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]

Originally Posted by Serisno

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!

[basti]

Originally Posted by Serisno

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by 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

Link?

Originally Posted by basti

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]

Originally Posted by Serisno

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.