Why 3 Factions?

[LordReaver]

Originally Posted by Malorn

You didn't actually refute anything there. Three empires doesn't prevent a dominant empire. It discourages it and provides a natural counter. With two there is no counter, you're just screwed.

If you are talking about numbers alone, sorta, but that's not a whole picture. You have to consider gameplay mechanics, incentives for example.

Originally Posted by JesNC

That's not just popular belief, at least not for me. I can't remember a MMO PvP environment with 2 factions that was balanced number-wise in any way. I do remember WAR and WoW though, where the bigger faction just steamrolled the other one on regular basis.

So some games you played had flaws in X, so all games that try X wont work?

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

If you are talking about numbers alone, sorta, but that's not a whole picture. You have to consider gameplay mechanics, incentives for example.



So some games you played had flaws in X, so all games that try X wont work?

It's not that 3 factions instantly balances everything, or that one faction can't still have half or more of the population, so much as the fact that 3 empires just tends to be a lot more balanced than 2.

If you have 2 factions on a large scale game like Planetside, once one faction starts gaining a noteworthy population and/or territory advantage, it usually becomes very easy for them to pick up momentum and start crushing the other side. It's possible to balance two factions to a degree, but it's cumbersome and difficult, and usually fails pretty hard.

3 factions on the other hand is relatively easy to maintain a balance most of the time. You can't just slap a third faction on and call it a day, but it makes it much easier and much more possible to keep all three sides in check when a dominant side has to worry about spreading their population and defending their greater amount of territory against two sides which usually at least equal their own population, if not outnumbering them. While one side did sometimes have 50% of the population during PS1's glory days, it was far more frequent that the advantage would be much smaller, in the 40% range tops. Again, it's still possible for a dominant faction to cause some devastation even with only 40%, especially if there isn't a good enough incentive system for the other two factions to focus on the dominant side instead of focusing on fighting each other, but it will always be a lot easier to balance a 43% vs 31% vs 26% divide om a three faction game than it it is to balance even a relatively minor difference like a 55% vs 45% divide in a two faction game.

Tl;dr, 3 factions = balanced MMO PvP is an over simplification, but 3 factions is still a very big and valuable contributing factor to maintaining balance.

[Hamma]

PlanetSide 1 later in it's life turned into one empire with a huge pop advantage. In the majority of the early years though it was pretty even.

[JesNC]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

So some games you played had flaws in X, so all games that try X wont work?

I tried a ton of games, some with X, some with Y. I'm my experience Y works inherently better, and there are only very minimal measures required to keep a balance compared to X. I just put up some examples to my claim.

But I'm interested about that game you're implying that got X right. Care to enlighten me?

[Baneblade]

The first thing you have to understand is that there are four empires:

The NC, TR, VS, and FOTD (Favorite of the Day aka 4th empire)

When one of the factions is population stacking the others, typically it is because the FOTD faction has jumped a ship to that dominant faction. The base populations of the Big 3 are pretty much stable most of the time.

The reason there are a Big 3 rather than a Typical 2:

Marketing (3 faction games can be more appealing than Red vs Blue)
Variety (I'm NC and I can fight either the TR, VS, or Both at any given time)
Perpetuation (Conquer the World has only happened a handful of times, because usually an empire can't fight both opposing empires effectively enough to sanc them both, even with 50% global population)
Loyalty (having more than one enemy can inspire a stronger loyalty in a chosen faction, a stronger need to protect it)
Balance (it is easier to keep a faction in check with two opposition parties)
Imbalance (in 2 sided games, one tends to achieve dominance very rapidly, whether through happenstance or intention, this is much less impactful with 3 teams)

[LordReaver]

Originally Posted by Xyntech

It's not that 3 factions instantly balances everything, or that one faction can't still have half or more of the population, so much as the fact that 3 empires just tends to be a lot more balanced than 2.

If you have 2 factions on a large scale game like Planetside, once one faction starts gaining a noteworthy population and/or territory advantage, it usually becomes very easy for them to pick up momentum and start crushing the other side. It's possible to balance two factions to a degree, but it's cumbersome and difficult, and usually fails pretty hard.

3 factions on the other hand is relatively easy to maintain a balance most of the time. You can't just slap a third faction on and call it a day, but it makes it much easier and much more possible to keep all three sides in check when a dominant side has to worry about spreading their population and defending their greater amount of territory against two sides which usually at least equal their own population, if not outnumbering them. While one side did sometimes have 50% of the population during PS1's glory days, it was far more frequent that the advantage would be much smaller, in the 40% range tops. Again, it's still possible for a dominant faction to cause some devastation even with only 40%, especially if there isn't a good enough incentive system for the other two factions to focus on the dominant side instead of focusing on fighting each other, but it will always be a lot easier to balance a 43% vs 31% vs 26% divide om a three faction game than it it is to balance even a relatively minor difference like a 55% vs 45% divide in a two faction game.

Tl;dr, 3 factions = balanced MMO PvP is an over simplification, but 3 factions is still a very big and valuable contributing factor to maintaining balance.

I'm not saying three doesn't dilute advantage more than two. I'm saying two can be functional.

Originally Posted by JesNC

I tried a ton of games, some with X, some with Y. I'm my experience Y works inherently better, and there are only very minimal measures required to keep a balance compared to X. I just put up some examples to my claim.

But I'm interested about that game you're implying that got X right. Care to enlighten me?

I didn't imply anything, I simply pointed out a flaw in your logic.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

Everybody saying the third balances things, is wrong. Look no further than PS1, where we regularly have one team with more than 50% population. Contrary to popular belief, two works just fine.

You do realise that a 50% pop fighting on two fronts with different strategies and objectives, has a harder time winning than 50% pop fighting on one front, also meaning they only face one command streamlining the troops?

And that Fourth Empire, or Third Empire in your case, would be far more influencable?

[TeaLeaf]

3 Factions means the more dominant faction must fight against more players and will eventually lose its advantage.
2 Factions means the dominant faction is still fighting an equal number of players, so their advantages from map dominance are not countered by anything.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Hamma

PlanetSide 1 later in it's life turned into one empire with a huge pop advantage. In the majority of the early years though it was pretty even.

Yeah but that's more a problem with very low populations, balance is felt much stronger then: if one outfit keeps playing while others do not, then you got a problem.

[velleity]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

I didn't imply anything, I simply pointed out a flaw in your logic.

You hid behind 30 CN particle/aa barfs on markov in your reaver so long you never even noticed that the other two empires never fought each other and back hacked constantly. vs fighting tr was a luxury that invariably resulted in a sanc lock or nearly so.

If this happened for whichever empire on gemini, I doubt it was any different. Also, making this observation of a game in end state with so little pop that a few people changing sides affects pop % is hardly a valuable observation or refutation of the self-balancing nature of three empires.

[Xyntech]

Originally Posted by LordReaver

I'm not saying three doesn't dilute advantage more than two. I'm saying two can be functional.

Certainly two can be functional, but it becomes a lot harder the larger the scale gets. 2 factions in a small scale multiplayer FPS or RTS work fantastic. The larger the number of players get, the more problems arise.

3+ factions is just such an obvious, simple and effective fix that it make perfect sense to use. I absolutely agree that 2 factions could be made to work in a game like Planetside, but I don't think it would be worth the effort, and I think even at it's best it would fall apart more often than the 3 faction system did in Planetside. Also, 3 factions adds more than just easier balance, such as adding variety. Considering all of the problems that large scale 1v1 games have had and how well 1v1v1 games have worked, I would never pick a 2 faction system if I were a game developer making a PvP MMO.

Originally Posted by Figment

Yeah but that's more a problem with very low populations, balance is felt much stronger then: if one outfit keeps playing while others do not, then you got a problem.

Considering that PS1 in its prime had only 10 continents at 500 players each, that's only 5000 players that the game could support at any one time, assuming no continents were locked.

Planetside 2 with only 3 continents will already support 6000 players playing at once on a server.

I think this is fantastic as far as balancing populations goes. Between that and (presumably) having more servers, it will be like PS1's early empire balance cranked up to 11.

Obviously there will be the problem of it being even easier to empire hop with F2P accounts, but I think that most players will want to play with their characters who have a lot of customizations unlocked, and I don't think most of them will want to bother leveling up multiple accounts. So hopefully it's only marginally more problematic than in the first game.

[Kitsune]

Because 2 is boring and any more then 3 is too many?

Truth be told, I don't mind a good number of factions as long as they are well made, but that's the trick, making every faction worth playing for. 3 is good enough, as it doesn't overpower one side as easily as just having two choices is, and does not sacrifice much if any storytelling between them.

Think of starcraft, would the game be as fun if it was simply terran vs zerg? Would you bother to (keep) play(ing) if it was litterally a head head on head between two factions? When it comes to games, being the third leg can be really fun.

[thegreekboy]

Jeez, I can't believe this thread got to 5 pages when my question was answered in the first 5 posts. lol

[LordReaver]

Originally Posted by Figment

You do realise that a 50% pop fighting on two fronts with different strategies and objectives, has a harder time winning than 50% pop fighting on one front, also meaning they only face one command streamlining the troops?

And that Fourth Empire, or Third Empire in your case, would be far more influencable?

Uhh....
25% + 25% = 50%
Therefor 50% vs 25% +25% is an even match. Math... Amazing stuff!

If you really want to get into it, having a split command structure would likely be worse. Meaning, in 50% vs 25% + 25%, the side with 50% will probably come out on top. Coordination > lack of coordination

Originally Posted by velleity

You hid behind 30 CN particle/aa barfs on markov in your reaver so long you never even noticed that the other two empires never fought each other and back hacked constantly. vs fighting tr was a luxury that invariably resulted in a sanc lock or nearly so.

If this happened for whichever empire on gemini, I doubt it was any different. Also, making this observation of a game in end state with so little pop that a few people changing sides affects pop % is hardly a valuable observation or refutation of the self-balancing nature of three empires.

What in the fuck are you talking about?? I love the logic of some people, "Reaver is in his name, ergo... he flies a reaver!"

I've played the game since August 2003, I think it's safe to say I'm qualified here. I remember plenty of times when one empire would cap every single base on the global map, way back when.

Originally Posted by Xyntech

Certainly two can be functional, but it becomes a lot harder the larger the scale gets. 2 factions in a small scale multiplayer FPS or RTS work fantastic. The larger the number of players get, the more problems arise.

3+ factions is just such an obvious, simple and effective fix that it make perfect sense to use. I absolutely agree that 2 factions could be made to work in a game like Planetside, but I don't think it would be worth the effort, and I think even at it's best it would fall apart more often than the 3 faction system did in Planetside. Also, 3 factions adds more than just easier balance, such as adding variety. Considering all of the problems that large scale 1v1 games have had and how well 1v1v1 games have worked, I would never pick a 2 faction system if I were a game developer making a PvP MMO.

Again, I'm not making a point on whether or not 3 sides is better than 2 sides. I'm making a point that 2 can work. Many people seem to think that two is entirely dysfunctional, and I am disagreeing with them.

I suppose in my first post, I did start a point that I never intended to finish, and that is entirely my fault.

[Zidane]

I think its not necessarily better to have 3 factions instead of 2. I think it just causes more of a balance to have 3.