A suggestion from a Chinese gamer

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by oyasumi, Sep 26, 2019.

  1. TR5L4Y3R


    do me please a favor and write in paragraphs ... single large textblocks are hard on the eyes

    why should i care about the lack of faction population on one server?
    players can do whatever they want; i started as NC but migraded to Vanu and still have a TR character that i play occaionaly ..
    i see no reason still to leave a faction out ..

    as i said before you will make the impact of factionpopulationdifference worse ..
    players will not join the weak faction? considereing the current gameballance with TR and NC if vanu would no longer be there that would mean that NC would be all the more screwed .. and at the very worst this could kill the game because you would see TR more and more dominating both in playernumbers and more ease of use on their arsenal .. players on the NC side will lose motivation to keep playing and NC might become less and less favorable to play with lack of players as the consequence ..
    the same would happen if you were to leave out any of the factions cause one will be favored above the other

    weither that TR - NC, TR - VS or NC - VS ... the maps were also made with 3 factions in mind .. not 2 you would have to rework all the laticelinks and mapdestribution for a fair continentbattle ... which is still not true with the current ballance ...


    you are not speaking for the playerbase of this game .. otherwise this game would not have been as succesfull as it is ..
    so no, the majority DOES THINK that 1v1v1 is more intresting ... it makes the game less predictable .. the chaosefactor that anything can happen IS what makes this game what is ...

    sure there are shortcomings but how does your 1v1 idea get rid of these cause the same shortcomings will aply there aswell without making the game more homogenised, predictable and mundane if you then go and ballance everything out?


    wrong, players will still go by the logic of path of least resistance .. the lack of a third party to battle against will not render strategy of zerging void .. strength in numbers will always be the preffered way to play for the begginers and novices .. only veteran clans or platoons may have more tactical expertice but these are the minority still ..


    small teams will only be a thing for ghostcapping .. the large offensive blob will still be there ..

    also realy .. your idea/philosofy goes very much against what this game actualy advertised itself for, which is large battles with numbers in low hundreds on a base and a 1000+ players fighting over a continent ..

    soo seriously ... forget it .. it won´t ever happen with this game ..
    it´s too late in the game´s lifespan
    it´s too intensive of a change resource- and timewise for every aspect of the game for how small a company DBG is
    it will pi ss longstanding players off making them leave and goes against what the game initialy advertised
    it wont bring more players in that way it will rather impact the game and the franchise negatively ..

    what you want is a entirely new game with this idea, PS 2 will not be that ..
  2. Demigan

    You assume that with a 1v1 faction fight it'll always be balanced, but they are the hardest to balance. If one facrion gets more population for one reason or another there is no way to balance the population out.

    In a 1v1v1 free for all if one facrion gets 7% more population it still means it has 40% of the total population and it has to compete with the 60% remaining population.
    In a 4 faction free for all it becomes even harder to achieve population dominance, 5 faction free for all becomes even harder... each extra (sub)faction to divide the population over means zerging and 2v1 fights become harder, and the likelyhood that factions that fought an opportunistic 2v1 will then engage each other rather than continue doing a 2v1 against that same subfaction.

    So your solution would do the exact opposite of what you want to achieve. Making a 1v1 game does not work without a lobby system to balance out the pop before and during combat, and PS2 is without a lobby for good reason.
    • Up x 1
  3. OneShadowWarrior

    This is not China.
  4. oyasumi

    [IMG]
    This is the number of SolTech days in January. I remember sometimes opening three maps.



    And now? In just a few months, the population was only one third, or half, of that time. If this is compared with the opening of the service in 2013, there is no comparability, and the number of people is getting smaller and smaller.



    If the number of players in a server does not even have 1000 people, what is the excitement and sense of excitement with the thousands of people advertised at that time?



    I think the problem now is how to inflow new players, and the new players can only feel the interest of the camp equipment in the early stage. When he feels the interest of the equipment, he must provide him with a good fighting environment, and this good combat environment can only be provided by the old players and the companies.



    Suppose we want to balance the population of a square camp like the NS camp, and the equipment of this camp is still there, so the old players and the new players will also join. The remaining two sides will have more than one stronghold, so that in the case of population balance, each team will provide more battlefield and environment, and new players will experience more tension and stimulate the game experience.



    After all, there is no such interesting war game as PS2.
  5. oyasumi

    [IMG]

    Of course, it is generally acknowledged that Fig. 1 is the most balanced state of population, but in fact, in SolTech, it is often Fig. 2 and Fig. 3.



    For example, in Figure 2, because NC and VC play tr (2v1) at the same time, that's 74% vs 26%, even if TR and vs play nc, 63% vs 27%. Is that a balance?



    For example, in Figure 3, NC uses most people to suppress tr. At this time, the population of TR and NC is 26% vs 37%, which is 11%, while vs is 18.5% on one side, which is 44.5% vs 26% for tr.

    Okay, let's say vs takes a plan. I use all the people to fight NC to help tr ease NC forces. What role does NC play regardless of vs? Push empty points. If NC returns half of the people, the situation with tr will be broken immediately, then NC will be attacked by TR and vs at the same time, 63% vs 37%.



    So how can we achieve balance? Players don't listen to you at all. There are also vehicles, planes, buildings, casual players that sometimes have no effect on the strongholds at all. And you think that the most populous side, in fact, in the fight will be reduced by 7% of the population, sometimes the more populous side does not have any advantage.



    According to the current balance mechanism, queuing is required for a difference of 10%. As shown in Figure 3, if the system adds tr to the random balanced population, (equipment weapons exist). Even if the total population difference between the two sides is only 10%. The population gap is much more balanced than that of 2v1.
  6. Demigan

    We can actually check if that's true:
    https://ps2.fisu.pw/activity/?world=40

    The triangle gives an indication on how much population is getting killed. Often people think their faction is being focused while in fact it isn't, simply because they mostly see their own faction being attacked and do not pay enough attention to how much the other factions actually fight each other.

    While yes there is the option for deliberate mobbing, this reduces the more factions you introduce. Just make that triangle a square and try to divide it, anyone focussing on a smaller faction will ineviteably be attacked by the 4rth faction that does not have access to the smallest faction. Hey! That means you can't focus a smaller faction anymore because you would get wiped yourself! Isn't that wonderful?
    Now ofcourse there is never a 100% guarantee, but that's the point. There is a bigger guarantee that fights will go evenly if you introduce more factions compared to fewer factions. And with just 2 factions you open up your game to much more imbalances than with higher numbers of factions.
  7. oyasumi

    Adding more factions is also a good way, but there is too much to change.

    If we want to divide the original map into three parts, we may need to add new positions and make new weaponry. As a balance, the NS camp has not played its due role.

    So it's much simpler to allocate one party now than to add one. In this way, there will be more links between the two sides, more hot battle spots, and some 12-person teams will organize some attack points independently.
  8. TR5L4Y3R


    the NS role is to reinforce the weakest faction with mercenary players, that´s already the case ..
    the availability of more attackroutes is not neccesarily a possitive .. on populationimballance you would just allow the overpopfaction to snowball harder on the underpop .. you won´t make zerging dissappear that way, the zerg will stay AND the overpop faction has the numbers to attack more bases than the underpop overwhelming them with bases to defend ..

    weither you add a faction or take one away that´s already too big a change .. you are not considering the arsenal imballances or mapimballances that need to be changed for that ... "simplier" is still not simple ...
  9. oyasumi

    The formation of Zerg was originally composed of low combat players. Compared with a tiger and a wolf fighting, the wolf must be dead. If there were three or four wolves, the situation would be different.

    This is the way the Zerg advance. If you don't concentrate the population, the division of the population will be weak. In this way, new players will complain when they join the game (because he knows nothing), and the old players will also complain.

    However, there is no way for the present resurrection mechanism to enable the former Zergs to use a wave of resurrection to recapture their strongholds.

    Imagine that if the 1v1 situation, the most important stronghold needs support, and the Zerg can not be directly resurrected at the bottom, even if the aircraft carrier is used to open to the strongpoint, it will take several minutes. During the period of consumption, these players are in the carrier, and have no effect on the support of the whole map, and the other side may be conducive to this period of time. Favorable populations attack other strongholds.

    However, the tripartite warfare is too easy to form a situation of 2v1, strong and weak. With fewer links between single camp and single camp strongholds, the purpose of advancing can be seen at a glance.

    If it is 1v1, the link lines of the strongholds will double. Even in the face of the Zerg's single-line advancement, the population of other areas will inevitably vary greatly, the fighting in other areas will be more smoothly, and some small legions will play a better role.

    If the 1v1v1 mode is still used, in the battle between the more populous single camp and the single camp, with only a few links, the role of the small legions will not be too large (less than 12), and the Zerg will annex these small legions and become more and more powerful. On the contrary, if there are more links and alarm time, the Zerg can only fight separately in such a situation. The role of the small army will increase, and more and more new players will be built up.
  10. Demigan

    I still do not see the correlation between having 1 less faction and suddenly zergs being more balanced out.

    With 2 factions you start with a frontline that cuts the map in two.
    With 3 factions you get another frontline, meaning you added 50% more bases to fight at. This spreads population and gives more area's for smaller teams to fight at.
    Now add a 4rth faction or a subfaction and suddenly you have another frontline, double the frontline of just 2 factions! On top of that the maximum total population on a continent is limited, so you now have to divide that over more factions meaning you have to spread a smaller population across more frontline.
    • Up x 2
  11. oyasumi

    You think so, if the total number of a map is 1000 people, the average number of two camps is 500 vs500, and all the positions where the map intersects are battle areas, is the battle more intense?

    The average number of people in each of the three camps is 333. For example, when the whole population of VS and NC exchanges fire, the number of points where the map intersects is less than half and there is a lack of flexibility. The population is only 333 vs333, which is a small part of the population compared with the two camps.

    If the small legions of vs move to other points of interchange in nc, it's no problem. If they move to the direction of tr, then the small legions of vs will restrict the population of tr. While you have the whole population of NC on the front, the side line attracts part of the population of tr, and it will gradually become 2v1, just like the #25 diagram.

    Now SolTech is the case. If it's 1v1, the way the small Corps fight will not attract the third-party population, will not be suppressed by the two-party population, and the map is more flexible, the survival time of the small Corps will be longer.
  12. adamts01

    That's just a theory. There's no question as to why having more than two teams is a relative rarity in competition.
  13. Demigan

    Because normally it's a lobby-based shooter and they can balance it out each time?
    • Up x 1
  14. oyasumi

    So this is usually a shooting game, and the new players will also play as shooting games at the beginning. New players and old players are not the same marksmanship. It may take 3 or 4 new players to fight together. This has resulted in a poor population.

    Who can survive under the pressure of both sides? At present, the population repression caused by the two sides is simply impossible to deal with, and the balance will become larger and larger.

    A strong enemy who needs 4 new players to fight to death now becomes the 4 strong enemy to hit me a new player. Since it's a shooter game, new players do not have a better environment. Usually the two party is better than the three party.
  15. Demigan

    Again, how does this mean that 2 factions is better than 3 factions? You act as if 100% of new players end up on one faction and that faction is always zerged... except you also said that the lowest pop faction is getting hit by the two other facrions, and with 4 new players necessary to defeat 1 veteran (according to you) the faction with new players would be the biggest one.
    • Up x 1
  16. TRspy007

    Man the thing is that this is a Japanese/American game so, we don't really care about matching a certain set of cultural beliefs. This game is intended for everyone who wants something different than their average 1v1 game to play. If you don't want to play a 1v1v1, then don't. Play planetside arena lol I don't care, just don't ask to remove what makes planetside planetside lol.

    If china was the whole playerbase, then maybe, but we're not going to change the whole concept of the game to please a small portion of players, (who in general tend to be hackers, but that's another discussion). This is just a silly, hypocritical suggestion. So does that mean all the females characters should dress in black and male characters in white for the whole game, because that's my culture???? How does that even make sense for you to post??!?!

    If a Chinese millionaire wants to buy the game or a server and do whatever he wants with it, then whatever, but you can't ask to change the game with the whole idea that one potential playerbase will enjoy it more. Just go play planetside arena or call of duty lol.

    Sure the game would be a lot SIMPLER with 2 factions instead of two, but that'd be taking away from the lore, the strategy and the chaos that is caused by an all out war.
  17. oyasumi

    After playing planetside2 for 3 years, I really don't know what the official thinks. Is SolTech open to redesign a region for Chinese people? I'm not sure.

    I don't know that the official hatred of the Zerg concept is really the same. Continuous stronghold balancing mechanism, camp balancing mechanism. I don't know why the official did so.

    Is it so annoying for the Zerg? I am also a member of YLB, a member of what you call the Zerg. And I usually share the fun and experience of some games on some live platforms, and do some strategies and experience of games. Like the members of Twitch platform, can we increase the revenue of the live industry? In fact, we can not, but because we are full of love and passion for this game, selfless to add more new players to the game.

    Do you know how many new players have attracted you from the first few people who have finally developed into hundreds of people and how much sweat and enthusiasm they have paid? And you don't know. I remember the most time before, we had 150 players fighting together, it was really overwhelming, and you think these 150 people are the game's virus, we must eliminate them. Now we only have a team of 50 people. Do you think these 100 people went to other camps or quit the game? You don't know.

    And you will only think that we have influenced your game fun. You think the battle between 96+ and 96+ is unreasonable, like 24+ and 24+'s fighting pleasure.

    I have been involved in the 96+ battle between China and Germany for 17 years, and I think it is the most interesting battle in history. In this battle, it means 96vs96, and it does not appear in 1v1v1. From then on, wow, this game is really a game of war strategy and shooting, because everyone can be the commander of the camp. Everyone may have changed a small game, and I feel the unprecedented blood.

    And you only know that our so-called bugs affect the fun of the other two camps, and have some targeted strategies. And you're a game after all. That's what I recommend for your 1v1 camp. The 1v1 model can reduce the population disparity in the camp. Even if it causes the death between the camp and the other camp, it can also have a way to deal with it. It can also reduce the population problems and the emotional problems of the camp. These emotional problems can be used as motivation to attack the other side.
  18. Blam320

    OP, you're basically asking for Daybreak to get rid of the one defining feature PlanetSide 2 has that sets it apart from most other team-based games on the market.

    I can't even fathom how you even think having three factions as a mechanic goes against "China's culture of unity." Pretty much every society in the world has a "culture of unity," or as I'm more inclined to interpret it, "national pride," and so far this is the only complaint I've seen that says the three-faction mechanic is too much, and needs to be dropped in favor of the run-of-the-mill two faction mechanic.
    • Up x 1
  19. adamts01

    1,000+ players on a single map in a fps is completely unique. 1v1v1 isn't anything really special, it's just something most companies have avoided because of the problems presented in PS2.
  20. TR5L4Y3R


    yea and it is EXACTLY WHY sony/dbg had some balls to take it on that people went for it ..
    yes, it IS special ..
    • Up x 1