Ideas for the "Rich get richer" problem - Page 10

LoopbackZero · 2012-03-27, 01:57 PM

Agreed. I find it hard to believe that one faction will simply get steamrolled to the point of having extremely less territory than the other two factions. The player densities won't allow it. Even if it does get to that point, I can't see it NOT being fun as hell playing the underdog.

Let it run naturally, I say. Make a plan, work the plan. If the plan doesn't work, make a new plan. Don't try to fix a problem that isn't there.

Arius · 2012-03-27, 02:23 PM

Originally Posted by Red Beard

"Thumbs up for free-markets!

Yes, but the free market lead us to financial inequality and people living off of other peoples poverty.
If you know what I mean, misuse of the "free market" in PS2 should be prevented.

Machine · 2012-03-29, 12:46 AM

seems to me they could make the "scoreboard" reset quarterly. reset it to balance every 3 months. combined with the other idea of longer hack times for dominant factions seems like an easy way to maintain balance. then they can even make seasons for competition and rewards that are per quarter.

Retrograde · 2012-04-24, 11:10 PM

It's unfair to subsidize the losers or tax the winners. The mission (or quest) system is really the key to making this balance out.

The solution is simple:

Increase the mission rewards for the lowest rank side.

For example, if you're stuck in your safe gate, missions pop up that have significantly better resource rewards to take nearby bases with limited resources. From there, if you succeed, you're back in the game. If you fail, you're still sucking hind tit.

Here are the benefits:

1. Create a high risk / high reward dynamic for working together.
2. Use limited resources to capture the nearest targets to a safe harbor.
3. Encourage players to back hack/infiltrate when they are getting beat down.

Key is taking risk.

Grognard · 2012-04-25, 12:06 AM

Originally Posted by Retrograde

It's unfair to subsidize the losers or tax the winners. The mission (or quest) system is really the key to making this balance out.

The solution is simple:

Increase the mission rewards for the lowest rank side.

For example, if you're stuck in your safe gate, missions pop up that have significantly better resource rewards to take nearby bases with limited resources. From there, if you succeed, you're back in the game. If you fail, you're still sucking hind tit.

Here are the benefits:

1. Create a high risk / high reward dynamic for working together.
2. Use limited resources to capture the nearest targets to a safe harbor.
3. Encourage players to back hack/infiltrate when they are getting beat down.

Key is taking risk.

Already tried the mission angle...
http://www.planetside-universe.com/s...4&postcount=92

Edit: All the stuff I mention there are missions etc. that are used for an underdog that is in duress of losing everything, or has. It simulates a faction that is out of room, out of time, and out of tools, and goes into an underdog mode, such as France in WW2, or the CSA at the end of the American Civil War, etc. Whether or not it comes into play at a certain point, or only at full sanc-lock is up to the devs... but tuned correctly those mission-based tools would work... and it would spread out the battle fronts...

The Kush · 2012-04-25, 02:52 AM

In the end resources arent going to make you win, and i promise with three empires you will not be able to completely pin a faction.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-25, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by The Kush

In the end resources arent going to make you win, and i promise with three empires you will not be able to completely pin a faction.

World-lock occurred several times during PS1's first few years. All ten continents dominated by a single empire with few options for the other two. Continent locks happened all the time in PS1, and there were always three empires. They didn't fight each other evenly, and there were population and tactical considerations thrown into the mix. PS2 adds another dynamic - limited resources with which to wage war.

And resources will make you win if PS2 lives up to its promise that resources matter.

Even without resources it is absolutely possible to pin an empire down on a single continent (we know this from PS1 experience). Add in a resource swing and it tips the scales further.

Just because a foothold exists does not mean the populations on the continents will be even, nor does it mean resources will be even. If it can happen on one continent it can happen globally, just like it did in PS1.

The Kush · 2012-04-25, 03:48 AM

Originally Posted by Malorn

World-lock occurred several times during PS1's first few years. All ten continents dominated by a single empire with few options for the other two. Continent locks happened all the time in PS1, and there were always three empires. They didn't fight each other evenly, and there were population and tactical considerations thrown into the mix. PS2 adds another dynamic - limited resources with which to wage war.

And resources will make you win if PS2 lives up to its promise that resources matter.

Even without resources it is absolutelUy possible to pin an empire down on a single continent (we know this from PS1 experience). Add in a resource swing and it tips the scales further.

Just because a foothold exists does not mean the populations on the continents will be even, nor does it mean resources will be even. If it can happen on one continent it can happen globally, just like it did in PS1.

I have played Planetside since 2004.. That was planetside, this is planetside 2, completely different as far as capturing and pinning enemy factions. Too many hexes available to capture to completely pin an enemy faction. Guess you'll figure out the truth in Beta

Toppopia · 2012-04-25, 04:09 AM

I've been wondering but after looking at the map it looks like the VS has an advantage because it looks like they are further away from NC and TR while these 2 are almost half the distance to each other, unless my perception is warped the VS has much more breathing room compared to the other empires which could let them expand much faster compared to NC and TR.

HellsPanda · 2012-04-25, 04:49 AM

If a faction gets most of the hexes on a map, whats likely to happen is the other factions will just spread out and attack multiple hexes at once, forcing the controlling faction, to spread out. Guessing where the main attacks are, and even when knowing where the attacks are, they are likely to loose hexes to some of the probes.

Kran De Loy · 2012-04-25, 04:58 AM

Originally Posted by HellsPanda

If a faction gets most of the hexes on a map, whats likely to happen is the other factions will just spread out and attack multiple hexes at once, forcing the controlling faction, to spread out. Guessing where the main attacks are, and even when knowing where the attacks are, they are likely to loose hexes to some of the probes.

I think the point is that experience says that while this is probably what will happen it doesn't happen often enough really. Too often people just go to the closest fight without actually thinking of the overall strategy involved so you get a lot of chaff players going to the wrong places and getting them into the correct spots is like herding cats. They largely just ignore you and if you get pushy they'll just claw your face off.

Assume that if TR has 80% of a continent I still see a lot of idiots focusing on that major battle that's been going on for the last 2 hours with over 300 people between VS and NC while TR just mops up the rest of the map until the people with actual working brains can redirect the horde of lickspittle bone heads.

You see this kind of behavior in small FPS match games all the time when you have multiple choke points and 80% of your team keeps rushing the same one over and over again despite being repeatedly warned of the other team refocusing to another route to flank.

**Malorn** · 2012-04-25, 04:59 AM

Originally Posted by The Kush

I have played Planetside since 2004.. That was planetside, this is planetside 2, completely different as far as capturing and pinning enemy factions. Too many hexes available to capture to completely pin an enemy faction. Guess you'll figure out the truth in Beta

Perhaps in another 8 years of PS you might have a clue about empire and population dynamics.

Toppopia · 2012-04-25, 05:23 AM

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

You see this kind of behavior in small FPS match games all the time when you have multiple choke points and 80% of your team keeps rushing the same one over and over again despite being repeatedly warned of the other team refocusing to another route to flank.

One awesome thing about that happening is that i can either follow my teammates and kill the enemies which sometimes works or i try a more tactical approach like sneaking around them, but the hidden bonus of the team dying over and over again is that they are distracting the enemy with their dead bodies piling up allowing us to flank almost unopposed.

Kran De Loy · 2012-04-25, 06:00 AM

Originally Posted by Toppopia

One awesome thing about that happening is that i can either follow my teammates and kill the enemies which sometimes works or i try a more tactical approach like sneaking around them, but the hidden bonus of the team dying over and over again is that they are distracting the enemy with their dead bodies piling up allowing us to flank almost unopposed.

If you and the rest of the 20% of the people that are actually paying attention can take care of that exposed flank by yourselves then yes.

When I made that previous post I was speaking from personal experience with Nuclear Dawn (I love that game). In this particular match one choke point could be held by 6 people easily, and it was being held by 8 from the enemy side. Still, 13 of my 15 people kept going to it over and over again while the other 7 on the enemy team rolled right over the defending 2 people that were paying attention.

It made no sense to me at all when the first point with 8v13 was very narrow killing field, excessively choked up and heavily fortified on both sides while the other point was wide open and could easily accommodate a larger group to take it. In addition to that the second flank also held one of the three major resource points and the only one we had left. So why were 13 of my 15 people going to first flank? Because it was the first one. No other reason to it. None.

It was insane that they ignored all other outside influence. The only way I could have gotten them to move to the other flank would be to completely remove the respawner which would have been equal to inviting the enemy to take the location away from me.

That behavior, that right there happens waaaaaaaaaay too often.

Toppopia · 2012-04-25, 06:10 AM

Originally Posted by Kran De Loy

It made no sense to me at all when the first point with 8v13 was very narrow killing field, excessively choked up and heavily fortified on both sides while the other point was wide open and could easily accommodate a larger group to take it. In addition to that the second flank also held one of the three major resource points and the only one we had left. So why were 13 of my 15 people going to first flank? Because it was the first one. No other reason to it. None.

I think the only reason they do it is either they are stupid or its normally the closest place to go, but i think the first reason sounds most likely.