Is nobody else depressed about having 3 factions again? Wouldn't 0, 2,or 4 be better?

[Serisno]

(Edit Summary: See the bottom of this post for a summary of what this thread has found.)

I haven't met a single person that says they enjoy the 3 faction system.

Cons
I don't think I need to look very far to find arguments for why the three faction system doesn't make for funtimes.

The 3 faction system has proven itself ineffective. It either devolves into a pointless three way stale mate, with minimal progress being made by any one side.

Or it causes one faction to fight two separate battles on two separate fronts... not much fun.

Whenever one faction makes too much progress, the other two can easily focus fire them for a while until they back down. So unless one faction can take on BOTH other factions at the same time... there's no point in conquest. A la Planetside.



Pros
There is a possibility to have three separate battles happening simultaneously. One between faction A-B, B-C, and C-A. But this requires that all three factions have the ability to pop lock TWO battlezones. And if all three factions can't fully support two separate battles. Then we'll revert to the scenarios described above in the cons.

Solution
Any ideas?

My two thoughts. Make the world more like Eve did. (There are different factions, but they aren't automatically allied to all other members of their faction. This would allow people to form their own factions and alliances like in Eve.)

Or make an even number of factions.


Summary
I'm tired of using tactics and strategy to outsmart my enemy and push the tide of battle forward... only to see the third faction start capping towers behind me...


Thread Summary: What we've learned

This thread is completed within the first three pages if you wish to read. Otherwise here is a summary.

The true complaint in the OP is about the cyclical nature of the game. The proposition to change the number of factions is merely an ends to this goal.

We have been given a good solid set of reasons for why a 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,... faction system will have drawbacks. In the end, a three faction system will have the least (most easily overcome) set of drawbacks. Therefore, a three faction system was chosen. I can accept this. Sometimes you have to pick the lesser of 7 evils.

To mitigate the drawbacks of a three faction system and to reduce the cyclical nature of the game, it has been pointed out that the devs will fix this via the new, more granular, lattice work system.

At this point we can't tell if the new lattice work system will create another cyclical game or not. But at least we know the problem has been addressed. Now we just need to wait and hope their solution works.

[Raymac]

I haven't met a single person that says they enjoy the 3 faction system.

Hi, I'm Raymac. I like the 3 empire system. Nice to meet you.

Oh, and you may want to go check out the Starcraft forums, you'll probably find a couple people there that like it too.

[CutterJohn]

3 is necessary, since if one gets too big for its britches they will become the common enemy of the other two empires. If there is only 2, and one gains an upper hand, there is nobody else to oppose them, and they maintain this upper hand.

[TacosWLove]

The 3 faction system is what breaks those stalemates. Um, seriously though how long you been playing PS? I too enjoy the 3 faction system.

IMO it needs to be like when PS had good pop and they didnt have caps for each empire, that way we can still have the two faction only battles and if the 3 faction starts taking some of their territory they need to choose which one they want to defend.

[Aractain]

3 factions is the best. This is not a pro tournament, this is warfare and 3 is going to get you the best gameplay in an unbalanced free form system.

[Vancha]

Three's certainly better than two. Just look at the faction imbalance on some of the WoW servers. Having three sides actually equates to a better balance.

I don't think I'd be opposed to four, though I could see a lot of the conservative PS players rejecting it.

[Sirisian]

Where is the poll? Fail... Also 3 is fine. Two would get boring and 3 adds that surprised since you can have a 3-way battle at a base.

[Bruttal]

Well am just gonna say, I understand the need for an odd number of empires the devs have explained it so many times there purple in the face

[NewSith]

2 factions is easier to balance actually, but having 2 factions makes gameplay quite predictable. 4 sides is interesting but usually turns everything to a bloody deathmatch. And by bloody I MEAN bloody...

[Sovereign]

Well, I have for a long time contemplated them adding in the xeno remnants as a 4th faction but meh it would be too aligned with VS..

I'm content with 3 factions even with its apparent drawbacks where you sometimes have 2 factions vs the 1.

[Bruttal]

oh and Purple is just too Awesome! (http://www.rosco.com/spectrum/index.php/tag/sonia-pasqual/)

[basti]

I haven't met a single person that says they enjoy the 3 faction system.

Cons
I don't think I need to look very far to find arguments for why the three faction system doesn't make for funtimes.

The 3 faction system has proven itself ineffective. It either devolves into a pointless three way stale mate, with minimal progress being made by any one side.

Or it causes one faction to fight two separate battles on two separate fronts... not much fun.

Whenever one faction makes too much progress, the other two can easily focus fire them for a while until they back down. So unless one faction can take on BOTH other factions at the same time... there's no point in conquest. A la Planetside.



Pros
There is a possibility to have three separate battles happening simultaneously. One between faction A-B, B-C, and C-A. But this requires that all three factions have the ability to pop lock TWO battlezones. And if all three factions can't fully support two separate battles. Then we'll revert to the scenarios described above in the cons.

Solution
Any ideas?

My two thoughts. Make the world more like Eve did. (There are different factions, but they aren't automatically allied to all other members of their faction. This would allow people to form their own factions and alliances like in Eve.)

Or make an even number of factions.


Summary
I'm tired of using tactics and strategy to outsmart my enemy and push the tide of battle forward... only to see the third faction start capping towers behind me...


You obviously didnt think this one throu really:

2 factions: always a stalemate. Breaking out of it is almost impossible.

3: If a stalemate develops between 2 factions, the third one is just going to screw everything up. In fact, the entire war balances itself, with the strongest faction being the target of the other two until one of those weaker two becomes the new strongest faction. It works perfectly, in so many games.

4+ factions: At this point, it starts to become a clusterfuck. Fights would be completly unpredictable, and every now and then 3 factions would fight against one, making that one loosing left and right pretty fast. Besides that, more factions means less players per faction.



3 is the perfect number, always has and always will be.

[Serisno]

3 is necessary, since if one gets too big for its britches they will become the common enemy of the other two empires. If there is only 2, and one gains an upper hand, there is nobody else to oppose them, and they maintain this upper hand.

This is what we call a stale mate. This is what I'd like to avoid. At least... make it a bit harder or longer before the big guy can be broken by the little ones.

Right now with 3 factions, one guy gets too strong... takes one or two bases... then gets stomped back to where he started. Its just too easy to make that temporary alliance.

If we had 4+ factions like eve. At least it would take some strategy on the part of the little guys to temporarily get together and make a coordinated strike against a larger enemy.

Three's certainly better than two. Just look at the faction imbalance on some of the WoW servers. Having three sides actually equates to a better balance.

I don't think I'd be opposed to four, though I could see a lot of the conservative PS players rejecting it.

I'll agree that 2 factions would be out of the question. Since there would be no way for the losing faction to ever make a come back. Playing the rebel underdog is fun... but not if you don't stand a chance.

Well am just gonna say, I understand the need for an odd number of empires the devs have explained it so many times there purple in the face

Link?

You obviously didnt think this one throu really:

2 factions: always a stalemate. Breaking out of it is almost impossible.

3: If a stalemate develops between 2 factions, the third one is just going to screw everything up. In fact, the entire war balances itself, with the strongest faction being the target of the other two until one of those weaker two becomes the new strongest faction. It works perfectly, in so many games.

4+ factions: At this point, it starts to become a clusterfuck. Fights would be completly unpredictable, and every now and then 3 factions would fight against one, making that one loosing left and right pretty fast. Besides that, more factions means less players per faction.



3 is the perfect number, always has and always will be.


2: I now agree that 2 factions would be bad.

3: What other games? And don't list Star Craft. Because that is not a persistent world. Yes it works well for balancing (rock paper scissors style) the three sides, but I'm not talking 'strength balance' I'm talking "battlefront balance". I'd like to see an example of a three faction system in a persistent world. But even if you show me a three faction system in a persistent world that works... I'll always look at Planetside and see a three faction system that ended up being a worldwide stalemate. :(

4: Apparently you never played Eve



------------------------------

Trust me. I want to like the three faction system. I just need someone to help me see how we won't devolve into what Planetside is right now?

Also, nobody has mentioned making the world more like Eve. Thoughts on that?

[Krowe]

If you're fighting a 3 way, you're on the wrong planet anyways most of the time.

[Bruttal]

This is what we call a stale mate. This is what I'd like to avoid. At least... make it a bit harder or longer before the big guy can be broken by the little ones.

Right now with 3 factions, one guy gets too strong... takes one or two bases... then gets stomped back to where he started. Its just too easy to make that temporary alliance.

If we had 4+ factions like eve. At least it would take some strategy on the part of the little guys to temporarily get together and make a coordinated strike against a larger enemy.



I'll agree that 2 factions would be out of the question. Since there would be no way for the losing faction to ever make a come back. Playing the rebel underdog is fun... but not if you don't stand a chance.



Link?




2: I now agree that 2 factions would be bad.

3: What other games? And don't list Star Craft. Because that is not a persistent world. Yes it works well for balancing (rock paper scissors style) the three sides, but I'm not talking 'strength balance' I'm talking "battlefront balance". I'd like to see an example of a three faction system in a persistent world. But even if you show me a three faction system in a persistent world that works... I'll always look at Planetside and see a three faction system that ended up being a worldwide stalemate. :(

4: Apparently you never played Eve



------------------------------

Trust me. I want to like the three faction system. I just need someone to help me see how we won't devolve into what Planetside is right now?

Also, nobody has mentioned making the world more like Eve. Thoughts on that?


Its a lil hard to go back to 2003 and find all the conversations posted on the forums, Oh and No i dont want EVE if i wanted EVE id play EVE, I dont Play EVE because i dont Like EVE.

[Vancha]

EVE is a bad example, because despite people's choice of race, it's not a restriction on who they fight with or against. The vast majority of fights in EVE aren't Minmatar vs Caldari vs Gallente vs Amarr.

I think 4/5/6/7/8+ empires could work in PS if it could work anywhere. You'd just need enough continents that were large enough and some system that meant having them all be part of the same fight at once wasn't very likely.

[Bags]

I like the three empire system, and what do you tell to the people who played the empire you axed? tough shit?

[Serisno]

Its a lil hard to go back to 2003 and find all the conversations posted on the forums, Oh and No i dont want EVE if i wanted EVE id play EVE, I dont Play EVE because i dont Like EVE.

I was under the impression that Eve was a major inspiration for PS2.

http://www.pcgamer.com/2011/07/13/eve-online-and-battlefield-2-listed-as-major-inspirations-for-planetside-2/

And I agree on the fact that I don't want to play Eve. I'm tired of the space ship clicking buttons and waiting for the bad guy to die game. But you can't argue that they don't have an amazing community and faction system.

[Raymac]

Dose anybody here honestly think they are going to stray from the 3 faction system at this point in the development?

[Chaff]

.
My wife will likely never agree to a 3-way, so I'm left counting on PS to provide me with more than one thing to shoot at.....

okay ?

Don't take my only 3-way away.

booyah

[Logit]

Dose anybody here honestly think they are going to stray from the 3 faction system at this point in the development?

The answer to this question is No.

This thread is a moot point.

2 Factions would be BORING.

4+ Would just simply be too much shit going on.

But 3333333333333333333 is the perfect # :groovy::groovy::groovy:

[Serisno]

EVE is a bad example, because despite people's choice of race, it's not a restriction on who they fight with or against. The vast majority of fights in EVE aren't Minmatar vs Caldari vs Gallente vs Amarr.

I think 4/5/6/7/8+ empires could work in PS if it could work anywhere. You'd just need enough continents that were large enough and some system that meant having them all be part of the same fight at once wasn't very likely.

You know thats true. I guess I wouldn't want a 4/5/6/7/8 faction game. I can see how it would be hard to make that worthwhile for every faction.

So in summary I can see how a 1/2/3/4/5/6/7... faction game will always have some drawback. I guess the devs chose 3 to pick the lesser of 7 evils.

At this point I'd say I'm really just down to wanting one of two things...

1. Use the Eve faction system. Which is: Don't force people into factions, let them make their own. (I'm going to hold onto hope that this could be implemented "later on in the story". I think I remember Smedley saying that there would be some big changes between release and what they envision the game to be years down the road.)

2. Use a 3 faction system on "some worlds" and maybe have an "outer territories" area where the factions have zero presence and everything is run based on player created factions. (Basically the faction system and the eve system living side by side.)

[Serisno]

2. Use a 3 faction system on "some worlds" and maybe have an "outer territories" area where the factions have zero presence and everything is run based on player created factions. (Basically the faction system and the eve system living side by side.)

Now that I think on it some more. There is no way that they will eliminate the faction system entirely... They would have hinted at it already to get a feel for how the community would like that idea.

But I will still hold out hope that they might implement the 'side by side' approach.

How do you "3 faction lovers" feel about living in the 'side by side' world?

[JanitOr KanOs]

I'm sure the good people who still play Dark Age of Camelot would like to have a word with you. ;)

[NewSith]

Now that I think on it some more. There is no way that they will eliminate the faction system entirely... They would have hinted at it already to get a feel for how the community would like that idea.

But I will still hold out hope that they might implement the 'side by side' approach.

How do you "3 faction lovers" feel about living in the 'side by side' world?

Game of Thrones, year NNNNN A.D.

[Serisno]

I suppose an "I don't care" option would have been smart. You know... for the apathetics.

[basti]

2: I now agree that 2 factions would be bad.

3: What other games? And don't list Star Craft. Because that is not a persistent world. Yes it works well for balancing (rock paper scissors style) the three sides, but I'm not talking 'strength balance' I'm talking "battlefront balance". I'd like to see an example of a three faction system in a persistent world. But even if you show me a three faction system in a persistent world that works... I'll always look at Planetside and see a three faction system that ended up being a worldwide stalemate. :(

4: Apparently you never played Eve



------------------------------

Trust me. I want to like the three faction system. I just need someone to help me see how we won't devolve into what Planetside is right now?

Also, nobody has mentioned making the world more like Eve. Thoughts on that?

3: Erm, plenty of games. true, the persistent stuff is missing in most of them, but that doesnt matter, because the only difference is that you can win and then get a reset. While Planetside 2 wont have a reset, once one empire is pretty much beated down, the remaining two would clash each other, allowing the third one to regain ground. And it isnt just expirience from various games here, these are the very basics of war.

4. I played eve, alot, for years. Was a X-Trader, part of the Xetic, Trust as well as Dusk and Dawn. I blew up BOB, Goon, Stain, Curse and other alliance ships, as well as got blown up by them. I have taken part in countless battles, from small to large, including the destruction of TRUST in EC-p8r. Ive helped build container storages in Immensea, mined ressources in Branch, etc.
And from all those years playing eve, i know very well that 4+ can work, if you have enough options. But in Planetside 2, you wont be able to build alliances with other factions, or betray them by doing a suprise attack. You wont be able to crush an entire Alliance all by yourself. Eves deepness in this matter is somethign Planetside 2 will never reach, and should never reach. Planetside 2 will be a war between factions, that will always be at war. Thats the very core of Planetside, thats why we still enjoy the old one and look forward to the new one. Changing this very core aspect would take away almost everything that made Planetside to what it is.

And if you play eve, you should know how big fights can get. YOu know the lag. Eve can handle this barley, because the game is capable of rendering alot of players because it simply doesnt have to render much else. In Planetside, you would have 1000 or more players on terrain, in bases, with vehicles, including weather and much more lightning than in eve. That would cause alot of lag if fights get to big, hence the limitation to 1000 players. Besides that, playing with lag in Planetside isnt fun, after all you have to aim and shoot, not point and click.
Now, putting more than 3 factions would mean each faction would have less players. 333v333v333 with 3. 250v250v250v250 with 4, 200 each with 5, 166 each with 6, etc.
Fights would be smaller and smaller, and the entire idea of planetside, the massive war, would go into the bin.


Now, lets get to your actual concern: The issue.
Yes, its true, it sucks sometimes, but the problem there is not 3 factions, the problem is the lattience. It often forces your path, because doing back operations is pretty impossible with the right teamwork, and teamwork (the good outfits) mostly left years ago. That wont be that way in planetside 2. For once, going behind enemy lines seems to be easer this time, and besides that, those skilled outfits will be everywhere, filling up their ranks, doing awesome stuff. The Issue planetside has right now wont occur that much in the sequel, if ever at all. :)

[Serisno]

Now, lets get to your actual concern: The issue.
Yes, its true, it sucks sometimes, but the problem there is not 3 factions, the problem is the lattience. It often forces your path, because doing back operations is pretty impossible with the right teamwork, and teamwork (the good outfits) mostly left years ago. That wont be that way in planetside 2. For once, going behind enemy lines seems to be easer this time, and besides that, those skilled outfits will be everywhere, filling up their ranks, doing awesome stuff. The Issue planetside has right now wont occur that much in the sequel, if ever at all. :)

They have mentioned that they are working on a new lattice system that is much more granular and should "solve the problems of Planetside". So maybe they have found a way to end the days of cyclic battling through a lattice upgrade.

I suppose I can just hope that things are in good hands and wait to see what happens. Worst case scenario I'll have a new shiney version of PS to play.

[Atuday]

Solution is recruit more players. People want this game but many of them simply don't know they want it. Hint hint SOE spend a bit more time recruiting players who have never heard of planetside because all the planetside players are coming back any way.

[PsychoXR-20]

When PlanetSide was very early in development there was a fourth faction. They didn't have a name, but their style was more of a modern military color scheme, with dark greens and browns (you may have seen really old screenshots with them). They were eventually cut because with four empires the fear was that two teams would end up forming, with two empires creating a tentative cease fire, and the game would become a two on two. It might happen in a week, it might take three years, but eventually the game will devolve into two sides. This was the reason the fourth empire was cut.

[Sifer2]

What's funny is if you go to any MMO forum where they only have 2 factions. Everything the OP listed as a Con is actually considered a Pro. The ability of the 2 factions to gang up on an stop the progress of 1 is actually a good thing. It halts the Zerg which if left unchecked can kill a PvP MMO dead. It's no fun to have the other side doing so good they dominated the world an you have no chance to push them back. With another side out there to help it can be done though.


As for Eve style factions i'm going to vote no on that. That would only make the game more stupid an chaotic. Good luck holding anything when most of your Outfit has to log off. In fact good luck playing the game at ALL when most of your Outfit has logged off. Since what your describing is basically Outfit vs all other Outfits.


Personally I think Planetside was the best attempt at MMOFPS an got many things right. The 3 factions being one of them.

[EASyEightyEight]

3 is fine. I don't even know what a 4th would do. Vanu are already the odd man out with weaponry that focuses on utility/adaptability, whatever that may mean all things considered.

[MayorMcCheese]

Does anybody else find it funny that the poll 100% contradicts the original post in this thread???

I'm pretty sure the entire point of Planetside is to have a huge endless war. That's why I enjoy it. It's extremely hard to lock an empire out of all continents, but it has been done. This is the closest thing to a victory in this game. Even so, the game does not end and nobody truly wins, the war is basically an unwinnable war that goes on as long as the servers are up.

Basti laid it out pretty good and this thread is already pretty long so I don't have much else to say.

[SKYeXile]

wtf, is this thread a joke?

Everybody wants a massive pvp game wants 3 factions of FFA, has anybody played WAR or Aion...BORING.

IMO i prefere 3 factions rather than FFA then zergfits cant easily rule the world.

[MockZero2]

The main thing you say is it sux to see all your hard work and progress easily taken from you. Well it would be no different with 2/4/5/6/7/+++ factions because your hard work would eventually be taken anyway. With even factions it would just happen a lot slower because there would be even more stalemates. I don't know about you but I don't want to be stuck on the same continent for a week, or the same clump of bases for that matter. You have to have that odd number of factions for that wild card factor to keep things changed up. Maybe 5 could be cool but even then you have to create everything needed for 5 different factions. They create a very different feel and way of playing for every faction and I LOVE THIS about Planetside. Don't double their work so that it will be 3 years from now until we get to play the game!!!

3 factions for the win!!!!!

[Malorn]

The history of why there isn't a 4th empire is interesting. Reasoning makes sense.

Poll is hilarious. Entire community seems quite solid on this one, hah!

[Quovatis]

Guess I'm one of the few people that hate 3 factions in PS1. It wouldn't be so bad if there was some kind of win condition, but every time you get in a good fight, the 3rd empires comes in and ruins the fun. On the other hand, a 3-side FPS game is unique to PS, so I can see why it was left as is.

BTW- Have no idea what things are like in EVE, so hard to vote.

[SKYeXile]

Guess I'm one of the few people that hate 3 factions in PS1. It wouldn't be so bad if there was some kind of win condition, but every time you get in a good fight, the 3rd empires comes in and ruins the fun. On the other hand, a 3-side FPS game is unique to PS, so I can see why it was left as is.

BTW- Have no idea what things are like in EVE, so hard to vote.

can you imagine the alternatve?

TR 75% pop all the time, 25% NC...how fun would 2 factions be?


as for EVE, its FFA, you make your own guild or alliance, imo its not fun for new players to quickly get into like SOE plans for PS1, since you can have alliances of sevreral thousand people and if you're not apart of them you really can experience PvP to its full potential.

[Baneblade]

The three faction system rocks and here is why:

With zero, you can't have much fun.

With one, well autoeroticism isn't as much fun as it sounds.

With two, not exotic enough and no surprises after awhile.

With three, you have perfection, a Faction Trifecta.

With four, you just have a double date mixed in with swinging. As in, not as fun as three. (Doesn't that just blow your mind?)

Five or more is just an orgy.

[SKYeXile]

Five or more is just an orgy.

Its only an orgy if all 5 mix it up, when all 4 hit the other 1 its considered a gang bang.

[Baneblade]

Well, the one will always consider it a gang bang if there are more than two others even in the same room. They could be playing XBOX or something and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Valdae]

hilarious poll results.

[Krowe]

I have to say that I would like certain areas where outfits (from all factions, vs outfits from even the same faction) can fight and take over, and their outfit gains some kind of bonus for holding them.

However, it is extremely late into development so I don't expect anything.

[Senyu]

You do reliaze that its balanced with the 3 system? When one gets to big the other 2 take them down. It prevents one from owning all which is not the point of the game.

[exLupo]

PS1: 2 empires fight. 3rd comes in for a back hack and knocks one out only to have the one they didn't pick clean -them- out in the process.

I don't blame that on 3 empires. I blame that on a lack of objectives and global front lines. Hoping PS2 won't have that problem and, by the sounds of it, dev is doing what they can to make sure it doesn't happen again.

[Senyu]

Anyone else who watches Hellsing thinks the Major would love to be in Planetsides endless war?

[Erendil]

Originally Posted by basti

Now, lets get to your actual concern: The issue.
Yes, its true, it sucks sometimes, but the problem there is not 3 factions, the problem is the lattience. It often forces your path, because doing back operations is pretty impossible with the right teamwork, and teamwork (the good outfits) mostly left years ago. That wont be that way in planetside 2. For once, going behind enemy lines seems to be easer this time, and besides that, those skilled outfits will be everywhere, filling up their ranks, doing awesome stuff. The Issue planetside has right now wont occur that much in the sequel, if ever at all.

They have mentioned that they are working on a new lattice system that is much more granular and should "solve the problems of Planetside". So maybe they have found a way to end the days of cyclic battling through a lattice upgrade.

I suppose I can just hope that things are in good hands and wait to see what happens. Worst case scenario I'll have a new shiney version of PS to play.

Basti nailed the source of the issue. Both of your complaints (3-way stalemates, and 1 empire getting screwed by having to fend off 2 attackers on 2 different fronts) I believe will be resolved by replacing the Lattice system with a hexagonal Territory Control system.

PS1's Lattice has the effect of funneling attackers down a very limited number of avenues through which they can take over the map. While the battle rages on a cont, any given time you almost never have any more than 2 or 3 different enemy bases you can attack through the lattice. And it's normally only 1 or 2 bases where the zerg currently resides. This channeling effect is limited even further by Capital Domes.

The end result is that all 3 empires have the vast majority of their forces channeled along a specific path with very little opportunities to deviate, and inevitably all 3 empires end up colliding at a triad of bases where you're only viable option is to attack one of the other 2 bases in the triad. Thus the frequent 3-way stalemates you see today around triads like Gunuku/Kaang/Itan, Ghanon/Ixtab/Acan, Baal/Akkan/Dagon, etc.

However, with the territory control system, each time you conquer a Territory you'll have the option to fan out in multiple directions, and will most likely have anywhere from 1-4 adjacent territories you can attack, at each territory you own along the front line. And the number of attackable adjacent territories along your front line will grow as you take more territories and the front gets bigger/longer.

I suspect that once you conquer a significant portion of a cont (say, 25%), at any give time you'll have anywhere from 10-12 or more different territories you can attack that are all adjacent to territories you control (depending on how much they divide up the map). And instead of having these narrow channels/lattices force-funnel your troops towards one target or two targets, you'll have fighting happening all along your front line, in multiple locations.

And unlike in PS1, you always have the option to attack any enemy territory you want on the map, so if the battle stagnates and a stalemate develops you can always start something behind enemy lines.

[opticalshadow]

3 is the only acceptable number, the number that we will accept is 3, 4 may sound like a good number, but the number of accepting will be 3, and 2 is right out.

[Malorn]

Yeah the double teaming behavior is something I've expressed concern with but I don't think the solution is more or less empires. 3 is the right number. 3 also prevents any 1 empire from completely dominating, which you will get with 2. Not having any empires at all is just dumb, you'd end up with infrequent conflict and much smaller scale battles as outfits fight each other instead of entire empires. The empires bring the scale by drawing the lines in a clear easy to understand way. Without them there is no massive scale warfare, at least not on a regular basis.

The key things to fight it off are the uncaps on every continent, giving you territory vulnerable for capture on any continent, and Empire missions. The empire missions could be quite lucrative and they could program them to prefer putting missions against the largest empire so there's natural incentive to not double-team, and a way out of it via the uncaps if it does happen.

I think more may be required but it all depends on how they do the missions and how lucrative they are.

[NUBLERT]

3 factions is win, nuf said.

[TerminatorUK]

1 Planet...
3 Empires...
1 Goal...

"Total Domination!"

...nuff said

[millo]

I'm sure the good people who still play Dark Age of Camelot would like to have a word with you. ;)

Was about to cite DAoC myself. 3 factions work like a charm in a PvP centric game, 2 factions only works with heavy instancing (but that screws the whole "Massive" out of MMOFPS in my opinion). Back in WAR beta i argued for a lot of time on forums about the necessity of a third faction. They stuck to order vs destro, and anyone that played it can tell you it was always imbalanced, favoring either the good or the bad guys depending on your server pop.
Any old fart that spent some time on DAoC can confirm that having a third faction always (well, almost always) prevented someone from "winning" the game with sheer numbers. If albion grabbed 2 or more relics, hibbies and middies teamed up to prevent them from overpowering everyone with lolzerging.
Honestly, i just don't see a PvP/RvR game working without at least 3 factions. For example, the new WH40k MMO looks like it's going imperium+eldars vs chaos+orks... Can't see it working, honestly (also, it's a brutal rape of WH40k lore, but nobody seems to give a fuck about it)

[Sifer2]

Was about to cite DAoC myself. 3 factions work like a charm in a PvP centric game, 2 factions only works with heavy instancing (but that screws the whole "Massive" out of MMOFPS in my opinion). Back in WAR beta i argued for a lot of time on forums about the necessity of a third faction. They stuck to order vs destro, and anyone that played it can tell you it was always imbalanced, favoring either the good or the bad guys depending on your server pop.
Any old fart that spent some time on DAoC can confirm that having a third faction always (well, almost always) prevented someone from "winning" the game with sheer numbers. If albion grabbed 2 or more relics, hibbies and middies teamed up to prevent them from overpowering everyone with lolzerging.
Honestly, i just don't see a PvP/RvR game working without at least 3 factions. For example, the new WH40k MMO looks like it's going imperium+eldars vs chaos+orks... Can't see it working, honestly (also, it's a brutal rape of WH40k lore, but nobody seems to give a fuck about it)



What really? Eldars an Humans against Orks an Chaos? That really does make no sense. Especially since the game would play better with 4 factions that it would with 2 anyway. For the reasons you mentioned.

That's what I think the OP missed. He doesn't like how two factions can gang up on one to halt their advance. But the alternative is the advance is never stopped an the faction controls most of the world an enemy players give up an switch to the winning team. Then the game is broken.

[Vancha]

For example, the new WH40k MMO looks like it's going imperium+eldars vs chaos+orks... Can't see it working, honestly (also, it's a brutal rape of WH40k lore, but nobody seems to give a fuck about it)
Consider me someone who gives a fuck. I think I'd heard about this already, but it's still unforgivably stupid. WH40k needs to be an MMOFPS with at least four sides, though I'd like to see them try and do eight or more. MMORPGs with guns have not fared well for a reason. If they attempt to turn this into some kind of 40k WoW clone with 50+ levels, gear and PvE, I will commit a suicidal facepalm. I'll find find my hand holding my brain at the back of where my head used to be

[exLupo]

MMORPGs with guns have not fared well for a reason.

Atrocious mismanagement. APB1 = studio death. Fallen Earth = bad engine, designed as an advertisement. Matrix = Licensed title, in an out of alpha too many times. Auto Assault = Lack of direction, same alpha stumbles as MXO. Tabula Rasa = mismanagement, total content change near end of life. AO = Gamebreaking bugs at launch, killed any momentum it could have had.

PS1 was the most polished and supported gun based major MMO to come out. Scary thought.

Hopefully THQ will shunt tons of cash into WH40K while, at the same time, not screwing the developers through control or demand.

[Malorn]

This thread's poll gets more hilarious by the day.

[opticalshadow]

its just a clear sign that ps1 had it right with 3 empires. in every way its better then any other option.

[NCLynx]

Please someone close this thread... out of 72 totaly votes so far 95% of them are in favor or 3 empires. The only posts I've read (no I didn't read them all) that have been in favor of something that isn't 3 empires have been OPs.

[basti]

Close it? I say make it sticky! This topic is one of those that will come up every now and then.

[WarChimp130]

3 Empires is perfect, and judging by the poll I'd say the vast majority are going to agree on that one. I don't want EVE style play, that doesn't even make any sense in this type of game. I don't want just TR/NC because if one empire gets out of control their is no 3rd empire to rebalance things out. 4 just gets too sloppy.

3 is perfect, keeps everybody on their toes, keeps the fights going. No one team can ever truly gain the edge since somebody is always coming up behind them.

[millo]

Consider me someone who gives a fuck. I think I'd heard about this already, but it's still unforgivably stupid.

Also, the featured marine chapter is Black Templars, which if i remember correctly don't even allow Librarians as they are "too impure". Really, the only worse choice for an alliance with eldars would have been the Dark Angels. :(

[MasterChief096]

OP wants to avoid the cyclical nature of PlanetSide but what the real deal is is that the cyclical nature is needed, and without it no MMOFPS would be possible. No matter how many factions you have, you need the game to be cyclical so that it can be played for years. If you could keep what you gain permanently... well... I don't even need to explain why that would be bad.

Also: I've already given up on WH40k MMO. If its not an MMOFPS with at least the scale of PlanetSide, then I don't care about it. Also Imperium/Space Marines or Imperium/Tau would be much better if it was versus Orks/Chaos, but w/e.

[Serisno]

Close it? I say make it sticky! This topic is one of those that will come up every now and then.

Well. Being the OP.

My true complaint in the OP is about the game's cyclical nature. Some have caught onto this and they have given helpful responses and information about how the devs have already planned to remove the "cyclical nature" from the game via a new, more granular, lattice system. I'm a dynamic person and I'm not averse to having my mind changed. I was presented with superior logic, and my mind was changed. There is hope for a three faction system in PS:2.

But sadly most people just cheer, "3 ftw! Cuz its teh BeSt!"... burying the actually helpful posts.

I'll update the OP to include the actual results of the thread and use it to educate the community. Since the helpful posts are on page three or four, buried under the refuse, and most people don't get that far when reading through forums...