who welcome the ability to play multiple empires on one server for these reasons, never for any "4th empire" nonsense or with any regard to griefing.

I honestly feel like the 4th empire phenomenon was just made up and pushed by people who were looking for a reason to blame whatever they are dissatisfied with on at any given time. Just like tons of kids these days scream "HACKER!" when they die ONCE to somebody who just happens to be good at a game. It happens all the time in games like Battlefield 3, and I'm seeing it more than I probably should in PS2 as well. I'm not so naive as to say that there isn't some guy out there who gets off on capturing bases and who always swaps to the winning team, but there are just as many, if not more, countering that by switching to the underdogs to get to defend their favorite base -- or people, like me, who play each empire depending on what we find fun while shooting the shit with our buddies. Either way, I highly doubt it's causing much of a problem or any significant imbalance in the way the game works. Perhaps you should work on realizing that many of us have legitimate reasons for wanting the multiple empires per server change to stay, and there isn't all of this 4th empire hoopla that you seem to think is underlying all of our motivations.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Figment

Hey was that the same reason as to why we got multi-chars per empire when Johari and Konried were about to merge with Markov and Emerald? Why yes, yes it was (and why Werner got it too despite Jackson not ever really being that interesting). And did we learn from it? No, not all of us...

You have no idea how happy I am that you remember Jackson. The server that seems to always get lost whenever anyone speaks of Emerald, Markov, Werner, Konried, and Johari.

Kudos, friend.

[krnasaur]

here lies the problem with F2P games

[Helwyr]

Originally Posted by ItZMuRdA

[...]I'm not so naive as to say that there isn't some guy out there who gets off on capturing bases and who always swaps to the winning team, but there are just as many, if not more, countering that by switching to the underdogs to get to defend their favorite base -- or people, like me, who play each empire depending on what we find fun while shooting the shit with our buddies. Either way, I highly doubt it's causing much of a problem or any significant imbalance in the way the game works.

All the reasons for Empire switching you listed including your own puts you in the 4th Empire Camp. While a common complaint about 4th Empire is they're players that constantly switch to the winning team, it isn't what defines them IMO, it's their complete lack of Server Faction loyalty. Naturally you say how is this a problem? In a game lacking much of a meaningful meta game in the first place not very much TBH, at least beyond the griefers and winning team band-wagoners that you've said isn't you. But what happens when players like myself push SOE for a meaningful Meta game that rewards and penalizes an entire server faction based on their successes and failures, will you support that or cry foul? Most 4th Empire are going to cry foul if the successes of say their TR character is going to handicap and penalize their NC and VS ones and visa versa.

It isn't for me to tell you what to find fun, but personally I find the idea of playing on all the sides and essentially against myself to be undesirable. I want everyone to feel invested in their Faction and to care whether their Faction controls a continent or base. I want wining and losing to go beyond how many certs I personally farmed or how great or bad my personal K/D happens to be. That's fun to me. All this requires metagame mechanics that will make being 4th Empire undesirable to most typical gamers.

[ItZMuRdA]

Originally Posted by Helwyr

All the reasons for Empire switching you listed including your own puts you in the 4th Empire Camp. While a common complaint about 4th Empire is they're players that constantly switch to the winning team, it isn't what defines them IMO, it's their complete lack of Server Faction loyalty. Naturally you say how is this a problem? In a game lacking much of a meaningful meta game in the first place not very much TBH, at least beyond the griefers and winning team band-wagoners that you've said isn't you. But what happens when players like myself push SOE for a meaningful Meta game that rewards and penalizes an entire server faction based on their successes and failures, will you support that or cry foul? Most 4th Empire are going to cry foul if the successes of say their TR character is going to handicap and penalize their NC and VS ones and visa versa.

It isn't for me to tell you what to find fun, but personally I find the idea of playing on all the sides and essentially against myself to be undesirable. I want everyone to feel invested in their Faction and to care whether their Faction controls a continent or base. I want wining and losing to go beyond how many certs I personally farmed or how great or bad my personal K/D happens to be. That's fun to me. All this requires metagame mechanics that will make being 4th Empire undesirable to most typical gamers.

I don't necessarily agree with your categorization of myself and those with similar playstyles as "4th empire," but I respect the fact that some people have different definitions of it. I will have you know, however, that I don't jump around empires all willy nilly. I usually invest a significant amount of hours to playing one at a given time, depending what my outfits and friends are up to. I also led NCSF for many years in PlanetSide 1, where at times we had 200-300 relatively active members and even though I'd dabble in TR and VS alts I certainly was primarily aligned with NC and felt a degree of faction loyalty in that. Regardless, I think our particular discussion is going a bit far off the topic of the thread. I'd like to see metagame improvements for PS2 as well, and I'm sure I'd adapt to them however need be to enjoy myself.

I still don't think any of this warrants a change back to one empire per server, though (or any restrictions on it for that matter). I understand the arguments in favor of that, but I feel like it's a long shot of a hopeful solution that wont really solve the problems or concerns that you all have. If metagame mechanics are implemented to where it is beneficial to align with one empire moreso than multiple, then so be it, and let the players that choose to play multiple empires also choose how they want to handle that. I don't think for any reason, however, would it be a good idea to pigeonhole people into being forced into playing one empire per server, or having to go out of their way to create multiple accounts to do so. I just don't think it adds up. Many of you have valid points in and of themselves, but I still don't think changing, reverting, or restricting multiple empire per server gameplay will help out anybody. Again, in a free to play model, it really just serves to hurt people looking for some legitimate enjoyment, where those who might like to abuse the system will still find a way around it by easily taking a minute to create a new account and hop on their new anonymous battle rank one character.

[Suitepee]

I think one empire per server should be reinstated.

After seeing threads like ComerEste's, I'd rather not have "griefers" do that on a regular basis, or see victory-hoppers just because their chosen faction is getting knocked around a bit.

If people want to make three accounts then fine, they can do that. But at least make them go through the trouble of doing that, rather than having a quick-swap easily accessible to all.

[Redshift]

As others have said, it's futile. People who wish to grief will make a second account, legit players who wish to play with friends are hurt instead, i said this right from the start when they said it would be 1 char per server.

The only fix for what you are worried about is to link players grief between chars on an account, (i don't know if they already do this or now in PS2). But even then any actual griefer would just spend 2 mins making a new account

[Illtempered]

Originally Posted by ItZMuRdA

It's no secret that I play all 3 empires, and the same can probably be said for most people who share my side of this debate. I can guarantee, however, that I've never sat there and decided to switch to a winning empire. That concept seems very foreign to me for a number of reasons.

First, and perhaps most prominently, it isn't even very lucrative to switch to the winning team unless you get off on seeing that VICTORY message when you take a base. It is usually very boring following the zerg steamrolling the underpopulated defenders for your small chunks of capture experience. Not only is it boring, but I tend to get a heck of a lot more exp from actually killing people than I do from capturing bases. I think anyone who is reasonably skilled and has a basic knowledge of the game would find more efficiency in going for kills, doing support activity, etc., than just capping bases as well.

Secondly, many of us that play multiple empires have played PlanetSide for a very long time and have grown with various communities. I'm not sure if you played the original, but the community was a huge part of the game unlike any other I've seen in my 15+ years of online gaming. In PlanetSide 1, I took on a ridiculous feat of leveling 12 different characters to BR23-25 and CR5; 4 characters per empire. Over the course of that and while playing thereafter, I came to know and become very friendly with hundreds of wonderful people among the ranks of many of PlanetSide's premier outfits. That being said, I haven't ever anticipated the release of a game sequel like I have PlanetSide 2, and much of that anticipation came from the desire to hook back up with old friends and have some fun like old times. Since I was a rather large part of the PS community, I know literally hundreds of people who share this sentiment and who welcome the ability to play multiple empires on one server for these reasons, never for any "4th empire" nonsense or with any regard to griefing.

I honestly feel like the 4th empire phenomenon was just made up and pushed by people who were looking for a reason to blame whatever they are dissatisfied with on at any given time. Just like tons of kids these days scream "HACKER!" when they die ONCE to somebody who just happens to be good at a game. It happens all the time in games like Battlefield 3, and I'm seeing it more than I probably should in PS2 as well. I'm not so naive as to say that there isn't some guy out there who gets off on capturing bases and who always swaps to the winning team, but there are just as many, if not more, countering that by switching to the underdogs to get to defend their favorite base -- or people, like me, who play each empire depending on what we find fun while shooting the shit with our buddies. Either way, I highly doubt it's causing much of a problem or any significant imbalance in the way the game works. Perhaps you should work on realizing that many of us have legitimate reasons for wanting the multiple empires per server change to stay, and there isn't all of this 4th empire hoopla that you seem to think is underlying all of our motivations.

Well-said, and I don't doubt your intentions or sincerity in this post. I just worry about lamers who do have a 4th empire mentality. We can't deny they exist. I'd also like it to be a little harder to quickly switch empires and grief. I know it's impossible to stop it, but what's wrong with making it a little harder each step of the way?

[Ghoest9]

Originally Posted by Redshift

As others have said, it's futile. People who wish to grief will make a second account, legit players who wish to play with friends are hurt instead, i said this right from the start when they said it would be 1 char per server.

t

aarrgghhhh

stop with the fallacy

[Redshift]

Originally Posted by Ghoest9

aarrgghhhh

stop with the fallacy

I just made 2 new accounts in less than 1 minute, i was able to use the same email address (actually i didn't even need to click the verification email to log in regardless), i needed to click 4 drop down boxes (the info in each was irrelevant), and tick one box each time.

Bearing in mind it just took me longer to reply to your post than it did to make two new accounts I don't think it's going to stop anyone greifing.

The fact you think this is a serious barrier to any griefer is ludicrous.

[Sirisian]

Odd thread as it solves no current problem with the game. My only issue is that we have to use a different character name for each faction. I'd prefer if the character name was not tied to a faction or server but just the stats per faction. The only thing stopping character independence from server and factions completely is probably monetary. They said they're currently adding server transfer for people that want to use it. We'll have to see how that's implemented.