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.

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.

Ieyasu · 2012-05-28, 01:05 PM

the problem with not having 3 factions is how could Ozziking take a tower that the other 2 factions were fighting over and hold it for 3 hours that way?

things like that used to always make me laugh. Im sure I cant be the only one.

Baneblade · 2012-05-28, 01:06 PM

You need wild cards, the third faction is the wild card.

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.

Mechzz · 2012-05-28, 01:16 PM

Yeah, 3 continents and 3 factions is maybe starting to seem a bit crowded. I hadn't done the math that says a Reaver going full-tilt on AB can cross the continent in 2 ~~seconds~~ minutes. It took what, ~~a few~~ 5-10 minutes? to fly over a PS1 continent.

I did enjoy 2-way fights and wonder if we can encourage them this way:

Each empire starts on day 1 with positions on all 3 continents.

When one gets zero-based, they lose that foothold for, say, 48 hours. Each empire can't go below 2 footholds. So they can always fight on the other 2 continents while they are locked out of the one they lost.

The 2-empire continent has a win based on territory owned at the end of 48 hours, at which point the 3rd empire is free to come back and join in.

That would give the "winners" the victory condition we were looking for in other threads, AND it would give the winners a 2-way fight for 48 hours.

Thoughts?

Ieyasu · 2012-05-28, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by elfailo

He could try to scare them away with his rap video's.

that might just work. I ran around with the guy a few times and had fun, but the rap was always playing in the background

. One thing I can say abou Ozzi is that he was extreme. I told him about how I was using phase change cooling on my cpu to get higher stable overclocks and he built a homemade system and froze his not long afterward.

Turdicus · 2012-05-28, 01:20 PM

If an empire is pushed back to their warp gate then taking an adjacent base won't be difficult since an entire empire's strength would be concentrated on one base and the defending empire has to deal with that and the other war they are fighting. Dynamically it should balance out, making it certain that there is never an end to the fighting.

I don't know if this is a great idea or not though, maybe they can make it so that if an empire is pushed back to a warp gate that gate is disabled for a certain time, acting as a continent lock. That's still a possibility and it would solve the problem of the perpetual three way (which in another context would be a great thing, ironically).

edit: Mechzz beat me to it =(

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...

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.

Mechzz · 2012-05-28, 01:31 PM

Originally Posted by Turdicus

edit: Mechzz beat me to it =(

Don't worry, that will never, ever happen again!

It is a cool idea though, isn't it?

BlazingSun · 2012-05-28, 01:34 PM

Hello Bobby.

Nice to 'see' you. About your post - I share your concerns. The 'foothold bases' (cannot be captured), which each empire has on each continent, are the real problem!

Mastachief · 2012-05-28, 01:40 PM

We need a lattice of sorts and home continents.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-05-28, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Sobekeus

You need wild cards, the third faction is the wild card.

So you think having an, effectively, 33% RNG in a massive team based tactical/strategic game is a good thing?

Having that large an unknown variable makes things frustrating, not fun, especially since it's more likely to turn against you the better your empire performs, the more I think about it the more it seems like they want some semi permanent 'frontline' grindfest going on.