The 3-way mistake? - Page 2

Turdicus · 2012-05-28, 02:10 PM

The hexes are a more elegant solution to the problem the lattices were created to fix. Backhacking was the problem and both the hexes and the lattice try to fix it. I think the hexes are a better solution though, since it allows for much more open ended gameplay, with fewer restrictions.

Raka Maru · 2012-05-28, 02:12 PM

Perhaps the uncappable foothold idea as it is now, would go down easier if they were actually warp gates rather than faction bases. imagine being able to GO to any continent you want that is not pop locked. This is what we have in PS2.

The Mega-continent idea seems good in theory, but it will cause overpop problems when the fighting bunches up in areas causing server lag. They could offset this by having artificial zones that you cannot enter, but that would break immersion. Thus, they already broke it out to these 3 continents, and you cant get in if it is pop locked. I think this is done correctly on the dev side. Expansion is expected post launch and growth can be unlimited if done right.

Losing the victory condition by capturing the entire continent will be bad tho. Perhaps if they turn the planet RED when the TR boot everyone to their footholds, that can be the WIN, with XP, Victory announcement via big screen base TV, fireworks, chat announcement, or whatever. Remember that after the TR roll over you in Ish, we will be going through those gates to take your other continents.

Now, since all hexes are RED, you will have difficulty getting anything else done on that continent after our VICTORY. You will find everything takes much longer to capture and go somewhere else. Maybe there should be a continent BONUS.

Double teaming will always happen at some point, it's the commanders duty to maneuver away from that position when possible. I don't see a perpetual stalemate happening unless pops go way low again like PS1.

Stardouser · 2012-05-28, 02:18 PM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

The Mega-continent idea seems good in theory, but it will cause overpop problems when the fighting bunches up in areas causing server lag. They could offset this by having artificial zones that you cannot enter, but that would break immersion. Thus, they already broke it out to these 3 continents, and you cant get in if it is pop locked. I think this is done correctly on the dev side. Expansion is expected post launch and growth can be unlimited if done right.

There are other ways to prevent too many people from fighting in the same area if we have one large continent. A cap on too many people spawning from one particular base, for example. Since 2000 people won't be able to suddenly spawn at one base, in order for that to ever happen, people would have to spawn from increasingly farther away and intentionally drive to the same point.

I don't know exactly how they do it, but WW2 Online is one huge mega continent and they do something like this. It definitely creates a front line, too. I think the front line in that game can be 100 miles across. Just go to their website and see it on their campaign map: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

And I will say this - when other companies start responding to PS2 with their own MMOFPS, I don't think the small continent idea is going to be that popular. They will find other ways.

Xyntech · 2012-05-28, 02:28 PM

The way I see it, the continents of PS2 are sort of like 4 PS1 continents glued together. Across 4 continents in PS1, you may have a VS vs NC fight one one, a NC vs TR fight on another, a TR vs VS fight on a third and a massive clusterfuck 3 way on Cyssor.

Imagine this all happening on a single continent in PS2 instead of on 4 separate continents. There are large battles lines, with multiple hexes along the line where fights can occur. Along the far edges of the NC/VS border, there will be mostly 2 ways. Wherever the three sides converge, there will likely be 3 ways.

Don't forget that sometimes even the zerg got a bit sneaky in PS1, choosing to fight one of the smaller branches of one of the enemy empires forces while the bulk of that enemy fought with the other enemy empire elsewhere. If one side starts getting their asses kicked in a 3 way fight in the middle, the smart outfits and possibly even the zerg itself may choose to muster their forces against a slightly more vulnerable, less contested piece of land while the other two empires finish trying to battle it out in what used to be a 3 way.

The 10 continents of PS1 used to hold 500 (then 400) players. That's 5000 total. If they manage to achieve their goal of 2000 players, that's already 6000, 1k more than the first games servers. Early on, during peak hours, you would have battles raging across all 10 continents, so how would 3 continents (sharing similar numbers of players) be so radically different? A little different yes, but not entirely different.

Similarly, during off hours the servers tended to settle down a little, with more continents getting locked and only some of the continents having massive raging battles still going on. PS2's equivalent would either be having all 3 continents settle down a little during off hours, or having one of the 3 continents go mostly quiet (say if one empire managed to take most of that continent and managed to keep a hold of it), while the other two would still have battles of varying size going on.

SniperSteve · 2012-05-28, 02:31 PM

What you are describing makes me think your OP topic should read: "No Continent Capturing: A Mistake?"

Xyntech · 2012-05-28, 02:38 PM

Originally Posted by SniperSteve

What you are describing makes me think your OP topic should read: "No Continent Capturing: A Mistake?"

I think that having regions within continents that you could capture would be a nice substitute for this. Give a region benefit instead of the continent benefits from the first game, along with that sense of accomplishment of seeing a clear objective achieved.

Imagine the pride an empire would have if they did manage to capture an entire continent, holding all if it's regions at once. That would be like an intermediary victory between locking a continent and locking all continents in PS1.

KTNApollo · 2012-05-28, 03:14 PM

The majority of fights will likely be two ways, and then the third faction will decide to roll in from behind and cause some chaos. There will be some stalemates, yes, but war has stalemates.

ringring · 2012-05-28, 03:19 PM

I agree with the OP.

Interminable 3-ways are boring.

However it does depend on the overall server population verus the territorial space available.

The best solution is more continents. (I've said this before :/ )

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-05-28, 03:26 PM

Originally Posted by Raka Maru

Double teaming will always happen at some point, it's the commanders duty to maneuver away from that position when possible. I don't see a perpetual stalemate happening unless pops go way low again like PS1.

Unfortunately, it seems the very design of the continents forces 3-ways.

There were multiple base groupings on several continents that created boring 3-way day(s) long grindfests.

One side benefit of the lattice system (apart from giving fights some sort of 'form') meant that the off cont links to each other held significant strategic value, opening up other avenues of approach to taking a new continent, now it seems that each cont is essentially a sealed off independent environment for perpetual 3-ways. You may counter with, well the hex system lets you try and cap anything, so how is that different to before the lattice was implemented and everyone played musical bases? You then say, well obviously capping something deep behind enemy lines takes a long time, so then how likely do you really think that is going to succeed? (Long supply route and surrounded...)So then we're just back to the point where it's a 3-way grindfest.

Graywolves · 2012-05-28, 03:48 PM

There's been some fun 3-ways.

Only times I find 3-way frustrating is when she wants another ma--

I mean when I'm having a good proper battle and then the 3rd empire decided to tower power us(don't see that happening) or when the other empire has decent population, the empire I'm already fighting has superior population, while mine has the least and the 3rd one decides that helping the bigger empire by kicking the smaller one is the best strategic decision.

I do have some memorable 3-ways though and they can be fun. But this is the internet and many people will decide they just want to be frustrating (which is a very viable tactic).

Raka Maru · 2012-05-28, 04:22 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

There are other ways to prevent too many people from fighting in the same area if we have one large continent. A cap on too many people spawning from one particular base, for example. Since 2000 people won't be able to suddenly spawn at one base, in order for that to ever happen, people would have to spawn from increasingly farther away and intentionally drive to the same point.

Wouldn't it get frustrating if your empire didn't actually get pushed back, but you are forced to spawn further away then drive back (into the lag)? This solution would just cause driving time but not actually prevent going back to your squad. Plus if your mission objective is there, you will have to drive/fly back anyways.

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I don't know exactly how they do it, but WW2 Online is one huge mega continent and they do something like this. It definitely creates a front line, too. I think the front line in that game can be 100 miles across. Just go to their website and see it on their campaign map: http://www.battlegroundeurope.com/

And I will say this - when other companies start responding to PS2 with their own MMOFPS, I don't think the small continent idea is going to be that popular. They will find other ways.

I agree that Mega continent sounds fun and in the future it will be possible with advances in hardware, speed, and code.

I believe the mission system is trying to handle this in a way where new missions will go to less populated areas, but this still doesn't prevent others from going wherever they want.

When the time comes, we should see the continents getting larger.

p0intman · 2012-05-28, 04:31 PM

3-ways aren't boring, what are you talking about? most fun ive had in PS1 is from a three way brawl over a single base.

IMMentat · 2012-05-28, 04:37 PM

Planetside forced 2 way fights most often because the lattice system tended to favour a tug-of-war style engagements until the squishy middles of the continent were opened up then it became similar to the situation mentioned by Mastachief.

I came in here expecting something about 2 dudes and a woman .....

The planetside method of base-capture was to hold a single defensible location for 15 minutes also meant that you usually ended up with an attacking force occupying the local tower while the defenders held the base itself. This left only (destroyable) vehicle based spawn options for the 3rd empire, resulting in a poor foot-hold from whick to maintain an assault (assuming there was even a Lattice Link).

PS2 changes the capture method to a weighted capture and hold sub-type where all 3 empires can be in the running for a base/outpost win at the same time.
While the Hex-grid (and squad spawning) system could well mean equi-distant spawn and vehicle options for all sides involved, making the average 3-way fight a lot more open to speculation.

At the least it should make for more interesting gameplay.

Purple · 2012-05-28, 04:38 PM

i loved the massive 3 way battles. it was the only game i could get them on and it was epic. for those of you worried g there will most likely be 4 large battles at once on a map three 1V1 and one 3 way

Raka Maru · 2012-05-28, 04:40 PM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Unfortunately, it seems the very design of the continents forces 3-ways.

There were multiple base groupings on several continents that created boring 3-way day(s) long grindfests.

True, it seems that 3-ways are being designed, but I got to thinking about it a bit more and the incentive may not be there for one faction to join that battle, if they are fighting a weaker force (and winning) on another continent. Do you want to get more XP and resources by fighting a smaller force elsewhere, or do you want to fight just to get your butt kicked by invading an ongoing fight between 2 well dug in superior forces?

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

One side benefit of the lattice system (apart from giving fights some sort of 'form') meant that the off cont links to each other held significant strategic value, opening up other avenues of approach to taking a new continent, now it seems that each cont is essentially a sealed off independent environment for perpetual 3-ways. You may counter with, well the hex system lets you try and cap anything, so how is that different to before the lattice was implemented and everyone played musical bases? You then say, well obviously capping something deep behind enemy lines takes a long time, so then how likely do you really think that is going to succeed? (Long supply route and surrounded...)So then we're just back to the point where it's a 3-way grindfest.

I remember well the pre-lattice era. Back-hacking was regular and annoying, but it worked. The difference now in PS2, is that back-hacking will be annoying but less successful, probably impossible without a huge force. Alerts will go off, re-secure teams will fly in.

Actually, I'm hoping it will work like this, but can't be sure until it plays out.