Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
PSU: Hmm, now where did I park my Vanguard?
Forums | Chat | News | Contact Us | Register | PSU Social |
Home | Forum | Chat | Wiki | Social | AGN | PS2 Stats |
|
|
View Poll Results: Implementing Eve Style Factions? | |||
Only use Eve Style Factions: | 2 | 2.04% | |
Only use traditional Planetside Style Factions: | 92 | 93.88% | |
Use Both 'Side by Side': | 4 | 4.08% | |
Voters: 98. You may not vote on this poll |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
2011-08-05, 07:09 AM | [Ignore Me] #47 | ||||
First Lieutenant
|
PS1's Lattice has the effect of funneling attackers down a very limited number of avenues through which they can take over the map. While the battle rages on a cont, any given time you almost never have any more than 2 or 3 different enemy bases you can attack through the lattice. And it's normally only 1 or 2 bases where the zerg currently resides. This channeling effect is limited even further by Capital Domes. The end result is that all 3 empires have the vast majority of their forces channeled along a specific path with very little opportunities to deviate, and inevitably all 3 empires end up colliding at a triad of bases where you're only viable option is to attack one of the other 2 bases in the triad. Thus the frequent 3-way stalemates you see today around triads like Gunuku/Kaang/Itan, Ghanon/Ixtab/Acan, Baal/Akkan/Dagon, etc. However, with the territory control system, each time you conquer a Territory you'll have the option to fan out in multiple directions, and will most likely have anywhere from 1-4 adjacent territories you can attack, at each territory you own along the front line. And the number of attackable adjacent territories along your front line will grow as you take more territories and the front gets bigger/longer. I suspect that once you conquer a significant portion of a cont (say, 25%), at any give time you'll have anywhere from 10-12 or more different territories you can attack that are all adjacent to territories you control (depending on how much they divide up the map). And instead of having these narrow channels/lattices force-funnel your troops towards one target or two targets, you'll have fighting happening all along your front line, in multiple locations. And unlike in PS1, you always have the option to attack any enemy territory you want on the map, so if the battle stagnates and a stalemate develops you can always start something behind enemy lines. |
||||
|
2011-08-05, 11:52 AM | [Ignore Me] #49 | ||
Contributor PlanetSide 2
Game Designer |
Yeah the double teaming behavior is something I've expressed concern with but I don't think the solution is more or less empires. 3 is the right number. 3 also prevents any 1 empire from completely dominating, which you will get with 2. Not having any empires at all is just dumb, you'd end up with infrequent conflict and much smaller scale battles as outfits fight each other instead of entire empires. The empires bring the scale by drawing the lines in a clear easy to understand way. Without them there is no massive scale warfare, at least not on a regular basis.
The key things to fight it off are the uncaps on every continent, giving you territory vulnerable for capture on any continent, and Empire missions. The empire missions could be quite lucrative and they could program them to prefer putting missions against the largest empire so there's natural incentive to not double-team, and a way out of it via the uncaps if it does happen. I think more may be required but it all depends on how they do the missions and how lucrative they are. |
||
|
2011-08-05, 05:27 PM | [Ignore Me] #52 | |||
Private
|
Any old fart that spent some time on DAoC can confirm that having a third faction always (well, almost always) prevented someone from "winning" the game with sheer numbers. If albion grabbed 2 or more relics, hibbies and middies teamed up to prevent them from overpowering everyone with lolzerging. Honestly, i just don't see a PvP/RvR game working without at least 3 factions. For example, the new WH40k MMO looks like it's going imperium+eldars vs chaos+orks... Can't see it working, honestly (also, it's a brutal rape of WH40k lore, but nobody seems to give a fuck about it) |
|||
|
2011-08-05, 06:58 PM | [Ignore Me] #53 | |||
Major
|
What really? Eldars an Humans against Orks an Chaos? That really does make no sense. Especially since the game would play better with 4 factions that it would with 2 anyway. For the reasons you mentioned. That's what I think the OP missed. He doesn't like how two factions can gang up on one to halt their advance. But the alternative is the advance is never stopped an the faction controls most of the world an enemy players give up an switch to the winning team. Then the game is broken. |
|||
|
2011-08-06, 05:56 AM | [Ignore Me] #54 | ||
Colonel
|
Consider me someone who gives a fuck. I think I'd heard about this already, but it's still unforgivably stupid. WH40k needs to be an MMOFPS with at least four sides, though I'd like to see them try and do eight or more. MMORPGs with guns have not fared well for a reason. If they attempt to turn this into some kind of 40k WoW clone with 50+ levels, gear and PvE, I will commit a suicidal facepalm. I'll find find my hand holding my brain at the back of where my head used to be
|
||
|
2011-08-06, 06:06 AM | [Ignore Me] #55 | |||
Atrocious mismanagement. APB1 = studio death. Fallen Earth = bad engine, designed as an advertisement. Matrix = Licensed title, in an out of alpha too many times. Auto Assault = Lack of direction, same alpha stumbles as MXO. Tabula Rasa = mismanagement, total content change near end of life. AO = Gamebreaking bugs at launch, killed any momentum it could have had.
PS1 was the most polished and supported gun based major MMO to come out. Scary thought. Hopefully THQ will shunt tons of cash into WH40K while, at the same time, not screwing the developers through control or demand.
__________________
And that was that. |
||||
|
2011-08-06, 11:43 AM | [Ignore Me] #58 | ||
Major
|
Please someone close this thread... out of 72 totaly votes so far 95% of them are in favor or 3 empires. The only posts I've read (no I didn't read them all) that have been in favor of something that isn't 3 empires have been OPs.
|
||
|
2011-08-06, 01:48 PM | [Ignore Me] #60 | ||
Master Sergeant
|
3 Empires is perfect, and judging by the poll I'd say the vast majority are going to agree on that one. I don't want EVE style play, that doesn't even make any sense in this type of game. I don't want just TR/NC because if one empire gets out of control their is no 3rd empire to rebalance things out. 4 just gets too sloppy.
3 is perfect, keeps everybody on their toes, keeps the fights going. No one team can ever truly gain the edge since somebody is always coming up behind them. |
||
|
|
Bookmarks |
|
|