[Reform] 1V1 model is the way out

Discussion in 'PlanetSide 2 Gameplay Discussion' started by oyasumi, Oct 11, 2019.

  1. oyasumi

    New players can only understand the game through melee, while old players can only increase their fun through tactical alerts. 1v1v1 mode has too many problems, and 1v1 can solve most of them.

    Don't talk about so-called factional features. It's just game data. Strong is characteristic, weak is no new players to join.

    1v1 can solve the problem of population balance first. If equipments are shared equally, tanks and aircraft will have more matching. The average area of the map will be larger, and the strongholds and buildings will be strategic. Aircraft and tank regiments are tactical and will add more fun.
  2. LordKrelas

    1v1 Does not solve any of them.

    Without the 3rd side, there is less Threat for either side to concern themselves with, focusing their defenses & assaults, removing variables.
    If they get a beach-head, or an advantage, They have no risk from 3rd party as their only threat is from the weakened enemy.
    The frontline is reduced heavily, concentrating everything, and reduces the manpower needed - Since there is only one opponent.
    If they weaken that Opponent, or over-extend, There is no other opponent to take advantage of their own weakness.

    If they gain an Overpop, there is no means to counteract it: 33% vs 33% vs 33% solves this, as even with an Overpop, they'd face equal or more, from the combined opponents across two separate fronts, increasing the Manpower required.

    If a faction gains an equipment miss-balance, with only two sides, They will maul their opponent mercilessly, that has no hope in hell in handling it - and have no option but to face this in-balance constantly in every single fight.

    As well, it reduces every single battle... to the same two sets of weapons & styles.
    Right now, we have 3 entire Factions, with their own faction flavors.
    Every fight has 2 variations of entire technologies for the opponents.
    Players can experience 3 entire experiences of Equipment, and face 2 entirely different opponents, leading to vastly different battles.

    An Attack against TR, is vastly Different from an Attack on VS.
    Even more so, if you are VS attacking TR instead of NC - or NC attacking VS.
    With 1v1, It Never changes; it is always the same two forces clashing over the exact same rock, with no variance.
    It gets worse, when that also means, the experience is now reduced to 2 forces only - It Makes Burnout VASTLY faster.
    As every battle is now even more so Identical, stale, and been fought in the exact same way, even more clearly.

    Population Balance is also not fixed, by Painting 1\3rd of the forces, the same color as one of them.
    You still have Population Imbalances, in fact, you now have no natural counter to the Overpop.
    As the Overpop in 1v1v1 Must deal with 2 Opponents.
    In a 1v1, They only have the smaller victim, with no one to take advantage of any Miss-steps by the Overpop.

    A 1v1 situation, also does not Change vehicles nor Aircraft.
    It just means, They will always be the exact same aircraft, down to the paint-job doing the attacking.
    1v1, is incredibly boring on this scale.

    So-called Factional features..
    When you have 3 Forces, the Flavor differences are a lot more noticeable.
    Since there are 2 different Clashes per side, rather than an Identical Match-up every single time.
    • Up x 1
  3. oyasumi

    The third party camp you can't control at all, will only cause 2v1, population repression, this is imbalance. Why is there only two sides and no three sides on a scale? The three sides will be out of balance.

    Will it still cause population imbalance? Mandatory tripartite population balance, so that your so-called love of factional equipment in the waiting line, mandatory to join the least populous side, the disadvantaged side.

    The faction has a variety of tanks, not to add more collocation? Gameplay?

    What you call equipment imbalance is only equipment data? Like Max, the former NC powerhouse, is it the so-called balance?

    1v1 has more connection lines. Would it push each other like before? Tough?

    At present, the tripartite is the mode of failure.
  4. TR5L4Y3R

    seriously you do a new thread to this?

    ok just gonna make it short .... NO!!

    the game is not gonna cut a full faction, it has been built around the 1v1v1 idea it will stay that way and sink with it ..
    the game is already too old to bring in such a big change
    you reopening such a thread wont change DBG lacking the resources and manpower to quickly do that change i mean the recent lay offs should tell you something ..
    and you will only harm the game than improving it cause the 1v1v1 massive style play IS what people came for

    not whatever you want the chinese community be cattered to from that last thread of yours ..
    • Up x 1
  5. oyasumi

    Do you think the current tripartite model can retain new players? Now it is slowly consuming the enthusiasm of the old players for this game.

    After all, it's a game. Why do you make such a complicated tripartite?

    Plantside 2 was tested in 13 years. At that time, the hardware of the computer could not keep up with it. Now that the hardware problem has been solved, why not re-publicize it as a new game?

    There are some problems in the game that the company doesn't notice, and shouldn't our long-term online players think of a good way?

    I don't know what you have in mind. There's a saying in China,'Make every possible effort'.
  6. TR5L4Y3R

    dbg did put effort in making PS:A ..
    what do you not understand in the changes you ask for basicaly being a entire new game?
    i told you that on the other forum already ..

    it´s very easy for you to tell people to put effort into something when you have jack of an idea about their resourcesituation ..
    they just layed off people for a repeated time ! .. what do you think the devs are doing? playing with their thumbs?
    i wouldn´t be suprised at all if after the layoffs there would be repeated massages about the devs of DBG having to do hours of crunchtime ..
  7. Skraggz

    I'm surprised your government allows such a saying.
  8. Skraggz

    Also 1v1v1 is not this games pitfall. It's the lack of attention due to higher ups in the company and investors wanting to attempt to ride the BR train.... Greed. If they just allowed for development on going progress, this game could be miles better, but we are talking about a company that's attempting to ride its second BR when that market is already tremendously saturated. The lack of actually development in maps, vehicles or new base layouts, the lack of advertising, all these are way more damaging then its signature 1v1v1. Which btw has served other games just fine.
  9. LordKrelas

    The Third party ensures no single Overpop works;
    If one side has 40-50% of the population, they still have to fight (just like the other two sides), on two fronts.
    A 40% is not capable of dominating the entire map into a dead-lock, since they must fight 60%; that 2v1 is a counter-measure.
    As well, each Faction faces 2 fronts at all Times; This means you can not over-extended, or ignore fronts, without risk.
    The three sides have self-balancing mechanics, If one becomes too strong, the 3rd counter-balances this.

    Population Imbalance isn't limited to 1v1v1 nor 1v1.
    At least in 1v1v1, If a side has over-pop, it still has to split that across 2 Front-lines, rather than just Swarm a single lattice lane, without care - as the side they are not attacking, can engage there where their population is not.
    In 1v1, That Overpop has no risk nor threat, only thing that can attack them is the enemy they are mauling.

    In a 1v1, There is no risk to over-extending, Your battlelines & Connections are Not More.
    You have 1 Opponent - That means the frontline force, is against 1 opponent.
    That is a single large battleline, against a single force that has the same resources as you.
    Their population also has to support that single frontline.
    1v1v1, Each faction has 2 Frontlines, two Battelines, one per faction they must face: Over-extend on one, the Other with independent resources can Punish such actions.

    Unless you literally kill any faction flavor, Imbalances will most certainly happen.
    And even worse; Any faction flavor will be always there, in every fight, the same exact fight.
    Since no variance, this easily leans to Burnout since you need to grind certs in this game.

    1v1 Does not have more connection lines.
    You have 1 Opponent - You are not connected more to this opponent; You have 1 frontline, the Maps are designed for 3 Sectors.
    In a 1v1, That would be reduced to 2 Sectors, or have an entire third sector be completely useless.
    As to hold it, you would still not increase the number of connections, since it only be exposed on one-side, and it double the distance needed to attack the enemy, making it pointless, as No strategic location would be there.
    You only have 1 Opponent, bases are only exposed to 1 opponent, majority of opposing forces are 1 direction.

    As in 1v1v1, you are connected to 2 entire enemy forces, on a Map with 3 Sets of Identical Hex counts.
    There is 2 front-lines, one per enemy.
    There are 3 Command Centers, Based on the map, 3 Tech Plants, 3 Biolabs, 3 Power Stations.
    The map has 3 sectors of Hexes, with the center-lying Hexes connecting to the other sectors.
    This means some locations have 3 entire sets of connections, To the allied Hexes, to enemy #1 hexes, and to enemy #2 hexes.
    That is math.
    In 1v1v1, You have 2 opponents, 2 entire sectors of their influence, and then your own.

    At the moment, COD is not planet-side II, nor planet-side I.
    COD is 1v1.
    In fact, Battle-Royals, are not 1v1's, and are popular.
    Planetside-II has years of High activity, and still has a large playerbase; They handle 1v1v1 on a massive map.
    3 Entire factions, 3 Experiences with 2 different encounters across the entire map of bases. It keeps it fresh.
    The engagements are not always the same enemy on the same terrain.
    Battles can even move positions , and the opponent doesn't always have the same capability every waking hour.

    I'm not sure China is presently producing a Winning 1v1v1, nor 1v1 Game themselves.
    I'm pretty sure, they wouldn't Go "We must afford 3 Kingdoms" as their logic, nor claim 1 front-line is more than 2.

  10. oyasumi

    I don't know what planetside 2 is for. Not to experience better Lutankong's cooperation? Experience the fun of having teammates? Experience the excitement of the big battlefield? For novices, the third party makes it more difficult for them. Can you increase survival rate by shooting multiple people at the same time when you play the game?

    Let me illustrate the following three-way model:

    For example, when three people fight in life, how do you think they will fight?

    1: Two people have tacit understanding to hit you one.

    2: Solve one by yourself, and then choose one by one.

    3: Look at the fight between the two of them. Find the right time to fight again.

    4: None of the three fights, confronting each other.

    5: Three stirred together.

    6: I'm too strong to be spectacular, and I'm 1 V2 at the same time. (This situation has been dealt with by you using population balance mechanisms, for example, insect swarms)

    Does it mean that three people will punch two opponents at the same time?

    And you want a third party to keep the balance? The third party also wants to hit you. Why should the third party help you?

    The styles of those factions are, for example, TR's pins, NC's max, VS's gun cavalry, and engineer's line-controlled guns. The game modifies the equipment data and weakens those weapons. How many more people will use these factional weapons when they weaken?

    Players are experiencing the fun of shooting games, and balancing is meaningless. Population imbalance, factional weapons imbalance, players'combat effectiveness imbalance, and the game also wants to rely on third-party camps to help you maintain? Game is played by people, not by robots. Most people are bullying!
  11. LordKrelas

    Do you even play this game?

    Who the fresh hell is Lutankong?

    The Third party is meant to want to murder both sides, and both sides the third.
    Over-extension means Vulnerability, this cuts down on a lot of rushing as it exposes them to the target they aren't fighting.
    In a Duel, if the 2nd Person can not punish an Over-extension, the 1st Gains the sweeping advantage.
    If there is a third, waiting to strike, or is, These Over-extensions are always Punished.
    You can not Focus down 2 Entire directions of force at once - Focusing on one, leaves you exposed to the other.
    That is the purpose; Picture it like a Tri-pod - It creates Balance via Three points.
    Each applies pressure, and spreads the weight of the unit on-top.

    When three people try to kill each other, each one is looking for the advantage to win the fight.
    If you over-extend on one, the Other can use that to kill you.
    If you ignore one, they will kill you.
    If they ignore you, you can kill them.
    If the third lets the first focus on the 2nd, the Third can easily dispatch the 1st, leaving a weakened 2nd to kill.

    When there is only 2, Whomever gets the advantage in any manner or avoids punishment, Wins, and keeps that lead.
    If your over-extension locks down your Opponent, they can not punish; and if they are the only threat, you have completely shielded yourself from the only downside of Over-extending, reaping only the advantages.

    That's why the 1v1 Falls flat, and how the 1v1v1 succeeds.
    How Battle-Royals work as well; That every single opponent is looking to kill their opponents, and not make it fair.
    Their blood-lust ensures punishment for Mistakes & over-swinging, over-extending or only paying attention to one thing.
    This is an Old game, that has Endured for Years, as did the first, on 3 Special factions.
    It has avoided stale combat , unlike COD, via variance & Faction flavor, rather than Repetitive Lobby with RNGESUS.

    PS2 has 3 Factions, with 3 Unique characteristics on a Map, that isn't the typical "RED VS BLUE" slug-fest that never changes.
    Like dear lord, it isn't a Clone of every single Game that has 2 near-identical factions engaging in a Lobby, Jesus ****.
    • Up x 1
  12. oyasumi

    Do you know more about the game?

    In the two-party model, if the other side concentrates its population while advancing, the other side of the population will certainly be in a weak position. Are you in a weak position in the direction of population concentration on the other side and in a weak position in the direction of population concentration on the other side?

    Tripartite model, if you are in a weak position on one side and the other side is not necessarily very strong, understand? Because you have two opponents, and you only have the strength to fight one opponent, you know?

    Do you think that when two parties fight, the third party must act as the game balancer as you want?

    Now the map is changed every few hours, and it will take several hours for both sides with the same population to quickly defeat their opponents.

    I first heard that 1v1 is unfair. Do you want to defeat your opponent? 1v1 is not fair, 2v1 is fair?

    It will be more difficult to maintain the balance if one side is added.
  13. TRspy007

    Looool the 1v1 model doesn't solve anything. There will still be pop problems, lack of fights, and it takes away the lore.

    Why do you have to make it so complicated? The game is different, and that has drawn its own dedicated playerbase, no need to try to make such a massive, all the while useless change. It's too late anyways.

    Removing one faction won't help new players, they'll still be up against hardened veterans, and the grind will still be impossible.

    Solves nothing, not even a debate. You don't like the way the game is, that's too bad.

Share This Page