Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

    I am taking a break from Planetside 2 to write this.

    Currently, my squad is fighting against the Vanu in TR territory.

    It occurs to me that the vast majority of game that TG plays, (particularly of the FPS variety) are games with only two opposing teams.

    I would like to take this thread to open a discussion about the unique strategic and tactical concerns that arise from having 3 permanent factions on a map.

    Here are my thoughts.

    In general, the farther you expand in territory, the more outnumbered you become. This is because as you expand out, you open up more and more frontline against your opponents. This forces your opponents to attack you if they want to advance. We can however, minimize this. How? Avoid driving a wedge between the two factions. Avoid attacking territories between the two enemy factions as this forces them both to fight you. Instead, look to the outsides of the map and capture those swaths of territory. Try to squeeze the opposing factions together along their mutual frontlines so that they tie up as much of each others resources as possible. Because face it, unless you're running 40+% of the population, you can't afford to fight the full might of both empires at once.

    In short, if the TR wants to hold on to a symbolically important but strategically pointless piece of territory (read: The Crown) that is acting as a buffer between our territory and the Vanu - let them. Let the TR and Vanu tie up massive amounts of manpower on one pointless rock and move on, taking other territory. In the end they'll either abandon the territory or stubbornly hold on while you capture every other territory they own.
    Teamwork and Tactics are OP


    Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

  • #2
    Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

    now getting into the front line you were talking about regarding man power. The more your territory branches like a tree, the more perimeter yo have which equals more man power and therefore more spreading out of people. The ideal territory would be to has a straight front, most manpower on the front lines.

    although driving a wedge into and around a main point is very fun., must be swift and using the least amount of people to be totally effective.
    |TG-Irr| di1lweed1212

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

      You're still thinking in terms of a 1 v 1 scenario.

      Because of the nature of the maps and the number of teams, every advance you make will expand your total frontage. (until you get near-total coverage i.e. gate-locking)

      What this accomplishes is to spread out your enemies to an even greater degree while you capture territory.

      In a straight-front advance, you expand your total frontage while reducing your enemy's total frontage. With a flanking advance like this the enemy maintains or even increases his total frontage, resulting in your enemy being more spread out instead of becoming more and more concentrated as you advance.

      This may all seem like speculation, but I've spent a lot of time studying the large-scale shifting of territory control in PS2 and I think this is at the core of a lot of what we see. It explains why it's easier to warp-lock the other two factions from the northern position on Indar and also why it's easier for either of the southern factions to expand north than it is for them to expand east/west.
      Teamwork and Tactics are OP


      Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

        My basic strategy seems to have become answering the question: how can I make the opponents fight each-other as much as possible?


        Sun Tzu said:
        The good fighters of old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an opportunity of defeating the enemy.
        To secure ourselves against defeat lies in our own hands, but the opportunity of defeating the enemy is provided by the enemy himself.

        I'm thinking along the same lines as you Strait. I think it is effective to try and piss off the opposing team as little as possible. People in games play reactively, revenge being one of the key motives. If we push hard on a specific faction, sooner or later they will take personal offense to e.g. losing Peris Amp Station, Not being able to spawn where they want, having to stop taking scythes because we are close to their gate etc etc. THen They will push us back if population allows it.

        Now because we got really up in this fadction's face, they will not stop at retaking bases, but they will come to kill us, even at the cost of losing much much territory to the third faction. It is the same thing as in other FPS games, where SO so many people always try to kill back whoever killed them right after a respawn. THey will ignore other enemies and just try to kill you back. If you are lucky/smart, he will never make it to you. Or you will die.

        In PS2 the same thing happens. The large zerg groups and even the outfits seem behave roughly the same as an individual fps player would.

        Now you can make this mechanic work against you, by getting into these two way fights, winning, but also getting raped after (or before if you yourself are reactive). Alternatively you can let it work for you, by nothing more than facilitating the conditions in which the enemy factions will fight each-other.

        Just like Rumsfeld didn't have to ask people to torture for him, he knew damn well that if he provided the conditions for it (impunity) human nature would do the rest.

        To facilitate the enemies getting a vendetta on I try to maximize the length of their frontline (TR-VANU) and minimize the length of my frontline with them. I try not to take anything that I feel we cannot hold, given the population distribution on the continent.

        It must be added that my strategy is based on controlling the largest amount of territory, for a period of many hours. I am not talking about gettin ga full platoon, steamrolling a bunch of bases, and then quitting when the attack peters out (at Mao or Peris often). Taking either of these will surely get your enemy in revenge mode.

        This strategy was actually based on the Auraxium system which is gone and to be replaced by a system where it seems the emphasis will be on conquering entire continents. I have no Idea how that will affect strategic considerations. Many new tactics must be devised. Theorycrafting fun4all! My strategy will still have value though, as capturing and holding territory will always be part of the mission.

        Currently in th ebeta there is actually no reason at all to hold many territories. Only the goals of cert gains and bragging rights remain. THat is why people are leaving whole continents open so they can farm at the crown ;p. Something I wised up to when my AA-team ended up there that first time. Boy can you whore a lot of points there. Since it is currently the only goal in game, there is this perverse effect that bigger and more pointless a meatgrinder is, the more it helps you get points. SO you are getting points for losing a lot of manpower ineffectively. It is indirectly a bonus to suicidal stalemates.

        But then, in this game, we can set our own goals, whatever the rest does. In fact, we have always done that imo. I see this as one of the hallmarks of TG.




        I want to add some Sun Tzu snippets that might inspire. I say snippets, because it is not possible to quote something said in Chinese, in English. To think so would be a fallacy.

        “Thus the expert in battle moves the enemy, and is not moved by him.”
        “Pretend inferiority and encourage his arrogance.”
        “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press
        a desperate foe too hard.”
        “Supreme excellence consists of breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting.”

        (Szun, y u no think of xp!)
        Last edited by BigGaayAl; 10-23-2012, 04:33 AM.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

          Originally posted by BigGaayAl View Post
          THat is why people are leaving whole continents open so they can farm at the crown ;p.
          It has become a "King of the Hill" MMO. If there was some specific benefit to holding the crown while the other territories support your assault or defence of it , I don't think that would make for a half-bad meta game. Ultimately, I think we need to see how the continent capture mechanic works out.

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

            Also consider the population demographics for each faction. I think it is clear that there is a different set of values for each faction and certainly different peek hours.
            "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!"
            Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

              Originally posted by BigGaayAl View Post
              Currently in th ebeta there is actually no reason at all to hold many territories. Only the goals of cert gains and bragging rights remain. THat is why people are leaving whole continents open so they can farm at the crown ;p. Something I wised up to when my AA-team ended up there that first time. Boy can you whore a lot of points there. Since it is currently the only goal in game, there is this perverse effect that bigger and more pointless a meatgrinder is, the more it helps you get points. SO you are getting points for losing a lot of manpower ineffectively. It is indirectly a bonus to suicidal stalemates.
              You make a good point. I hadn't really thought of it that way.

              I played a few hours solo today and wow, the crown is a great place to be an xp whore. Something like 70 certs in 2 hours.

              The other thing that I began to notice though, is that when you are running solo in PS2 there is a greater reason to hold the crown - you know where your allies are.

              Out in the open you need a squad to watch your back, there is just too much going on to cover all directions. At the crown you know where your allies are and where your enemies are and you can settle down to methodically killing everything in sight without worrying about being flanked.
              Teamwork and Tactics are OP


              Strait /strāt/ (Noun) A narrow passage of water connecting two seas or two large areas of water: "the Northumberland Strait".

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

                Noone likes to be in the center of a gangbang



                sigpic

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

                  Originally posted by Atatron View Post
                  Noone likes to be in the center of a gangbang
                  There are several videos on the internet that would refute that statement...*eh-hem*...not that I have ever seen them...
                  "The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank God for the United States Marine Corps!"
                  Eleanor Roosevelt, First Lady of the United States, 1945

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Strategic Play in a Battle Royal

                    So far all I know is on Indar, ignore the Crown. Just let them have it. It's a 3-Hex fustercluck which, for the NC, gives the enemy 1 Hex of influence on Zurvan. Tonight I saw a platoon throw itself at the Crown to no effect while the TR picked up The Palisade, Rust Mesa and then into Zurvan. When the packed off to The Crossroads and started yet another assault on The Crown (with the Vanu hitting it from TI Alloys) I decided enough was enough. Dropped the platoon, moved solo to Blackshard to defend, moved up to Mesa Comm. Station and then helped push into Zurvan. By the end of the night The Crown was still in TR hands even though it had both NC and VS hammering it hard. Just so not worth it.
                    "...the rules aren't there to enumerate what is always correct but what is always wrong..."

                    Comment

                    Connect

                    Collapse

                    TeamSpeak 3 Server

                    Collapse

                    Advertisement

                    Collapse

                    Twitter Feed

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X