Why 3 Factions?

thegreekboy · 2012-06-20, 05:00 PM

As a little disclaimer before people flame me for no reason, I'm fine with the fact that there are three factions, and don't propose changing it (not to mention it will never happen).
----

So, why is it that there are three factions? Why not 2? 2 means even numbered teams and more players per team, not to mention easier map designing. Why did SOE go, in the original PS, with three factions?

Lorgarn · 2012-06-20, 05:02 PM

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

As a little disclaimer before people flame me for no reason, I'm fine with the fact that there are three factions, and don't propose changing it (not to mention it will never happen).
----

So, why is it that there are three factions? Why not 2? 2 means even numbered teams and more players per team, not to mention easier map designing. Why did SOE go, in the original PS, with three factions?

I guess a legitimate question, but I'm going to refrain from answering it. I'll let the more seasoned vets explain this one.

(You need to get it right!)

Red Beard · 2012-06-20, 05:02 PM

The closer one faction gets to pounding the other into the dirt, the more it opens itself up to the third faction defeating it. 3 factions promotes equilibrium and variety.

Mango · 2012-06-20, 05:02 PM

Ideally so when 1 faction gains too much territory/power the others can shut them down

Otleaz · 2012-06-20, 05:02 PM

I think it is meant to limit map dominance. If someone owns 2/3 of the map, the other two teams will probably start ignoring each other and team up on them.

kaffis · 2012-06-20, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by Otleaz

I think it is meant to limit map dominance. If someone owns 2/3 of the map, the other two teams will probably start ignoring each other and team up on them.

It doesn't even have to be a conscious decision on the other two teams' part. If one team gains a significant territory advantage, they naturally spread themselves thinner, making it easier for their enemies to engage them successfully and take some of that land back.

Sephirex · 2012-06-20, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by kaffis

It doesn't even have to be a conscious decision on the other two teams' part. If one team gains a significant territory advantage, they naturally spread themselves thinner, making it easier for their enemies to engage them successfully and take some of that land back.

If there's a big enough population difference, or if the losing team is dropping members due to bad morale, this doesn't always happen. The three sides really keeps things unpredictable.

Littleman · 2012-06-20, 05:25 PM

Generally, it's a great equalizer. In a 1v1 setup, if one team has superior numbers, the other side tends to get screwed.

In a 1v1v1 setup, the theory is that the factions will average 33% of the total population. If one garners 40%, the other two still have more combined, and should naturally engage the more bloated faction more often simply due to how much control a faction with that many members could theoretically obtain over the other two.

Unfortunately, nothing can quick-fix a scenario where one faction has 20% of the pop, and the other two are sitting at 40% each. However, usually this is a red flag there's something perceived has horribly underpowered on the low pop faction.

Bags · 2012-06-20, 05:06 PM

And to like, stop stalemates and stuff

Dairian · 2012-06-20, 05:09 PM

Because Planetside is MASSIVE and having two sides is just mediocre. Who wants to settle for mediocre? I sure don't.

Toppopia · 2012-06-20, 05:10 PM

If you look at COD or BF games, with 2 teams, if one side is under manned, or worse than the other team, they get spawn camped or vehicle camped and all kinds of camped, where as with 3, if team A is being camped by Team B, Team C will come along and steal all of Team B's stuff.

thegreekboy · 2012-06-20, 05:09 PM

thanks for the clarification

Stardouser · 2012-06-20, 05:11 PM

I think the question is not why 3 and not 2, but why 3 and not 5? That would allow for stopping stalemates and also reduce the possibility of 2 on 1 gangups.

Sephirex · 2012-06-20, 05:16 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I think the question is not why 3 and not 2, but why 3 and not 5? That would allow for stopping stalemates and also reduce the possibility of 2 on 1 gangups.

Seems like this would make up 2 on 1 gangups more likely. Also be a larger burden on the development team, cause more cookie cutter factions, and be a strain on the system memory for models and textures.

thegreekboy · 2012-06-20, 05:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stardouser

I think the question is not why 3 and not 2, but why 3 and not 5? That would allow for stopping stalemates and also reduce the possibility of 2 on 1 gangups.

Ohai fellow Mordor-ite

5 teams would mean that there would be too little people per team.