Why 3 Factions?

[Ailos]

Because nothing good is ever going to be as clear cut as black and white. (Or red and blue. Or hot and cold. You get the idea.)

Also: LOL@Bags.

[thegreekboy]

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.

[SpcFarlen]

Three factions are always the best in non-matchmaking pvp. Case and point look at SWTOR. Servers, for the most part, had twice as many Sith as Republic. Open world pvp was destroyed and sith always played sith in battlegrounds. Three factions act as a balancer like other have stated.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by Sephirex

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.

System resources might have been an issue for PS1, surely we're past that now, though.

Tradition probably prevents any changes to it now- not to mention the fact that we're starting with merely 3 continents, though an alliance system would have been awesome.

Originally Posted by thegreekboy

Ohai fellow Mordor-ite

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

In 3 continents maybe. For 6 or more, perhaps not. PS1 had 150 per continent per empire max, 2000 divided by 5 is still 400.

[Sephirex]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

System resources might have been an issue for PS1, surely we're past that now, though.

Think what you want, but these aren't PS1 models either. Higby has stated one of his biggest challenges is fitting all the models and texture variations within the memory budget.

[Littleman]

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.

[Arovien]

I am glad its a 3way fiasco. Keeps things dynamic and fresh to say the least.

[Zolan]

I was going to type up an actual reply, but then I realized I would probably just end up flaming with reckless abandon.

This is the best I can do.

[Noivad]

Planetsdie 1 had 10 Planets or Continents depending on when you were playing. The full object of the game, at least from my outfits point of view, was to santuary lock both your enemies there by gaining their weapons and vehicles to use for 24 hours. You could santuary lock either empire or both if you had good players, and the numbers. Since the game play was 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, ect, population sizes surged and waned on different global prime times making it possible for ownership of all the planets possible by all all three factions. But usually you would see fights between just 2 factions on some planets. A Lot of times Home planets. Cyssor usually had all three factions on it.
So the variations could be TR versus NC - TR versus VS - NC versus VS or TR versus VS and NC. Hence a less boring game then just two enemies with a limited number of people playing. If PS2 ever has a fourth empire it will really put a spin on things.

[Electrofreak]

Some of my favorite battles were 3-ways.

Sometimes 2 factions would pitch so much effort into fighting over a single base that the third would start taking other bases that were poorly defended because the majority of opponents were fighting in one area. This could force defenders / attackers to allocate some resources to stop the other faction, and resulted in a more dynamic battlefield.

There were also some scenarios where a deadlocked pitched battle between 2 factions, and the third faction, unhindered for the most part, would amass a huge attack force and drop on the other two like a massive hammer. It was rare to see this happen, but when it did, it was impressive to see!

[Furber]

Having 3 factions helps the persistence work. Whenever one gets the edge over another, the 3rd one typically steps in. Even if one faction is double teamed out of a fight, they can regroup and hit one of the other two factions (who will now inevitably be fighting each other). It's hard to explain just how well the system works, but trust me, having 3 factions works perfectly for Planetside.

[SKYeXile]

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?

explain how.

[Exmortius]

cause when 1 dominates... the other 2 tend to work together at times to chop the dominating forces back down to size. it makes things very interesting on the battlefield. you will appreciate it when you see it in action. it's one of the things that really makes this game unique.

[Badjuju]

More interesting and for better balance. If one faction has overwhelming numbers chances are they will have to fight two fronts helping to even things out.

[Dougnifico]

I always thought it would be interesting to have like 5 or 9 factions all fighting it out on a single shard world. Planetside is good with 3, but more with a non-circular transit system could be cool for another project if only to see how well it works.