The 3-way mistake? - Page 3

xIIDeAdLyIIx · 2012-05-28, 04:53 PM

After watching a game play video I can say that there will be 3 way battles going on at some point. The objective is to capture territory and if one factions sees an operability for a cheeky cap I don't blame them for going for it.

However, if one faction attacks a base that is far away from the third faction there is no point in that third faction going for the capture, especially if they will suffer heavy penalties for not owning any territory near it.

I think that battles will be spread out around the continent with big battles at the main facilities and smaller but still meaningful battles at the outposts.

Wait for the Beta and if there is a problem I'm sure that it will be fixed.

Just chill.

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-05-28, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by xIIDeAdLyIIx

Wait for the Beta and if there is a problem I'm sure that it will be fixed.

Just chill.

Unfortunately, the maps have been 'hand crafted' with the 3-way in mind, changing them to a more 2-way centric style would mean shifting the locations of several bases, starting locations and the 'transitional' terrain between them.

xIIDeAdLyIIx · 2012-05-28, 06:01 PM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

Unfortunately, the maps have been 'hand crafted' with the 3-way in mind, changing them to a more 2-way centric style would mean shifting the locations of several bases, starting locations and the 'transitional' terrain between them.

I meant in terms of balancing so a faction would have no reason to attack a base which they are not near. I think that if people do go out of their way to have a 3 way battle that's fine, I just don't see any reason to double the amount of people shooting at you.

LegioX · 2012-05-28, 06:22 PM

Always like the victory conditions when i played ww2ol. You had 24/7 battles going on, but maps would take months to finish, with one side coming out the victor.

Would be nice if we could incorporate one huge sever map spanning different planets. Then when one side wins it restarts. Use to be good for bragging rights for the allies/axis in ww2ol. Good ol days.

SgtMAD · 2012-05-28, 06:23 PM

Originally Posted by xIIDeAdLyIIx

I meant in terms of balancing so a faction would have no reason to attack a base which they are not near. I think that if people do go out of their way to have a 3 way battle that's fine, I just don't see any reason to double the amount of people shooting at you.

Dude, I am going after your tech plant every time, I don't care if it's near or not,if i can deny you tech vehs or the resources needed to make those vehs then that's going to be a priority target in any fight.

the threeway will happen no matter what you do short of banning an empire from that cont.,once one empire gets tied up fighting another,the third will start taking the ground of whichever empire they decide to doubleteam first,which will then cause the doubleteamed empire's front line fight to collapse due to having defend bases/resources that are needed to be combat-effective that are being taken by the third empire.

this can go on for days,

we called it CyssorSide.

that's the PS meatgrinder and the same game mechanics seem to be in PS2

SKYeXile · 2012-05-28, 06:25 PM

Yea this was one of my other concerns, without been able to kick an empire off cont, every fight will be a 3 way fight. there simply wont be any diversity in the battles since every empire will always be on cont and be coming from the same direction.

berzerkerking · 2012-05-28, 07:51 PM

After reading this thread I HAD to post this vid

http://youtu.be/Pi7gwX7rjOw

Turdicus · 2012-05-28, 08:30 PM

its not gay if its a three way...

Sledgecrushr · 2012-05-28, 09:53 PM

I guess basically what we need are states within these continents. Each of these states would be made up of several hexes. The winner being the group in control of the most states.

cellinaire · 2012-05-28, 09:57 PM

The one thing about the OP's points that irks me the most is the "compared to 2-way contention, 3-way just won't be fun at all" thing he seems to keep insisting on. Yeah of course there's a possibility that you're right, but how can you be so sure?

(and guys, for the last 8+ months I've already seen this kinda threads in this forum like, what, 5~15 times? Still no need for consolidation or sticky thread?)

Bobby Shaftoe · 2012-05-28, 11:11 PM

Originally Posted by cellinaire

The one thing about the OP's points that irks me the most is the "compared to 2-way contention, 3-way just won't be fun at all" thing he seems to keep insisting on. Yeah of course there's a possibility that you're right, but how can you be so sure?

BF3 Metro 24/7 is fun, fy_iceworld 24/7 servers are fun, 3 ways are fun, do you actually get much done... no.

To the average 3-wayer who just wants a fun fight, is there really any difference between 1000v1000 and 666v666v666?

To the average 2-wayer, is there much fun in taking a 33% RNG into account for everything you want to try and do tactically and strategically, or would you prefer if the enemy you were fighting were the ones responding to your actions?

We want fights to move, progress and advance based on our actions, the very map is setup to keep a perpetual 3-way going, essentially a huge 24/7 Metro point B grindfest with Tanks/Aircav taking the place of grenade/m320 spam.

It's too late for me to attempt an effort post but I will later.

As a parting shot:
In PS1 there was a mechanism for 1 Empire through their actions to create 3-ways via lattice links.
In PS2 what mechanism exists for 1 Empire through their actions to make a 2-way occur? (inb4 leaving the cont and letting the other two just fight)

Stardouser · 2012-05-28, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by Bobby Shaftoe

BF3 Metro 24/7 is fun, fy_iceworld 24/7 servers are fun, 3 ways are fun, do you actually get much done... no.

We want fights to move, progress and advance based on our actions, the very map is setup to keep a perpetual 3-way going, essentially a huge 24/7 Metro point B grindfest with Tanks/Aircav taking the place of grenade/m320 spam.

BF3 Metro isn't fun for everyone. There are major pockets of resistance to DICE's philosophy of focusing only on meatgrind maps.

And I can tell you I would not be playing PS2 if it were what you just described, a perpetual grindfest. Grinds should be able to happen but not perpetually. There should be a balance between dead time between firefights and travel time to the next firefight, but cutting dead time/travel time to zero is not balance.

Stardouser · 2012-05-28, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

Listen to Bobby. Well respected PS1 player that can contrast BF to PS for you.

I don't get it. It sounds like he is advocating a perpetual grindfest. It's always hard to tell what people mean, but that sounds awfully like a battle with zero dead time(to plan the next move, flank, etc) between component firefights. Not sure why anyone would log out of Metro to have the same thing in PS2?

Stardouser · 2012-05-28, 11:50 PM

Originally Posted by WildVS

No he is not. He is pointing out to you the similarities between that map and PS2.

Ah, so he's on our side then...if I understand correctly now...

So what makes this happen? The smallness of the continent and the resulting inevitable entrance of the 3rd empire into the battle? In other words, the close proximity of any 2 way battle to the borders of the map in any direction will very soon result in the 3rd empire pushing into it?

Pyreal · 2012-05-29, 12:12 AM

Does a faction have to sequentially capture hexes?

I mean this: In order to capture Hex 5, you must first capture Hex 1 thru 4 in order.