Risk of Unbalanced Servers?

[EnderGraff]

Lets say NC and TR are underpopulated and Vanu have the most people. It would be really cool if NC and TR formed a semi-alliance to push back Vanu for a few hours. The combined assault on exclusively Vanu would be too much to stop.

At least until a NC shot a TR in the back of the skull and everything would go back to normal

[Loco]

Originally Posted by EnderGraff

Lets say NC and TR are underpopulated and Vanu have the most people. It would be really cool if NC and TR formed a semi-alliance to push back Vanu for a few hours. The combined assault on exclusively Vanu would be too much to stop.

At least until a NC shot a TR in the back of the skull and everything would go back to normal

That happens now in Planetside 1. You'll see a base with both factions on either side. They'll focus on the base and not the other invading faction. Of course that's when the BEP flies and much fun us had by all.

[Zenben]

I'm wondering if it would work to use a system where you log in, select your character, THEN select your server, rather than the other way around as with all other MMO's. This would make people go to the server that needs them because they want the exp benefits (or whatever system they choose to implement). To make sure that people aren't jumping around constantly for benefits, maybe put a cooldown on it like there was a cooldown on switching empires in PS1, or you could make it so that you retain the benefits for 3 hours (or whatever) after you choose the server no matter how the population changes.

[Loco]

Originally Posted by Zenben

I'm wondering if it would work to use a system where you log in, select your character, THEN select your server, rather than the other way around as with all other MMO's. This would make people go to the server that needs them because they want the exp benefits (or whatever system they choose to implement). To make sure that people aren't jumping around constantly for benefits, maybe put a cooldown on it like there was a cooldown on switching empires in PS1, or you could make it so that you retain the benefits for 3 hours (or whatever) after you choose the server no matter how the population changes.

I think they have already said one character per server.

You're suggestion does have merit, however. This would make it harder for outfits to organize. Also I don't think it would work with the resource mechanic they have in place.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by WildVS

That's not usually how it works. It's pretty much always the 2 high pop empires gang up on the lesser.

I think the lack of zerg is actually hurting the current Planetside that way. Early on when populations were higher, the underpopulated empires tended to fight the overpopulated one more often.

I think it's because the zerg is so stupid, that they just attack whatever is right in front of them. Ironically, this simple mindedness actually works in their empires favor in this case, because the more strategic players if left unchecked tend to gravitate towards fights that they know they can win. This inevitably means attacking the weaker foe, which then leaves the overpopulated empire to come kick your ass once the weakest empire is out of the picture.

So either we need the majority of the strategic players to start getting even smarter and thinking about the long term repercussions of their decisions (never going to happen), or we need a zerg to keep things in check.

I've always thought that strategic Planetside players always work best off of the backs of the zerg anyways.

[Baneblade]

This may or may not be a problem. I think outfits stacking whatever the new 'Gemini' will be will be a worse problem.

[Carnage]

Originally Posted by Loco

While I agree that no team SHOULD have more than 50%.. that seems like it would be hard to enforce. Lets say an outfit has a raid night. They have 40 members that show up and try to take on an empty continent.

So at that point they have 100% of the pop. Then one NC shows up. Would the 40 person outfit be forced to purge 39 members?

well no, 100% pop (total population) is 2000... 40 players is 2% of the pop...
say you have an empty continent, and the max % any one team can have is 45%, if 900 TR players (45%) log on to the continent, no more TR can join it, but the reaming 1100 slots (55%) can be filled by a mix of VS & NC, so there could potentially be a population of 900 TR, 900 NC and 200 VS on a single continent... and the VS would still win...

[Loco]

Originally Posted by Carnage

well no, 100% pop (total population) is 2000... 40 players is 2% of the pop...
say you have an empty continent, and the max % any one team can have is 45%, if 900 TR players (45%) log on to the continent, no more TR can join it, but the reaming 1100 slots (55%) can be filled by a mix of VS & NC, so there could potentially be a population of 900 TR, 900 NC and 200 VS on a single continent... and the VS would still win...

Ahh.. so it's not % of current pop but % of total pop. Have we heard anything on continent caps?

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by Loco

Ahh.. so it's not % of current pop but % of total pop. Have we heard anything on continent caps?

Just that they are higher than 33% and (implicitly) lower than 50%. So 40% - 45% seems a safe range to assume. Higby gave an example and tossed 40% around as a hypothetical number. They may not have nailed it down yet, and it can presumably be easily changed at any time.

[Timithos]

Originally Posted by HeatLegend

Hm, does the continent balance go 2000 players in total or 666ish/team cap?
I thought it was restricted so that no team could have more than a third of 2000 at a continent at once, but maybe it's not team-restricted but counted in total players overall...

It's 2000 cap per continent only - no empire cap. (and 6000 per server). These numbers are of course subject to change. So you will have empires that can dominate with well over 50% population for relatively short periods of time. If you think about, if you show up on an empty continent, you're 100% of the population. That will be much harder to do in PS2 when only 3 continents will exist at launch, and there is more of a "frontline" on each continent versus one bottlenecked facility to hack into from the warpgate.

[The Degenatron]

Not only should empire imbalance be possible, but it will be necessary.

The eb and flow of empire populations will allow for the shifting territiory control.

If the servers pops stay perfectly balanced, you'll have a three-way stagnation.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by The Degenatron

Not only should empire imbalance be possible, but it will be necessary.

The eb and flow of empire populations will allow for the shifting territiory control.

If the servers pops stay perfectly balanced, you'll have a three-way stagnation.

But continents also won't be poplocked at all times, so an empire who only has 45% of the total population cap, or 900 players, would far outnumber the other 700 players split across the other two empires on a continent that was only at 80% of it's total capacity.

[Timithos]

Originally Posted by Loco

While I agree that no team SHOULD have more than 50%.. that seems like it would be hard to enforce. Lets say an outfit has a raid night. They have 40 members that show up and try to take on an empty continent.

So at that point they have 100% of the pop. Then one NC shows up. Would the 40 person outfit be forced to purge 39 members?

No, you would not be forced to purge your members, nor would the game auto-spawn enemy forces to balance the area/continent. This is not a FPS arena-type game. This is not a 32vs32, or 64vs64 arena. You've got to divorce yourself of that mentality. So if you show up on a relatively empty continent with 40 enemies from one empire, 0 fromthe other, and you're alone, you better be doing some cloaked infiltration, or back-hacking the other side of the continent, or you'll get owned. Any friendly reinforcements that come will be any player's choice, or mission generated incentives.

Now there could be an Instant Action feature in PS2 similar to PS1, where players can instantly spawn into some type of combat occuring somewhere on the 3 continents assigned by the game, BUT, 40 vs 1 is not much "action" to trigger this. I haven't read if they're including this feature in PS2.

[Mirror]

I would actually like to see incentives return (I think I saw a SS that contained them a few days ago) but instead of giving the under popped empire benefits like HP, acquisition timers etc I would like to see them given to the empire with the larger pop.
-Increase vehicle and max timers
-Increase respawn times
-Increase spawn on squad timers
-Increase the timer of resources
-Increase base node times

And so on.

[The Degenatron]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

But continents also won't be poplocked at all times, so an empire who only has 45% of the total population cap, or 900 players, would far outnumber the other 700 players split across the other two empires on a continent that was only at 80% of it's total capacity.

Exactly! And that's a GOOD thing. It means they push their territory out, taking land away from the other two empires, and moving the fighting to different zones, giving all of the players present the chance to play in places they might not often see.

And that's fine, because population imbalances with flow back and forth between empires.

Don't assume that one empire will alway have a monopoly on man-power, because that doesn't even bear out in Planetside 1 today, where the Vanu obviously have a larger standing population but still get out numbered on the server on a regular basis.