Quick and short case study of continent macro dynamics! (comes with a pretty picture!)

Don't take the title seriously, I was trying to be funny.

Anyway, this subject has been discussed many times, I've raised the question many times, but I thought a quick and short reminder wouldn't do any harm.


To sum it up :

Alert is ongoing.

NC has highest pop and takes most of the map.

"normally", TR and VS would focus NC and NC couldn't handle the 2 faction gang bang, losing territory. At which point things get interesting as each faction has to choose who and what to focus on since one of the previous 2 losers enter the winning position.

MOST OF THE TIME, that doesn't happen. It usually happens at prime time, when you have high population but more importantly, active outfits gal droping left and right. Or even public platoons zerging the **** out of a lane.

When there is no active outfits, or big enough platoons trying to win the Alert, this is what the randoms do ;






They fight each other..

As you can see, the biggest fight on the entire continent are between the two losing factions.

Not only that, but as you can see because I hovered my mouse over the region, NC is back capping the biggest fight in the continent.

Does anyone not see the irony here?


I've thought a lot about this, blaming this or that, and in the end, I realised there's something that I totally forgot to take into accoutn; "join battle".

I forgot to take into account cause I never, ever, ever, ever, ever use it.

Could it be that all these players are simply clicking "join battle" and spawning there? It could make sense.

If so, could there be a way to improve the "join battle" mechanic so that it favorises spawn locations that are a little more in line with the objectives? (ie the alert).

PS2 is a sandbox, and by definition, gives freedom to players to do and go wherever they want. However if there is a ingame mechanic such as join battle that favourises fights and battles that are counter to the alert objectives, maybe it should be tweeked a little.

Yes it sucks, what makes most NC remain logged on? What makes TR and VS log off? Why are there still people logged on in both losing faction? There is a zerg not worth bothering stopping, some poeple found a way to ignore the zerg and still have fun, the fight develops south west while the NC side is let down because it's boring to be armor vehicle/ESF shotgun spawn camped. People chose mostly according to what they enjoy/like. If it's just to end up being locked in spawn room with vanguards aiming at me I'd rather fight TR as a VS here or vice-versa. You can't force people into a painful boring fight, thankfully, otherwise both factions would log off. When forces are balanced you can observe every faction fighting the 2 others. But in zerg you always have the zergers let down because it's just unfair. The problem doesn't come from losing factions, it comes from the 40% NC pop (which shouldn't go above 34%)

B U L L C R A P

This whole myth about "tha outfits be good and tha randoms be bad" is such a self-indulgent slap-yourself-on-the-back crapshow. Has anyone ever provided any proof other than "I (think) I've seen it"? The proof would partially be found in the social page where you can find the current active squads/platoons and their numbers. So far when I checked I've seen 0 correlation to the amount of squads/platoons and the winning or losing of the continent or a difference in how the battles progressed. It can go any direction, good and bad.

Also look at that strategy. "zerg the curent winner, then see who gets out on top between the remaining 2". Does anyone know the important stragetical questions? Such as when is the proper time to switch from focussing the large faction and making sure you can pick more land from your temporary ally? How many allies do you leave behind to hold back the floodgates of the enemy you've been focussing and how many do you relocate? Do you do a sudden relocation or a slow one with a higher risk enemies of the second faction get more chance to react? What is the right moment to relocate? Anytime? Just after a capture? Just after solidifying your foothold on the next base?

I dare bet there isnt a single leader out there who knows the answer to even one of these questions, and its not their fault but PS2's lack of a solid teamwork system. Everything is against it: the way KD is glorified, the way directives and certs are earned, the lack of rewards for simple teamplay, the lack of enjoyable team support roles, the lack of building up teamplay from a solo player who joins hands with another solo to the full macroscale battlefield and even the reliance on voice comms for large groups of people is a bad influence on teamwork as it lacks the information density and selectivity needed to steer groups of 12 to 48 people. This is why Zerging reigns supreme: actually working together barely makes a difference compared to just having another individual with a gun running around nearby.

PS2 needs to work on its teamplay, make communication between anyone possible regardless of squad, platoon or random. Make communication easy, specific and despite simplicity carry a lot of information. Give better rewards for support and teamplay no matter who you are teamplaying with. It shouldnt matter that player A reached the SCU first and overloaded it, if you protected his butt and kept enemies off of it you should get rewarded for its destruction just the same.

Since your whole argument, argumentSSSSS are based on this premise, let me tell you that I am not in any outfit and do not participate in platoons.

Therefore, I am right, you are wrong, see you again !

Therefore you might not be completely self-indulgent (although that last comment put you right back up there), but you are still wrong that outfits magically are leading everything. Prove it if you must, but I've seen the proof already: It doesn't matter if there are a lot of outfits or a lot of full platoons riding the game, the battle for the continent will not automatically go better when they are there and it won't automatically be worse either.

Seriously what kind of stupid argument is it, "you are wrong about one tiny thing that isn't actually even relevant to the meat of the argument and therefore you are wrong about everything". Good god and you are allowed to vote?

No I'm, not wrong, I'm 100% right:


When there are at least 2 or 3 active outfits in a faction doing their weekly "night ops" and focusing on winning the Alert, if the other factions just have randoms and random public platoons they have no chance whatsoever, not a single chance.


But you know what? It doesn't even matter because that wasn't even the point. You want me to tell you the point ? I'll give you a hint, it's a question, not a point, go ahead and read if you care so much you lazy sod !

Join-Battle is always a bit..
Counter-productive to use.

-- But 'randoms', and outfit squads \ platoons, have to collectively both be ignoring the objective.
While one side's isn't: You can have half the faction focus on winning, but the outfits online at the moment, be into farming.
If one side, like say VS or TR, in your example has a collective acceptance, or just want to Farm;
It won't matter how many outfits are on NC, that are playing objective.
If the majority are playing the objective, say on VS, in the same example;
It won't matter how many are outfit members -- Unless they're A-Team material, and the enemy's A-Team or defense is inferior.

IE, when the majority wants to farm, and says '**** it', yeah it'll be straight farms.
Outfits farm, often - As does everyone else.
Some play objectives, Some do not;
But in the end, it matters more how many players, outfit or not, are actually focusing on the objective.
(As you can have 40 outfit platoons on, and it won't matter without context, on what on earth they're doing, even if the other sides are all 'randoms')

Allright oh allmighty superman! How about you read those questions, you know the one's that would involve actual strategy rather than "zerg the enemy", and give me some conclusive answers!

Also don't insult like that, you don't have to prove you are missing some IQ points anymore.

Join combat is mostly useful to bounce a coordinated platoon around the map, often to clutch fights where they'd drop anyway.

What's the most commonly preached OP thing in this game? Teamwork.
- Randoms attack amp station gens, outfits crash A with GSD busses
- Randoms walk from a Sundy to the tech plant double doors, outfits gal drop the platform and bring a router.
- Randoms get farmed as they filter out of a spawn room, outfits rush one point, then the next.

Anyone who's played this game for more than a month could go on and on. So yes, the more outfit players vs randoms, the more powerful your population.

there are more likely better fights when pops are even, but half the time we see double team after double team. This game needs to incentivise fighting the faction with the most territory. Let the net XP gain be the same, but in your example, give TR/VS 3x or 4x the XP (certs) for attacking NC, and 1/3 or 1/4 as much for attacking the weak faction. Half the people won't care, but if only half do, then you have 30% world pop going up against 40%, and likely some good fights, and a ton of XP.

As for balancing world pop, exponential Nanite generation nerfs/buffs depending on how user or over pop your faction is. That's a force multiplier to the underdogs, and also a draw for vets and noobs alike to join the smaller faction. But we need to end Purgatory. Players who want to group up with friends in an mmo should be able to.

I am sorry but if you act stupid and talk stupid I might go on a limb there and think you're stupid ...

Let me spell it out with just one single example (even though it's off topic, that's why only one example).

There's 9 minutes left in the Alert, the score is 43 41 18 or something like that.

VS is winning with 43.

There's a base that is under attack, i'ts a cut off point, if VS loses it,n they lose 3 bases in one go.

The population on both sides in that base is under 12 players.

Now, here's the difference between randoms, most random public platoons, and an active outfit squad or platton :

The randoms will choose a fight according to "join battle" or, if they are under attack they will defend, or if they just successfully taken a base, they will move to the next one.

Plain and simple.


The outfit on the other hand, has leaders keeping an eye on the map the whole time, they are communicating with each other so if the leader misses it, someone shouts on TS or Discord "hey look that cut off point, less than 12 pop".

In a matter of seconds, even if it's across the map, the whole squad or platoon is there, at the A point, and 2 minutes later, they win.

THATS the difference and THATS WHY I am right about this.

but again, it's off topic ...

Completely agree! So why are you surprised you are treated as if stupid?

If you see bullcrap and you know it clap your hands...

There is little difference between ramdoms, public platoons and active outfit or squad platoons. At best some of the outfits have a higher teamwork, but most don't.

It's preached for some magical reason, but it's not true.

Outfits do not automatically crash A with GSD busses, in fact it happens ever so rarely. I've seen more busses with only one to three people in them park it in such a way at the shield gate that just entering and exiting gets you inside, which gets the randoms involved and a far larger chunk of players than 12 will enter assuming it's pulled off.

Outfits do not automatically Gal drop and they definitely do not automatically bring a router.

Randoms do not get farmed, the outfits do. Randoms are more likely to stay put until a critical mass has build up while an outfit will rush out two maaaybe three times and then either manage to get through or give up.


Outfits do not guarantee a different outcome for a continent and they do not guarantee a certain way the game is played. Also have you looked at the extend of the "teamwork"? "everyone go to one place, everyone get in one vehicle, dump on point and from then on be a swarm of individuals that just tries to stick to the area". It's a pathetic excuse for teamwork! You might as well have an entire game where the only teamwork is throwing a stick at an ally and say "look at all the teamwork we've got". It's this idea that teamwork already exists and is oh so super-powered that is preventing the game from actually fleshing out it's teamwork potential. Directing a Zerg with "everyone go there, maybe we'll use a vehicle to get you there while we are at it" isn't teamwork. It could be a part of a more fleshed out teamwork system but it alone is not and should never be seen as teamwork.

Life on Auraxis is like all factions vs. TR, no matter why.
Also there are 4th faction players to have a full TR vs. VS, NC ...and TR themselves.

Of course not, but randoms absolutely guarantee a **** show. There are a few ways that some of these bases need to be attacked, at least without an overwhelming zerg advantage, and it's guaranteed that randoms aren't up to the task.

This is why, in my OPINION, Planetside 1 was a better Planetside game. Sure, Planetside 2 is a better shooter, but Planetside 1 had mechanics to prevent 4th factioning. If you swapped to another faction on the same server, it threw your account into a timer lockout for the other factions. Basically, you could swap factions, but it would trigger a 12hr...24hr (I forget) timer on that account. Then again, it was a subscription system, so technically that might not work here due to people making new accounts.

However, if you vest time into a character on the same account, you probably wont make a new account to rack up certs on a new toon, but rather choose to keep leveling an existing toon.

That said, Planetside 2 needs more factional LOYALTY and also factional identity. This move to make more balance between the factions has made this a red vs blue vs purple shooter.

There are so many things from the first game that are swept aside to make this a shooter and not a follow on PLANETSIDE game. thus you have a giant fps deathmatch because really, whats the point. Most randoms want to go PEW PEW and not play the game for the strategy.

I never cared for the terms random, public, and blueberry. It's childish to classify a blue dot on the map at your battle as anything other than someone not in your squad or outfit.

A random refers to that guy who hops in your sunderer, equipped with FURY GRENADE LAUNCHERS and begins firing at liberators 400m away.

or hops in your AA sunderer, and ignores aircraft wasting vehicles literally 50m off the ground and tries to dump an entire magazine of ranger ammo into an enemy MBT.

Or that guy who runs to the back of your tank to repair you, and yells at you when you back up and run them over

Or that guy who spawns at your base, messes around with the turrets, firing and random nonsense, gets out, looks at you, and teamkills you for no reason....oh and he's probably in the single digit battle ranks.

There are many randoms, pubbies, blueberries in this game. They don't squad up, are generally clueless, and are useful for a brief distraction of enemy gunfire.

Call it childish, I call it as I see it. Played Planetside since about 2007, I've seen MANY "randoms"

My reply addressed the context of this conversation. You described griefers which are a different type of player.
Randoms, blueberries, and public players are those not belonging to an organized group within a structured framework.
In the case of PS2, outfits. The implication is unorganized players dilute the effectiveness of a faction.
You called it as you see it, I called it as it is.

I use the term because it is relevant. Its meaning, if you don't or mis-understand it, is opposed to "intended" or "organised"; if anything or anyone does something randomly, that is the opposite of anything or anyone doing something with intent or in an organised way.

(randomn as opposed to intended and/or organised) <--- see???

random : click join battle
organised : pull Valk or Gal, hack vehicle terminal, pull sundy etc

if a base's timer is going down :

-> random : if green button on minimap, will maybe click on it and spawn there to defend the base. If no green button to spawn there, will continue on his merry way
-> organised : will find one way or another to get there to help save the base, whether it's base hopping (one green button after the other), or pulling a vehicle to get there

It's not childish, and I don't have a squad or outfit.


____________________________________________________

That said said, these terms (randomn, public etc) are commonly used in a derogatory way. Your sentiment is that doing so is childish, I would tend to agree that any generalisation is by definition a simplification, and simple is often associated to childish.

Yet, having a background in competitive gaming, I know from experience that I and many others, speak of randoms, pubs and so on, in a derogatory and simplified way, but it's absolutely 100% justified.