Were the factions as balanced pop-wise in PS1 as the polls show?

super pretendo · 2012-01-12, 12:01 PM

The "which faction will you play?" poll on the main page has the factions at 34%, 33% and 33%, which is absurdly close. Was this how it was in PS1?

basti · 2012-01-12, 12:04 PM

Actually, yes. Ofc you had some days where one faction reached 40%, or one was 25%. But usually, when the pops were still high, they were pretty close together.

Especialy before it was possible to simply create a new toon on a different empire.

SuperMorto · 2012-01-12, 12:18 PM

There are 4 kind of people:

TR
NC
VS

And hoppers who do them all, I think these are more the folks who swayed the balance out from time to time, and no so much the people who stick to one empire. They seem to always be at 33,33,33

DviddLeff · 2012-01-12, 12:44 PM

How the hell did it balance itself so well?

Surely one faction would have been more or less appealing in general?

Odd odd odd.

Coreldan · 2012-01-12, 12:47 PM

Well, the poll doesnt really have so much new people in it. I'd say if we had an influx of couple of thousand people who had never played PS1 and were just asked to vote based on what we know about PS2 atm, I'd say the VS or TR would have quite a lead over NC

Crazyduckling · 2012-01-12, 12:47 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

How the hell did it balance itself so well?

Surely one faction would have been more or less appealing in general?

Odd odd odd.

Yeah. It does seem odd that 66% percent of people would rather be a part of a cult or totalitarian regime over fighting for freedom.

TheRagingGerbil · 2012-01-12, 12:51 PM

During Planetside's prime the empires were very balanced during prime time gaming. There was a ebb and tide for the empires depending on the time of day though. Would have been interesting to see a demographic study of which country preferred which empire. It always seemed that VS would be the late night crew, TR would do the morning/daytime, and NC would sweep the evening.

Once the servers merges began and everyone was allowed to have multi-empire characters on the same account gameplay went to shit because people would just start hopping onto the winning team.

Metalsheep · 2012-01-12, 12:53 PM

Originally Posted by DviddLeff

How the hell did it balance itself so well?

Surely one faction would have been more or less appealing in general?

Odd odd odd.

Population Incentives.

Lets say TR has 38% pop, NC has 35% and VS has 27%

TR get nothing, NC may get a small global bonus to all XP earned, and VS will get a substantial XP bonus, and even Spawn time Bonuses, Aquire time Bonuses and a long time ago, HART and NTU bonuses to their bases. I do believe, if TR pop climbed high enough, they would even get Negatives to their XP/Spawn/Aquire times. This gave players incentives to go play lower popped empires and keep them even. It was an excellent system IMO.

Of course, when the game started to fall apart or when One empire got a buff that was clearly superior to both enemy empires, that empire would be grossly overpopulated. All three empires had this phase if i recall. Currenly this seems to be the NC cause the Jackhammer is super easy to use. While the VS Lasher takes the most learning and is slightly gimped, they usually have the lowest atm.

basti · 2012-01-12, 01:02 PM

Nothing odd there, and no fancy game mechanic.

Its simply math. You get 3 people, and 3 choices. Chances are that they all choose a different choice.

Obviously, this fails drasticly in real life. But if you got 3000 people, and 3 choices, chances are quite high that 1000 chooce option 1, 1000 B and 1000 C.

Game mechanics like pop incentives just helped to make sure nothing goes wrong.

On top of that, for games 3 factions are actually easier to balance than 2. With 2, you always have a winning side that is likley to keep winning. With 3, you have a winning side that has no chance of keeping their position for very long.

SniperSteve · 2012-01-12, 01:03 PM

There were incentives in PS1 that made the loosing team have a slight XP advantage. I think those would often be enough to get the empire hopping 'killwhores' to go to the side needing the most manpower.

I do think that PS2 could easily launch and sit at 40%,40%,20% for a while. And it would not be too big of a deal. The underdog often captures a lot of attention, and the gameplay just becomes that much more intense and you get the feeling that your empire 'needs' you and you get more reward from winning. Those are fantastic gameplay elements, even if you can only control a fraction of the world map.

Furthermore, since it is a three-way. Having the biggest empire leads to capturing the most territory which means having to fight a two-fronted war at some point. Just ask the German army in WWII how that turned out... Not so good... haha

basti · 2012-01-12, 01:08 PM

Turned out bad just because those damn allys wanted their beach back.

Shogun · 2012-01-12, 01:11 PM

the incentives helped to keep the hoppers under control.

the loyal 1faction only players were kind of balanced! and as long as ps1 was well populated, even an imbalance would not have been a real problem because the continents had a poplock that equalized the factions.

i think it was 133 players per faction on one cont. if one faction had too many players, hey were doomed to go to another continent and the mainbattle was balanced. this way there was only one unbalanced battle going on, and the rest of the battles were always balanced. and the unbalanced battle would almost everytime turn into a threeway of the two underdogs fighting the overpopulated empire from 2 sides.

it worked out very good!

Metalsheep · 2012-01-12, 01:15 PM

Originally Posted by Crazyduckling

Yeah. It does seem odd that 66% percent of people would rather be a part of a cult or totalitarian regime over fighting for freedom.

In Planetside 1, NC were not "Freedom Fighters". They just went under the guise of freedom. In truth, the NC believed in NO government at all. Each man is his own man, and should not be ruled or controlled by any other man or government entity. Everyone ruled themselves, and there was no need for government, and that Vanu technology is just another way to enslave and control people. In PS 1, NC were anarchists only brought togather to fight for "freedom". They would soon enough turn on eachother.

The VS were scientists who believed in advancing humanity through Vanu technology, however they would go so far as to compleatly remove humans with technology and machines. To "ascend" to the next state of "evolution" by eliminating flesh entirely.

The TR were simply the long standing, successful government that humanity had for thousands of years. However they go so far as to rule through fear, tradition and military might. And shun anything that could usurp their rule, such as the Vanu technology and NCs anarchy.

If you look deeper into the stories of all three empires you find they all have "Virtuous" goals, but they go about them in twisted and compleatly immoral manners. No side is good, or right. Another way of keeping players from all choosing one side that is deamed the Moral side, or Good. I've noticed in games with a clearly moral side, the "Good" side tends to draw many more players and upsets balance.

CplVars · 2012-01-12, 01:48 PM

Originally Posted by Metalsheep

In Planetside 1, NC were not "Freedom Fighters". They just went under the guise of freedom. In truth, the NC believed in NO government at all. Each man is his own man, and should not be ruled or controlled by any other man or government entity. Everyone ruled themselves, and there was no need for government, and that Vanu technology is just another way to enslave and control people. In PS 1, NC were anarchists only brought togather to fight for "freedom". They would soon enough turn on eachother.

The VS were scientists who believed in advancing humanity through Vanu technology, however they would go so far as to compleatly remove humans with technology and machines. To "ascend" to the next state of "evolution" by eliminating flesh entirely.

The TR were simply the long standing, successful government that humanity had for thousands of years. However they go so far as to rule through fear, tradition and military might. And shun anything that could usurp their rule, such as the Vanu technology and NCs anarchy.

If you look deeper into the stories of all three empires you find they all have "Virtuous" goals, but they go about them in twisted and compleatly immoral manners. No side is good, or right. Another way of keeping players from all choosing one side that is deamed the Moral side, or Good. I've noticed in games with a clearly moral side, the "Good" side tends to draw many more players and upsets balance.

Psh, Horde is the only way to go.

Back in the PS world...TR will forever and always be the "right" side because we're the best. If you're not with us...then you're a corpse! ;D

Metalsheep · 2012-01-12, 01:56 PM

Originally Posted by CplVars

Psh, Horde is the only way to go.

Horde arent really evil. Except maybe the Forsaken, but they have their motives. Horde are simply trying to survive in a world that does not want them after they were controlled by Medihv and The Burning Legion. If anything, the Alliance are the real jerks who wont accept the Horde Races into the fold.

(I agree TR are the best :3 Loyalty Until Death!)