A suggestion from a Chinese gamer

Dear DB Hello, I am a Chinese player
According to the recent situation of Asian Games, I would like to say some personal opinions and suggestions: the number of Chinese game players is the first in the world, and the game market in China is very large. Plantside 2 is a very good game, but the 1v1v1 model is not suitable for Chinese people. If you like the history of China, Chinese people don't like the situation of three countries competing for hegemony. Chinese people like the situation of unity and cooperation. The situation of three parties must be eliminated first. Actually, the competition cooperation of 1v1 is much simpler than that of 1v1, because this reduces the collusion and knife stabbing among the three camps, and becomes the real time of 1v1 wrist. If it is two camps, the battle of attack and defense will be more intense. Team battle, carrier station, airspace station and building defense battle will be more intense. More intense. I feel very good about the camp balance mechanism that your company has recently established for Chinese players, but I still recommend that Asian clothing be used as the first test clothing and delete one side of the camp to become a 1v1 situation. Remove some of the vulnerable weapons from the camp and distribute them to other camps. A few powerful weapons are rewarded as passive skills of the map to the lock square. Random mounting of an opposing weapon every day to the camp (no accessories) can attract a group of new players and maintain the balance of the camp's weapons. Removed camps are awarded as airspace warning prizes. The same is true for motivation camps and vehicles. If one side of the camps is reduced, the connection lines will increase, the combat mode will become more intense, and the single-line advance of large Corps will become useless. The effect of small corps and companies is very obvious. As you can see from the recent competitions organized by your company, most of them are 1v1 mode, and no battle has been organized for 1v1v1, which is totally inconsistent with planetside 2 mode. I hope these suggestions will help you. After all, I like this game very much.

chinese people not caring bout 1v1v1 matters jack here .. this is planetside .. the first game was made with 1v1v1 in mind, so is the sequel .. it´s ammong what makes this game apealing and unique over other games .. in that case no one cares bout the "chinese" demographic ..
if you don´t like 3 factions competing for superiority .. than this is not your game ... the majority of this game´s playerbase came to this game for that reason ..

also i´m pretty sure you are not speaking for every chinese player ..

The awareness of the 1v1v1 model is too advanced to have much influence on the battle of small groups, but it has no significance in the organization of the three-party camp in the Asian uniform. The camp and the camp will directly unite to suppress the other side. Recently, you have frequently adjusted the population balance and revitalized the mechanism, presumably the same. In order to target these players. Why don't you organize more 1v1v1 matches? I think you'll find a lot more problems (if it's true that the three sides are equal, they can basically form a confrontation situation).

报错

If you simply use planetside2 as a FPS game, it really loses the real fun of the game.

Why 3 faction works:

In a two faction system if one faction becomes overpowered either temporarily or permanently (raw player count, batch of good leaders online, etc) then there is no correction. The minority players are going to have a bad time.

That's a really bad model for player retention.

In a 3 faction system it is impossible for one team to become dominant. If they do, it will eventually lead to a correcting double team.

This is not a cultural thing, it's just a game mechanics thing.

So I say the game mechanism is too advanced. If it's 1v1, there won't be too many population loss problems, and the fun of the game will double. After all, the strength of the three parties is quite fruitless, and there will inevitably be a strong one in the end. Why not take SolTech as the experimental target and test the game separately?

doesn´t matter .. this game is 6 years old already .. you are asking one part of the game to be taken out ...... (let me guess ..Vanu which i main in which case i´d say screw those guys that would want that)
and no .. taking a faction, away would not suddenly double the fun or bring a increase to the playerbase .. you would make the impact on a faction imballance worse .... this game still has no matchmaker, players chose a side on their own, they don´t get distributed between the factions (like say in counterstrike or battlefield) when logging in .. then you have to consider the empirespecific weapons and vehicles that work differently for each faction .. in which case the devteam would have to reballance the whole arsenal of the two remaing factions

because resources, manpower and timeinvestmeant for such a large change .. so not gonna happen considering the age of this game and the (small) size of the devteam behind it ..

you rather would get an entirely new game out of this than PS 2 being changed to cater torwards you ..

except i don´t as PS 2 offers way more than any fps ever .. it´s THAT unique truely no other fps can compare ..
and i don´t say this lightly ..

I always thought the 3 faction war was a cool unique part of the game.

Yes, DBG, make a Call-of-Duty for Chinese players plz : )))))

battlefield 2142-esque 96 v 96 sequel rather ..

.

I admit that the special equipment of the camp is interesting and distinctive. You will find that there are very few VS camps in SolTech, but the VS population in other servers is very strong, because the VS equipment is not characteristic? People in SolTech don't like VS? No, it's because of the loss of population in the VS corps, because the corps system can effectively help retain players'time, recruit new players, and of course, teams, teams, instructors, very good voice system. As far as SolTech is concerned, the mandatory tripartite balance can only mean the population. Actual combat is still a situation where two families are beaten up every day for a long time, which will inevitably lead to population loss. New players will not join the weak side, the strong are stronger and the weak are weaker. If it is the situation of 1v1, the map connection line is complex, and the one-way promotion of large groups has no effect. On the contrary, there will be more tactics. Large groups are bound to split small teams to each base, so that there will be battles in each base, and the population of the base is basically the same. When the time comes, the communication role of small teams and the establishment of small teams will be There will be more, so that the new legions will help recruit new players, and the new players will experience better.

If the front line is reduced to the Same conflict between two sides, a solid "Insert color" vs "Insert color"
It might as well be any other game, and it removes the Dynamic of always having a Third-party involvement risk.

Tactics Increased? How exactly, does removing an independent enemy, that has motive to take advantage of any weakness in their two opponents, improve tactics?
It removes the risk & threat, from both the remaining factions, of someone else attacking or taking advantage of what they do.

In a battle of 2 tank divisions, You can take more risks without concern, than If it was between 3 rival divisions.
What ever resources you devote in one battle, is not against the other opponent - This means, throwing men at one front alone, leaves you exposed, not to the side you are throwing the majority of your men at, but the 3rd party whom can Attack either side.

That encourages a bit more thought, since just throwing a ball of murder down a line, doesn't entangle your single opponent.
Your single opponent, without this third-party, also doesn't have any additional concern, nor has to consider anything else outside of your faction's attacks.
With a third-party; Both of those idiots are exposed or weakened.
So even if the First gained a Foothold on the 2nd, the 3rd can disrupt it, or take advantage of it in another fashion.

If that notion of self-correction, is "Too advanced"..
How in christ, is Aircraft, Vehicles & Infantry, with the sheer diverse options not even talking ES (Empire-specific) gear not making this game "Too Advanced" to handle?
Since a faction can't just tunnel-vision a single target, that will always be the same opponent, same weapons, same coloration, It's too advanced?

It does not bring more players, to go "Okay, it's Red-vs-Blue. So 1 front line, No third-parties on a massive continent!"
As that point, It might as well be a small-map, since tactically, barely even half of it would ever be active at once.
As one single practical front-line, instead of 2 Front-lines for each Faction, against two vastly different opponents.
IE, Ps2 is a lot more entertaining, when you can shift the entire opposition.

It's true that third parties can play a mutually reinforcing role, as they do in other servers. But in SolTech you'll be surprised to find that most of the population peaks at 1v2. Because these players understand that two-way fighting is bound to have one side in a weak position, if the two opposing forces are very tacit, you will inevitably not be able to stop the two-line enemy, so that the attacked party becomes a concentrated population single-line fighting, and if the opponent wants to stop him, it must have the same population, and finally form a situation of 1v1. These two warring parties simply ignore the third party, which can only read empty points or fight with the warring party across the base, and the third party can not destroy the balance at all.

I've heard that the PSA is going to join the 500vs500 model. What's the difference between planetside 2 single-line and single-line battles? In fact, you have only one opponent on the battlefield.

Or, for example, to cancel one side and distribute it as a random equilibrium to other camps, so that the population can be balanced and the fighting will be more intense.

The amount of Lore in PS2 is close to zero, but players have invested years in learning how to use their faction's equipment in the best way, or joined platoons and outfits and work together. That is important.

Other than that, with a population getting smaller and smaller, the same amount of players fighting over a single front line instead of 1.5 should increase the size of the fights.

1v1 is one of the worst possible ways to make a game where the population can choose which faction they play as.

You are better off if you made a system where the current factions are divided into subfactions of about 50 players that are enemies of their fellow subfactions. Then add various alerts that upon winning gives the old victory points to the subfactions who win it until one of them succeeds.

Alerts could include temporary forced alliances to ensure 100v100+ battles are still possible and can give great situations where an NC subfaction is fighting alongside a TR subfaction. Then after the alert the alliance falls apart and the fight suddenly breaks out between former allies.

Not only does this system prevent zerging by limiting the amount of players that could zerg but it also means that there is now 1 frontline per subfaction, and the subfactions are their own population control. Who cares if one faction got 50% of the pop if they are fighting each other just as much as the faction with just 10% pop? Also with so many frontlines an AI director could steer alerts and goals on the map to facilitate fights between different subfactions and escalate things.

For large scale outfits with more than 50 players online you can create their own subfaction, but because its larger you can give them different goals than the other subfactions. For example they need to hold on to more territory and/or fulfill more goals like having a PMB in certain area's with a HIVE charged to a certain % before they can win. Subfactions that are still filling up and not at full capacity could have smaller, easier tasks to complete for points.

You will find that there are many shortcomings in the current position balance mechanism. For example, in the battle of 48vs48, you can't balance the battle effectiveness of both sides at all, because there will certainly be a few people in the aimless rebirth room. In the seemingly equal battle of positions, it is actually inconsistent, because the new players and the old players are also in the battle. It's totally unfair to the disadvantaged. The less the population, the more obvious the balance is. (Now the balance is slowly consuming the enthusiasm of the old players, while the new players will choose to join the strong ones, because only the strong ones can keep them.)

As for the special equipment of the camp, it is meaningless for the new players, because they don't know what the special equipment of their camp is, only long-term online can understand, so how to retain the new players is the real problem.

So my question goes back to the original suggestion that the 1v1 mode will surely be more interesting than the 1v1 mode and will involve more players, because the players prefer the 1v1 battle process, even if they lose, they will not complain about the negative emotions caused by the third party camp. (Players prefer a fair 1v1 to a fair 1v2)

wrong, PS:A is a battleroyalestlye game were squads can consist of 12 players of a total of 300 players that fight each other to a last team standing ..