Why 3 Factions?

[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?

[Lorgarn]

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]

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]

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

[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.

[kaffis]

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.

[Bags]

3-Way (The Golden Rule) (feat. Justin Timberlake & Lady Gaga) - YouTube

And to like, stop stalemates and stuff

[Sephirex]

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.

[Dairian]

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

[thegreekboy]

thanks for the clarification

[Toppopia]

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.

[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.

[indirect]

The same reason as there was in DAoC. When one side starts to dominate another, they get stretched thin and the third comes in and says "HEY BALANCE TIME!"

[Sephirex]

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.

[basti]

Simple quesiton, simple answere:

The third faction makes things more interresting. If one faction dominates, the other two will sooner or later fight the dominate guy, evening out the situation.
With two factions, you dont get that. If one is dominant, it stays that way forever, causing the loosing faction to loose even more players, making the entire situation even whorse.

[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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

http://cdn.wg.uproxx.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/hulk-bear.gif

[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. :evil:

[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]

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.

[GuyFawkes]

Its a magic number that promotes pvp ,and only 2 games designers actually 'got' it. PS and DAoC . Anyone who played them remember the great times they has and wish for a remake.

The same ethos is used when it comes to Tupping time with sheep . You always but an odd number of Rams in with a group of sheep. That way, if 2 are fighting, the other one is free to shag as many sheep as possible .

[LillRutger]

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.

5 factions would imo increase the possibility/risk of 2man gangups. also it would turn into a huge clusterf*k if they all fought at once.

I seem to have amemory of a good explanation to having three faction in 1984. And in any case it's a good book, read it :D

[Memeotis]

Yeah, like the others said. If there were only two factions, anf one turned out to be really powerful, there would be no stopping them. If there are three factions however, and one factions becomes too powerful, the other two can combine forces to drive the stronger faction back.

Why not 4? Well that would of course mean that there would be less players per faction, but if would also mean that (imagine a square map with each empire in each corner) that one faction would always fight the two adjacent factions, and hardly ever the faction diagonal from it.

Three seems to be the perfect number for this.

[xnorb]

I think the question is not why 3 and not 2, but why 3 and not 5?

This - oh so much this !

Although the whole system behind Planetside is different than BF/CoD/literally
every other FPS out there, 2 factions is quite limiting and i'd rather have
too many factions than only 2.

[FastAndFree]

This very well might just be an urban legend, but there was some talk on this forum that there were originally supposed to be 4 teams in Planetside, but concerns were raised that it would turn into a permanent unofficial 2v2 so the 4th faction was removed

[RageMasterUK]

Not sure if anyone has mentioned this...

DOUBLE THE TARGETS BABY!!!! HELLZ YEAH!!!


Every empire's soldiers are outnumbered by targets in a ratio of 2-1, so 3 teams creates a more target-rich environment. That really helps add to the epic scale. It helps build the impression that the odds are against you, and that impression makes base-captures feel much more satisfying IMHO.

I work for a well known laser combat franchise and the 3 team battles are way way WAY more exiting.

-RageMasterUK

[IHateMMOs]

The question is, why not?

[Obiyer]

I read Malorn's article on Planetside and he made a good case for 4 factions. Frankly, I don't like 3 ways, I want an even fight between two factions. Fighting a 3 way for hours and hours doesn't get you anywhere fast, you may get to farm kills though. But as for accomplishing the objective of the game, I don't know.

Franky, that's what's bugged me about Planetside, like there is absolutely no point to the fighting. You can cap, base after base and sanc lock, but so what, then what? There really is no benefit to doing it, other than to say you did wherein other games there's an absolute win condition.

I had an outfit mate once who played WW2 Online and he said the reason he left was because the Germans always won, and it was boring. So there is a case for having a third force.

[Vreki]

I read Malorn's article on Planetside and he made a good case for 4 factions. Frankly, I don't like 3 ways, I want an even fight between two factions. .

Well, you cant have it.
With two sides, one side always end up being perceived as having better weapons or whatever. It doesn't matter if it is based in facts, the perception alone is enough to attract more players
Then that side will start winning more due to numerical superiority, causing even more to join that side and so on until the game dies due to severe player imbalance.
As far as I recall, that is what happened to Warhammer Online. Two factions, didn't work out.

3 sides are optimal because even though it often becomes a 2vs1, the alliances will shift as soon as one of the previous weak sides starts to dominate.

But add too many sides and we just end up with squad deathmatch instead of a war.

[Nemeses]

With 3 factions its near impossible for one faction to become the dominating force, where in almost any proper world PvP MMO out there with 2 factions one has always become the stronger, and needed extra game mechanics to stop them totally dominating the game, this way the players themselves will BE the extra 'game mechanic'!

[Boof]

Hell, the scale of Planetside 2 can hardly contain three factions. There should be four! Just kidding, four would be too many. Too confusing and too much mayhem/things blowing up haha.

[Malorn]

I'm actually more of a 3 faction fan now. Double teams can be discouraged other ways.

2 factions doesn't work out well as WAR and SWTOR and just about every other game. As basti and others have pointed out it helps balance populations and keep one side from dominating. DAOC showed how well it works. Mythic later regretted not making WAR a three faction game as they had with DAOC. In PS it mostly worked out well, and with some design you can make attacking a dominant empire more lucrative than kicking one that's down.

[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.

[Malorn]

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 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.

[JesNC]

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.

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.

[LordReaver]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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

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.

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.

[Shadanwolf]

Faction are a good idea because it allows a player to be part of a team from game start(you're not alone like in other pvp games). It engenders a reason to fight.

In most games one side eventually becomes dominant.Having 3 sides(factions) offers a natural counterweight with two other factions restricting the dominant faction.

Factions in PS2 each have different strengths allowing for a more divers play style.

DAOC ..now over 10 years old (with 3 factions) demonstrates the strength of the concept .

[Karrade]

In every game I've ever played where there was two factions the game was unbalanced after a time, and in some cases just became stupidly so. With people on the winning side quitting as it became too easy, and people on the losing side quitting as the mechanics didn't support losing in any way. It was very rare to have a neatly balanced map. Most people go to the winning side and that was that.

It'll be rare here too, but much more dynamic as a result. To put it in very basic numbers its not 1 x 1 x 1, its 3 x 3 x 3 for the amount of variables present.

Health bonuses helped in the original PS for instance also, and you had a term phrased as the unofficial 4th Empire, which were those who switched between sides often enough to benefit from those bonuses, or just to even out empires.

If you have a game that supports winning, such as PS2 looks to be, the effect is cumulative, people want to win and the masses move to or stay with a winning side. If you have a game that supports fighting more than winning, it isn't such as issue.

From an infantry grunts perspective if its anything like PS though what you'll see here, is good regiments swinging whole maps and believe me you'll know when it happens, you'll get about 20 seconds warning in chat saying such and such is on the way (if you are lucky) and them boooooooom ;).

[Vamoozi]

2 factions, one can overpower the other easily if its better.


3 factions. When one faction is with little territory, the other two have more fronts to fight on, so when the other two factions are distracted fighting eachother, the underpowered faction can take some territory.

[StarFault]

Generally, in my opinion, not only are there balance reasons for including 3 factions. Having 3 factions generally makes the fight for territory more dynamic, as with only 2 factions, you only have to worry about each other, but with 3, you have to worry about two fronts. I feel this will be especially be reinforced with the front lines combat, as you have two lines to worry about, one line against one faction, and the other line being in a different area. This will create a sense of urgency, as one faction will always be attacking and both of your enemies are probably not both going to be on defense, as mentioned before. That's just my opinion though, I'm not a vet or anything.

[FONKY]

It gives you more to shoot at :P

[Blue Sam]

More factions == more overall high-level strategic depth.

[DodgeIt]

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

Welcome to forumside.

[Airanuva]

It's not just balance here people... Faction loyalty factors in as well.
If there was only two, you'd be tempted to play both of them, switching based on who is winning. With three however... It is far more difficult to have separate characters to have a foot in each faction. Thus you stick to one, and end up becoming very loyal to it...

[The Loverator]

Why not 2?



Because if you observe Games like Worst of Whorecraft ( Ahem *COUGH* ) and Stuff,
you will likey, quickly ... ... notice, that one Side has very often the "better" Players.

For whatever the Reason - and sometimes to an Extent of ridiculous Scale,
one Sides always wins ALMOST of the Matches, while the other Side is most of the Time nothing but
the Sandback and whipping-Boy of the other Side.


Three Factions will easily prevent Players to "puke" because of the Annoyance of one
Side being superior most of the Time.

For an Example,
if the New Conglomerate and Vanu Sovereignty notice, that for quite some Time/Hour's of the Battle,

the Terran Republic almost more and more takes slowly over of the whole Map,
may it be a impressive Gathering of highly skilled Player by the TR,

or just a "Slack off" of Players from the other two Factions,
if both Factions use their Heads for a bit, then they will AT LEAST stop to fight against another.

Jepp. For as long as possible and intensive as possible - so that they can both focus on drive
the Enemy's Troops back and get some Territory back into their Position.



This will be pretty nice, will it?

A Game which is NOT limited to only two Teams - and one Team is always the
Punching-bag of the other Site - getting Players more and more frustrated, making them
pissed off on a extensive Part of their Playtime, "making them antisocial", making them
become Trolls, or some other kind of "sad", angry Person's...


I witnessed the Community of WoW getting made nasty and antisocial as Heck,
for some Part - in the last Three Years. ;)




greetings, LV. :love: