2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south. It's always 2 factions in a war. Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.
It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be. Let it alone, seriously.
2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south. It's always 2 factions in a war. Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.
It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be. Let it alone, seriously.
world war 2 was 3 factions.
My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions? As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein. But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....
2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south. It's always 2 factions in a war. Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.
It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be. Let it alone, seriously.
world war 2 was 3 factions.
My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions? As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein. But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....
Partisans?
xD
"It has potential" -Second most used phrase on existence "It sucks" -Most used phrase on existence
My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions? As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein. But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....
I am not sure I would actually calling the Russians for allies, they played their own games but yeah, normally do people consider WW2 as a 2 sided war since the Russians actually didn´t fight the allied.
WW1 was more confusing but is still considered a 2 sided war. Not all countries on "the same" side were really allies but no country fought people from both sides.
There were however 3 sided war as well in history. England 1066 is a good example with English Vs Danish Vs Normans.
And while basic history books say that the 30 years war were bwteen protestants and catholics that war had more sides than I want to count.
English Vs Dutch Vs Spanish were common in the 17th century, usually on colonies or at sea. Of course the Dutch often allied themselves with one or the other side but it wasn´t always like that. Heck once they had ships on both sides of a battle due to slow communications.
But while war with 3 sides is not that uncommon battles with 3 sides is. There are a few but they are very rare.
2 factions...lets see here....where have I seen 2 factions fighting before....rome v entire world, axis v allies, england v colonies, north v south. It's always 2 factions in a war. Even when you introduce a third party, they inevitibly team up with one side or the other to wipe out one of the three, thus just making it 2 v2 again, and then...back to two facing off again.
It's done, they are goin with 2, and 2 it will be. Let it alone, seriously.
world war 2 was 3 factions.
Axis vs Ally and all of them kill the non fighting 3th faction named as "Civilians"
Anyway,i dont see any problem for them about make more faction than only two side...
The problem you aren't seeing is mostly on the development side. Not only does it take vastly more resources to design a game for multiple factions (which results in a smaller, less polished game come launch) it also restricts their design decisions to those catering to multiple factions rather than the traditional 2.
That, and the fact that games workshop dictates there be a split between order and destruction on campaign size battles.
A + B vs C, another day B + C vs A and another day A + C vs B and eventually A vs B vs C
3 factions are so impredictable that WILL make the game fun.
Clans betray each other, alliances crumble BECAUSE IN MMOS LIKE IN REAL LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ENEMIES TO FIGHT PEOPLE WILL TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Leave the 2 faction crap for WOW if you want to be stand from the crowd then try something different (note that I did not say original since this has been tried before)
PS and DAoC are examples of why people love 3 factions game.
A + B vs C, another day B + C vs A and another day A + C vs B and eventually A vs B vs C
3 factions are so impredictable that WILL make the game fun.
Clans betray each other, alliances crumble BECAUSE IN MMOS LIKE IN REAL LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ENEMIES TO FIGHT PEOPLE WILL TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Leave the 2 faction crap for WOW if you want to be stand from the crowd then try something different (note that I did not say original since this has been tried before)
PS and DAoC are examples of why people love 3 factions game.
A + B vs C, another day B + C vs A and another day A + C vs B and eventually A vs B vs C
3 factions are so impredictable that WILL make the game fun.
Clans betray each other, alliances crumble BECAUSE IN MMOS LIKE IN REAL LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ENEMIES TO FIGHT PEOPLE WILL TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Leave the 2 faction crap for WOW if you want to be stand from the crowd then try something different (note that I did not say original since this has been tried before)
PS and DAoC are examples of why people love 3 factions game.
Why not 4 factions? Or 5? Or 11?
What's so special about three factions?
Balance...think about it.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
The problem you aren't seeing is mostly on the development side. Not only does it take vastly more resources to design a game for multiple factions (which results in a smaller, less polished game come launch) it also restricts their design decisions to those catering to multiple factions rather than the traditional 2.
That, and the fact that games workshop dictates there be a split between order and destruction on campaign size battles.
With all the respect I disagree. PS-1 and DAoC were not unpolished games. The ost important factor for multi-faction is balance between realms not class. As long the 3 realms are able to do similar stuff then the RvR is balance.
At the end it doesnt matter how much debate we put into this, becuase the desginers already made up their decision.
A + B vs C, another day B + C vs A and another day A + C vs B and eventually A vs B vs C
3 factions are so impredictable that WILL make the game fun.
Clans betray each other, alliances crumble BECAUSE IN MMOS LIKE IN REAL LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ENEMIES TO FIGHT PEOPLE WILL TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Leave the 2 faction crap for WOW if you want to be stand from the crowd then try something different (note that I did not say original since this has been tried before)
PS and DAoC are examples of why people love 3 factions game.
Why not 4 factions? Or 5? Or 11?
What's so special about three factions?
Balance...think about it.
Oh, you're right! With more than magic number 3 factions, balance suddenly becomes impossible!
Remember every time you split your player base on each becomes smaller. 4 or 5 factions is a double edge sword. In my opinion (3) factions is sweet spot for balance.
If the games goes for 3 factions, I willing to bet you money that the scenario below will happen over 75% of the time:
The two less populated factions will team up to kick the dominant faction ass.
Here is why:
1- You need an enemy on a RvR game. If you always beating the underdogs, they will eventually rage quit leaving you with no one to fight. (Most recent 2 faction RvR failure SWToR on which the Sith is almost 2 v1)
2- Everyone hates the arrogant dominant faction.
3- As the timezone changes so are the faction population, tipping the scale over whoever has the biggest numbers at that time of the day.
I will play DMO regardless of 2 or 3 faction; however, I bet you money that a 2 faction game will not be able to stand and survive.
You're making the assumption that people both know who the "dominant" faction is and are able to coordinate an effort against them. It is equally likely (and considering the typical MMO player these days, almost a guarantee) that when a strong faction attacks the weak one, the 3rd will avoid the strong one and hit the weak one from another angle. They might eventually get bored and decide to contest the strong faction, but there's no guarantee of if or when.
In a two sided fight, your winning conditions and your opponents losing conditions are mutually exclusive. You can't beat them without them losing, so they have a built-in incentive to fight back in whatever way they can. Add in a 3rd target, and your enemy can win without you losing. In fact, your "enemy" taking the initiative can spark a bandwagon effect of people seeking loot, XP or whatever other spoils of war. This isn't theory or some idealized situation. This happened quite frequently in Dark Age from what I gather. Albion and Midguard essentially made Hybernia their bitch until people just stopped playing Hybernia and the fight was reduced to 2 sides.
Furthermore, how would the lines be drawn in a 3 faction 40k game? You could have Imperium, Orkz and Chaos, but what then? Eldar might pair up with Imperium, maybe, but who would join the Orkz to balance it out? Or chaos for that matter. Either each faction is its own separate entity, which in the case of a strictly 3 faction game eliminates the possibility of Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids, or in the case of a free for all the population is eventually split 9 different ways along with all the hell of trying to design a map for each expansion that includes a new faction, OR they go with Games Workshop's order and destruction split.
No idea what the thread necro was all about, the MMO is dead. We have no idea what kind of game we're getting anymore.
Although two new 3 faction PvP games have launched since THQ gave this game the axe, and somehow there has been no PvP revolution. In fact, GW2 just kinda died, and PS2 was never alive in the first place. Go figure...
No idea what the thread necro was all about, the MMO is dead. We have no idea what kind of game we're getting anymore.
Although two new 3 faction PvP games have launched since THQ gave this game the axe, and somehow there has been no PvP revolution. In fact, GW2 just kinda died, and PS2 was never alive in the first place. Go figure...
GW2 is hugely successful and PS2 has only recently launched.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
That's not what I'm hearing. Despite the fact that the game is buy to play, had a massive cult following and a myriad of quality of life advancements (overflow servers, for example) GW2's population has plummeted and initial rave reviews are being rewritten to say that the game quickly became a stale, boring grind.
There are exceptions of course, but in spite of the fact that the game seemed to have everything going for it as fans would have you believe, it has declined over time rather than accelerate. 3 faction PvP did nothing to carry it, and I would argue that Arenanet's attempts to force a large scale 3 faction system without inspiration caused them to waste time and resources that could have been used elsewhere.
Oh, I also forgot completely about the Secret World. Yet another bandwagoner that crashed and burned spectacularly. It's for reasons like this that I'm just resorting to Steam. $30 per month will usually buy me a pretty good game on sale, and I don't have to deal with developers that are torn on certain issues.
Comments
THQ and Vigil had nothing to do with WAR. That was EA and Mythic.
Needing is Wanting...
Wanting is Coveting...
Coveting is Sinning...
I am SO going to Hell.
Yes, sorry,i forgot to write that part down, and i dont want to edit now
world war 2 was 3 factions.
My recollection of history class eons ago must be fuzzier than I thought, what were the three factions? As I recall, it was axis v ally and all the allies tied to each therein. But I am old, and memory is the first to go they say...or was that hearing...or vision...damn I can't recall....
Partisans?
xD
"It has potential"
-Second most used phrase on existence
"It sucks"
-Most used phrase on existence
I am not sure I would actually calling the Russians for allies, they played their own games but yeah, normally do people consider WW2 as a 2 sided war since the Russians actually didn´t fight the allied.
WW1 was more confusing but is still considered a 2 sided war. Not all countries on "the same" side were really allies but no country fought people from both sides.
There were however 3 sided war as well in history. England 1066 is a good example with English Vs Danish Vs Normans.
And while basic history books say that the 30 years war were bwteen protestants and catholics that war had more sides than I want to count.
English Vs Dutch Vs Spanish were common in the 17th century, usually on colonies or at sea. Of course the Dutch often allied themselves with one or the other side but it wasn´t always like that. Heck once they had ships on both sides of a battle due to slow communications.
But while war with 3 sides is not that uncommon battles with 3 sides is. There are a few but they are very rare.
Axis vs Ally and all of them kill the non fighting 3th faction named as "Civilians"
Anyway,i dont see any problem for them about make more faction than only two side...
The problem you aren't seeing is mostly on the development side. Not only does it take vastly more resources to design a game for multiple factions (which results in a smaller, less polished game come launch) it also restricts their design decisions to those catering to multiple factions rather than the traditional 2.
That, and the fact that games workshop dictates there be a split between order and destruction on campaign size battles.
I personally support the 3 faction in lieu of 2.
My main reason is that yes one day
A + B vs C, another day B + C vs A and another day A + C vs B and eventually A vs B vs C
3 factions are so impredictable that WILL make the game fun.
Clans betray each other, alliances crumble BECAUSE IN MMOS LIKE IN REAL LIFE WHEN THERE IS NO MORE ENEMIES TO FIGHT PEOPLE WILL TURN AGAINST EACH OTHER.
Leave the 2 faction crap for WOW if you want to be stand from the crowd then try something different (note that I did not say original since this has been tried before)
PS and DAoC are examples of why people love 3 factions game.
Why not 4 factions? Or 5? Or 11?
What's so special about three factions?
Balance...think about it.
I might get banned for this. - Rizel Star.
I'm not afraid to tell trolls what they [need] to hear, even if that means for me to have an forced absence afterwards.
P2P LOGIC = If it's P2P it means longevity, overall better game, and THE BEST SUPPORT EVER!!!!!(Which has been rinsed and repeated about a thousand times)
Common Sense Logic = P2P logic is no better than F2P Logic.
With all the respect I disagree. PS-1 and DAoC were not unpolished games. The ost important factor for multi-faction is balance between realms not class. As long the 3 realms are able to do similar stuff then the RvR is balance.
At the end it doesnt matter how much debate we put into this, becuase the desginers already made up their decision.
Oh, you're right! With more than magic number 3 factions, balance suddenly becomes impossible!
Warhammer fantasy should have been
law - Empire & Dwarfs
chaos - Warriors of Chaos & Beasts of Chaos
evil - vampires & orcs (using the same thing they did with Dark elves controling the orcs in the actual game)
reasons - 3 sides better than 2, world is more joined together, easier to expand with HE / skaven / DE "new world" expansion
WH40k could work as
Imperium - marines & guard
Xenos - eldar & tau
"chaos" - chaos space marines & dark eldar
only where would orks go
perhaps go 4 faction (or 5) or maybe
imperium - marines, guard & sisters
xenos - eldar, tau & kroot as separate race to tau proper
evil - traitor legions, dark eldar, orks
or you could have orcs been manipulated by the eldar and /or tau and shove them in the xenos faction
i don't think necrons or tyranids work really as player factions
boy oh boy i sure cant wait for planetside 2!
Remember every time you split your player base on each becomes smaller. 4 or 5 factions is a double edge sword. In my opinion (3) factions is sweet spot for balance.
If the games goes for 3 factions, I willing to bet you money that the scenario below will happen over 75% of the time:
The two less populated factions will team up to kick the dominant faction ass.
Here is why:
1- You need an enemy on a RvR game. If you always beating the underdogs, they will eventually rage quit leaving you with no one to fight. (Most recent 2 faction RvR failure SWToR on which the Sith is almost 2 v1)
2- Everyone hates the arrogant dominant faction.
3- As the timezone changes so are the faction population, tipping the scale over whoever has the biggest numbers at that time of the day.
I will play DMO regardless of 2 or 3 faction; however, I bet you money that a 2 faction game will not be able to stand and survive.
You're making the assumption that people both know who the "dominant" faction is and are able to coordinate an effort against them. It is equally likely (and considering the typical MMO player these days, almost a guarantee) that when a strong faction attacks the weak one, the 3rd will avoid the strong one and hit the weak one from another angle. They might eventually get bored and decide to contest the strong faction, but there's no guarantee of if or when.
In a two sided fight, your winning conditions and your opponents losing conditions are mutually exclusive. You can't beat them without them losing, so they have a built-in incentive to fight back in whatever way they can. Add in a 3rd target, and your enemy can win without you losing. In fact, your "enemy" taking the initiative can spark a bandwagon effect of people seeking loot, XP or whatever other spoils of war. This isn't theory or some idealized situation. This happened quite frequently in Dark Age from what I gather. Albion and Midguard essentially made Hybernia their bitch until people just stopped playing Hybernia and the fight was reduced to 2 sides.
Furthermore, how would the lines be drawn in a 3 faction 40k game? You could have Imperium, Orkz and Chaos, but what then? Eldar might pair up with Imperium, maybe, but who would join the Orkz to balance it out? Or chaos for that matter. Either each faction is its own separate entity, which in the case of a strictly 3 faction game eliminates the possibility of Eldar, Tau, Dark Eldar, Necrons and Tyranids, or in the case of a free for all the population is eventually split 9 different ways along with all the hell of trying to design a map for each expansion that includes a new faction, OR they go with Games Workshop's order and destruction split.
Going to Bump this
a long time ago in a post far far away i said this should have gone Planetside style for the 40k Franchise with 5 or 6 different races
I was right...... it feels good
sorry this game has hit a speed bump but as it was it would have died like i said before... and guess what they stopped dev
shame love the 40k franchise they made a bad call from the start
no more raging for stmichael's fanboi
nerf scissors! rock is fine...
yours paper
No idea what the thread necro was all about, the MMO is dead. We have no idea what kind of game we're getting anymore.
Although two new 3 faction PvP games have launched since THQ gave this game the axe, and somehow there has been no PvP revolution. In fact, GW2 just kinda died, and PS2 was never alive in the first place. Go figure...
GW2 is hugely successful and PS2 has only recently launched.
Expresso gave me a Hearthstone beta key.....I'm so happy
That's not what I'm hearing. Despite the fact that the game is buy to play, had a massive cult following and a myriad of quality of life advancements (overflow servers, for example) GW2's population has plummeted and initial rave reviews are being rewritten to say that the game quickly became a stale, boring grind.
There are exceptions of course, but in spite of the fact that the game seemed to have everything going for it as fans would have you believe, it has declined over time rather than accelerate. 3 faction PvP did nothing to carry it, and I would argue that Arenanet's attempts to force a large scale 3 faction system without inspiration caused them to waste time and resources that could have been used elsewhere.
Oh, I also forgot completely about the Secret World. Yet another bandwagoner that crashed and burned spectacularly. It's for reasons like this that I'm just resorting to Steam. $30 per month will usually buy me a pretty good game on sale, and I don't have to deal with developers that are torn on certain issues.