The 3-way mistake?

[kaffis]

Originally Posted by Kalbuth

@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:



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]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

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.

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

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]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

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]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

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]

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

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.