yeah and if 2 faction just want to destroy completly the weakest faction for fun? and from what I know, people will always attack the weak first, just to farm them. so it will always be 2 vs the poor little faction until the faction is dead
Umm.. not really... Attacking the weakest might be a knee-jerk reaction in mammalian psychology but not in the long run.. The weakest faction has the weakest rewards obviously (if only the lowest number of players to kill, they are hard to find you know if there's only a few of them). In time the stronger factions start thinking, each on its own.. "why am I bothering trying to hunt down this skinny twerp while there is this big juicy lump right beside me... I'd better ally with the small guy - he even won't cut into my profits, being so happy somebody finally gave him a break."
This is what happened in DAoC and Planetside all the time.
And besides you can automate the alliance making. By the decree of the emperor, you know.
whatever the number of faction, there will always be at least one who die, people always join the best one, why making an aliance with other people to try to win if I can just change faction and win?
And besides you can automate the alliance making. By the decree of the emperor, you know.
Because of the lore of War40k, alliance wont work. Space marine wont ally with Chaos even if the emperor is about to be killed by the strongest faction.
whatever the number of faction, there will always be at least one who die, people always join the best one, why making an aliance with other people to try to win if I can just change faction and win?
You are generalizing. People do not "always" join the best one.. and what does "the best one" mean? It is all a matter of thresholds and different people have diferent thresholds. Some will always go to the winning side, no matter what, and most have their own thresholds of imbalance tolerance.
That's the problem with the whole "runaway" bit in "runaway positive-feedback loop". While the initital balance might be miniscule, each new transfer incrases the imbalance and more and more peoples' tolerance tresholds are crossed. It is pretty much a chain reaction, like a nuclear reactor meltdown.
And besides, changing alliances is much easier than changing factions, both because of the practical hassle of loosing all previous progress and the fact that some people choose their factions according to whether they like them or not.
In the multifaction system if you do change faction to join the strongest one you are actually shooting yourself in the foot, because if that faction gets overpopulated, the weaker ones will eventually band together and make you the weakest again.
And besides you can automate the alliance making. By the decree of the emperor, you know.
Because of the lore of War40k, alliance wont work. Space marine wont ally with Chaos even if the emperor is about to be killed by the strongest faction.
Read the thread man, read it. Alliances can be made possible only in select combinations, as other posters including me already suggested.
33 vs 33 vs 33 - obviously this is working as intended although there's only 99 guys here, one being out for lunch.
35 vs 31 vs 31 - here one faction has 2 guys more than any of the other two. In percentage terms, this one faction has a much bigger initial imbalance than the one in the beginning of the 2-faction example. What happens now? The smaller factions band up and now we have the 35 vs 66 imbalance which puts the bigger faction at a huge disadvantage. The guy we mentioned at the first example says "This is crap man, I'm bugging out! I don't want to be a looser! I'm switching sides!" The imbalance is now 34 vs 65. Other folks say "No' this is even worse! People are leaving! I'm leaving too" until the imbalance is 33 vs 66 at which point the other two factions decide that their alliance has served its purpose, the menace is gone and it would be more profitable to go at each other's throats for a change.
This is the self-regulating negative-feedback loop.
wrong, absolutly wrong
1) 33 v 33 v 33
utopic, dont even worth discussing. I could just as easily assume that 2 factions would be 50 v 50, so why arguing about a problem when there is no problem?
tbh, 2 factions would be easier to balance, the more sides you add the harder it is to reach total equilibrium...
2) disbalance (and not that joke you mention, REAL disbalance, like 55 v 25 v 20. This was way more common than you'd think in 3 faction games like DAOC
you seem to be under the delusion that people regulates themselves. That is, that they PAY to play a competitive games, to WIN, but then...they will hold their horses and intentionally lose some, and dont try to maximize their chances of winning
WRONG
if one nation grows strong, and the second is medium size, they both will band together to gangbang the third
why?
because people plays to win, and loves to win
because its easier
because its more rewarding (pvp progression in MMOs is tied to "winning". the more you win, the faster you go)
And last but not least, its extremly self delusional to think than once an alliance has proved successful and fulfiled a purpose, people will break it up to reach balance again
seriously, have you EVER played a PvP game?
NOONE will intenionally give up winning, I have played dozens of PvP games, and I have seen many people on top, sometimes I was one of them. I can tell you what are the reactions when you tell them that it'd be in the benefit of all to quit the alliance:
"get better and beat us"
"you arent really trying, so we dont have to stop"
"nooooo, the unbalance isnt as bad as you guys make it to be"
" we are playing as intended, we are winning, its not our problem to fix the balance"
a 3 faction system is just as inherently unbalanced as a 2 faction, basically because its on the people's hands to make it a 2 factions system when they wish.
And people will do it. you can bet your ass. they always do it, because people dont "play as intended". people plays to win, and everybody knows that when 70% band vs 30%, 70% are having fun and thats all they care....
33 vs 33 vs 33 - obviously this is working as intended although there's only 99 guys here, one being out for lunch.
35 vs 31 vs 31 - here one faction has 2 guys more than any of the other two. In percentage terms, this one faction has a much bigger initial imbalance than the one in the beginning of the 2-faction example. What happens now? The smaller factions band up and now we have the 35 vs 66 imbalance which puts the bigger faction at a huge disadvantage. The guy we mentioned at the first example says "This is crap man, I'm bugging out! I don't want to be a looser! I'm switching sides!" The imbalance is now 34 vs 65. Other folks say "No' this is even worse! People are leaving! I'm leaving too" until the imbalance is 33 vs 66 at which point the other two factions decide that their alliance has served its purpose, the menace is gone and it would be more profitable to go at each other's throats for a change.
This is the self-regulating negative-feedback loop.
wrong, absolutly wrong
1) 33 v 33 v 33
utopic, dont even worth discussing. I could just as easily assume that 2 factions would be 50 v 50, so why arguing about a problem when there is no problem?
tbh, 2 factions would be easier to balance, the more sides you add the harder it is to reach total equilibrium...
2) disbalance (and not that joke you mention, REAL disbalance, like 55 v 25 v 20. This was way more common than you'd think in 3 faction games like DAOC
you seem to be under the delusion that people regulates themselves. That is, that they PAY to play a competitive games, to WIN, but then...they will hold their horses and intentionally lose some, and dont try to maximize their chances of winning
WRONG
if one nation grows strong, and the second is medium size, they both will band together to gangbang the third
why?
because people plays to win, and loves to win
because its easier
because its more rewarding (pvp progression in MMOs is tied to "winning". the more you win, the faster you go)
And last but not least, its extremly self delusional to think than once an alliance has proved successful and fulfiled a purpose, people will break it up to reach balance again
seriously, have you EVER played a PvP game?
NOONE will intenionally give up winning, I have played dozens of PvP games, and I have seen many people on top, sometimes I was one of them. I can tell you what are the reactions when you tell them that it'd be in the benefit of all to quit the alliance:
"get better and beat us"
"you arent really trying, so we dont have to stop"
"nooooo, the unbalance isnt as bad as you guys make it to be"
" we are playing as intended, we are winning, its not our problem to fix the balance"
a 3 faction system is just as inherently unbalanced as a 2 faction, basically because its on the people's hands to make it a 2 factions system when they wish.
And people will do it. you can bet your ass. they always do it, because people dont "play as intended". people plays to win, and everybody knows that when 70% band vs 30%, 70% are having fun and thats all they care....
Did you understand anything I said in that post? I don't mean agree or something, you know just understand?
It is amazing how you keep coming to the wrong conclusions here. 1) It is an ideal situation and example of balanced state, like 50 vs 50 would be. It is put here to make the argument complete, you know that's what you when you make experiments, you present the neutral state first. Apple is hanging on the tree. What happens if apple stops hanging from the tree, you know? You need the apple on the tree in the first place 2) My point is not that the more than 2 factions solves everything, that it's a universal panacea for all imbalances everything AS I SAID! AS I ACTUALLY SAID THERE! I SAID THAT IT IS NOT! CAN YOU READ MAN!?! The point is that 2-faction setup is INHERENTLY IMBALANCED while a multi faction one IS NOT. Can you understand that? Can you?!?? 3) If you cannot understand from my arguments what a SELF-REGULATING system is (a hint - it regulates ITSELF, it doesn't require players to go against their win-loving nature, quite the opposite - it actually relies on players playing to win all the time and to seek numerical superiority whenever they can, comprende??) then I really cannot help you anymore. Instead trying to fight the force of nature (and I'll give you a hint, Einstein said it is the only thing he's certain is infinite) here's another good old Tommy to help me get my points across.
That's him actually looking at me for blowing the lid here. Man, I will never learn...
1. It makes sense from a lore point-of-view (and even from a realistic pov, its rarely ever "good versus bad" in reality).
2. The potential for chaotic fun is much greater with more factions (in my opinion of course).
3. If they already have multi-faction setup in the works, this petition wont harm, instead it will only be a confirmation that some people think its the right way to go. If they have 2-faction setup, its best to try and affect that decision as early as possible.
About the argument of population imbalances: in my opinion, it got nothing to do with number of factions. A 2-faction system can suffer badly from imbalances just as a 3 or 4-faction system can. There should be measures taken to solve or counter this regardless.
Mythic actually had an idea about how to solve this in Warhammer online (What did they call it? "Dogs of war?") Unfortunatly it never happened.
In my opinion they could have a "NPC support" feature like that to try and solve it. The side that has the lowest population could "sign out" support NPCs to aid them. The greater the imbalance, the stronger, more intimidating support troops.
Didn't take you guys long to find something to bitch about with this game.
Grats i think less than 24 hours is a new freaking QQ record.
Perhaps you enjoy playing bad games based on great IPs but made with horrible design ideas behind them, the rest of us dont. Took you less than 24 hours to QQ about a valid request being made by people who want to play the game, though i doubt thats a record...
Have you played W40k? no? Then how do you know its a bad design choice?
because its more rewarding (pvp progression in MMOs is tied to "winning". the more you win, the faster you go)
These all assume a system that does not bother to differentiate a player in a dominant faction from a player in a lesser faction. Why couldn't the game give npc allies (one example, something that is not superior to a human player but helps level a playing field a bit) to factions that have a lower presence on the battlefield. Similarly, why not give the best rewards for defeating the faction that currently has the highest "control" of a region, and thus encourage smaller faction players to band together against the greater threat for greater rewards?
I think part of the mistake being made here is the assumption that the system must passively accept imbalances in player factions. In my opinion it's entirely possilbe to encourage players to negate those imbalances through reward systems.
agree, 2 faction just shooting themselves trying to balance the population. Last thing we need is another warhammer with cap rvr zone unless this is another instance game which I wont bother to touch.
33 vs 33 vs 33 - obviously this is working as intended although there's only 99 guys here, one being out for lunch.
35 vs 31 vs 31 - here one faction has 2 guys more than any of the other two. In percentage terms, this one faction has a much bigger initial imbalance than the one in the beginning of the 2-faction example. What happens now? The smaller factions band up and now we have the 35 vs 66 imbalance which puts the bigger faction at a huge disadvantage. The guy we mentioned at the first example says "This is crap man, I'm bugging out! I don't want to be a looser! I'm switching sides!" The imbalance is now 34 vs 65. Other folks say "No' this is even worse! People are leaving! I'm leaving too" until the imbalance is 33 vs 66 at which point the other two factions decide that their alliance has served its purpose, the menace is gone and it would be more profitable to go at each other's throats for a change.
This is the self-regulating negative-feedback loop.
wrong, absolutly wrong
1) 33 v 33 v 33
utopic, dont even worth discussing. I could just as easily assume that 2 factions would be 50 v 50, so why arguing about a problem when there is no problem?
tbh, 2 factions would be easier to balance, the more sides you add the harder it is to reach total equilibrium...
2) disbalance (and not that joke you mention, REAL disbalance, like 55 v 25 v 20. This was way more common than you'd think in 3 faction games like DAOC
you seem to be under the delusion that people regulates themselves. That is, that they PAY to play a competitive games, to WIN, but then...they will hold their horses and intentionally lose some, and dont try to maximize their chances of winning
WRONG
if one nation grows strong, and the second is medium size, they both will band together to gangbang the third
why?
because people plays to win, and loves to win
because its easier
because its more rewarding (pvp progression in MMOs is tied to "winning". the more you win, the faster you go)
And last but not least, its extremly self delusional to think than once an alliance has proved successful and fulfiled a purpose, people will break it up to reach balance again
seriously, have you EVER played a PvP game?
NOONE will intenionally give up winning, I have played dozens of PvP games, and I have seen many people on top, sometimes I was one of them. I can tell you what are the reactions when you tell them that it'd be in the benefit of all to quit the alliance:
"get better and beat us"
"you arent really trying, so we dont have to stop"
"nooooo, the unbalance isnt as bad as you guys make it to be"
" we are playing as intended, we are winning, its not our problem to fix the balance"
a 3 faction system is just as inherently unbalanced as a 2 faction, basically because its on the people's hands to make it a 2 factions system when they wish.
And people will do it. you can bet your ass. they always do it, because people dont "play as intended". people plays to win, and everybody knows that when 70% band vs 30%, 70% are having fun and thats all they care....
Did you understand anything I said in that post? I don't mean agree or something, you know just understand?
It is amazing how you keep coming to the wrong conclusions here. 1) It is an ideal situation and example of balanced state, like 50 vs 50 would be. It is put here to make the argument complete, you know that's what you when you make experiments, you present the neutral state first. Apple is hanging on the tree. What happens if apple stops hanging from the tree, you know? You need the apple on the tree in the first place 2) My point is not that the more than 2 factions solves everything, that it's a universal panacea for all imbalances everything AS I SAID! AS I ACTUALLY SAID THERE! I SAID THAT IT IS NOT! CAN YOU READ MAN!?! The point is that 2-faction setup is INHERENTLY IMBALANCED while a multi faction one IS NOT. Can you understand that? Can you?!?? 3) If you cannot understand from my arguments what a SELF-REGULATING system is (a hint - it regulates ITSELF, it doesn't require players to go against their win-loving nature, quite the opposite - it actually relies on players playing to win all the time and to seek numerical superiority whenever they can, comprende??) then I really cannot help you anymore. Instead trying to fight the force of nature (and I'll give you a hint, Einstein said it is the only thing he's certain is infinite) here's another good old Tommy to help me get my points across.
That's him actually looking at me for blowing the lid here. Man, I will never learn...
I don't neccesarily equate winning to fun. Most times I will pick the losing faction because its much more worthwile, for me, to work hard and try to turn things around thant to be handed everything on a sivler platter.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
Did you understand anything I said in that post? I don't mean agree or something, you know just understand?
It is amazing how you keep coming to the wrong conclusions here. 1) It is an ideal situation and example of balanced state, like 50 vs 50 would be. It is put here to make the argument complete, you know that's what you when you make experiments, you present the neutral state first. Apple is hanging on the tree. What happens if apple stops hanging from the tree, you know? You need the apple on the tree in the first place 2) My point is not that the more than 2 factions solves everything, that it's a universal panacea for all imbalances everything AS I SAID! AS I ACTUALLY SAID THERE! I SAID THAT IT IS NOT! CAN YOU READ MAN!?! The point is that 2-faction setup is INHERENTLY IMBALANCED while a multi faction one IS NOT. Can you understand that? Can you?!?? 3) If you cannot understand from my arguments what a SELF-REGULATING system is (a hint - it regulates ITSELF, it doesn't require players to go against their win-loving nature, quite the opposite - it actually relies on players playing to win all the time and to seek numerical superiority whenever they can, comprende??) then I really cannot help you anymore. Instead trying to fight the force of nature (and I'll give you a hint, Einstein said it is the only thing he's certain is infinite) here's another good old Tommy to help me get my points across.
I dont really know what kind of genetic illness affects your brain, but for the last time I'll try to get my point across
lets assume your starting posiion, 40 v 30 v 30, and lets assume against all logic that the 2 factions with 30 band together
(and thats a lot of assuming, in your own words people look for numeric advantage, so it would always make more sense that 40 and one of the 30 ally, just as I said, but watever...)
its now 40 v 60, right? so 2 factions gangbang one, and its a walk in th park thanks to sheer numbers
why in God's name do you think that once the 40 nation has dropped to 33, the other 2 factions will disband their alliance?
thats right, its moronic logic. They wont
they will keep doing what has been working for them for so long, and as weeks pass it will be just easier because the 40 faction (now 33) wil keep shrinking and shrinking as players in that faction keep rerolling or quitting the game.
its pretty simple, a 3 faction system is actually a 2 faction system once 2 factions in the game reach an agreement. Its just as much unbalanced as 2. not more, not less, just exactly the same.
and players WILL reach an agreement.
always.
period.
it doesnt self regulate, if that was true alliances would be automatically broken by the game everytime there's the need for a shift in power.on the contrary,
it 100% relies on players taking the "correct and honorable" decition.
newsflash for you: they rarely do....and thats an euphemism to say they never do...
seriously, I really dont know how to water this down more for you...I think if you didnt understand this by now I'll have to resort to sock puppets...considering your lack of intellect maybe I should have started there...
So 2 sucks, 3 just band together, so I assume the argument would extend to 5 factions would just team up or some such right?
Personally I dislike 2 factions since the lore doesn't support it. I was hoping for something like the Apocalypse chart where certain races/factions/whatever could team up etc etc.
Comments
Umm.. not really... Attacking the weakest might be a knee-jerk reaction in mammalian psychology but not in the long run.. The weakest faction has the weakest rewards obviously (if only the lowest number of players to kill, they are hard to find you know if there's only a few of them). In time the stronger factions start thinking, each on its own.. "why am I bothering trying to hunt down this skinny twerp while there is this big juicy lump right beside me... I'd better ally with the small guy - he even won't cut into my profits, being so happy somebody finally gave him a break."
This is what happened in DAoC and Planetside all the time.
And besides you can automate the alliance making. By the decree of the emperor, you know.
whatever the number of faction, there will always be at least one who die, people always join the best one, why making an aliance with other people to try to win if I can just change faction and win?
Because of the lore of War40k, alliance wont work. Space marine wont ally with Chaos even if the emperor is about to be killed by the strongest faction.
spacemarines will be about 70% of server anyway^^
You are generalizing. People do not "always" join the best one.. and what does "the best one" mean? It is all a matter of thresholds and different people have diferent thresholds. Some will always go to the winning side, no matter what, and most have their own thresholds of imbalance tolerance.
That's the problem with the whole "runaway" bit in "runaway positive-feedback loop". While the initital balance might be miniscule, each new transfer incrases the imbalance and more and more peoples' tolerance tresholds are crossed. It is pretty much a chain reaction, like a nuclear reactor meltdown.
And besides, changing alliances is much easier than changing factions, both because of the practical hassle of loosing all previous progress and the fact that some people choose their factions according to whether they like them or not.
In the multifaction system if you do change faction to join the strongest one you are actually shooting yourself in the foot, because if that faction gets overpopulated, the weaker ones will eventually band together and make you the weakest again.
Read the thread man, read it. Alliances can be made possible only in select combinations, as other posters including me already suggested.
wrong, absolutly wrong
1) 33 v 33 v 33
utopic, dont even worth discussing. I could just as easily assume that 2 factions would be 50 v 50, so why arguing about a problem when there is no problem?
tbh, 2 factions would be easier to balance, the more sides you add the harder it is to reach total equilibrium...
2) disbalance (and not that joke you mention, REAL disbalance, like 55 v 25 v 20. This was way more common than you'd think in 3 faction games like DAOC
you seem to be under the delusion that people regulates themselves. That is, that they PAY to play a competitive games, to WIN, but then...they will hold their horses and intentionally lose some, and dont try to maximize their chances of winning
WRONG
if one nation grows strong, and the second is medium size, they both will band together to gangbang the third
why?
because people plays to win, and loves to win
because its easier
because its more rewarding (pvp progression in MMOs is tied to "winning". the more you win, the faster you go)
And last but not least, its extremly self delusional to think than once an alliance has proved successful and fulfiled a purpose, people will break it up to reach balance again
seriously, have you EVER played a PvP game?
NOONE will intenionally give up winning, I have played dozens of PvP games, and I have seen many people on top, sometimes I was one of them. I can tell you what are the reactions when you tell them that it'd be in the benefit of all to quit the alliance:
"get better and beat us"
"you arent really trying, so we dont have to stop"
"nooooo, the unbalance isnt as bad as you guys make it to be"
" we are playing as intended, we are winning, its not our problem to fix the balance"
a 3 faction system is just as inherently unbalanced as a 2 faction, basically because its on the people's hands to make it a 2 factions system when they wish.
And people will do it. you can bet your ass. they always do it, because people dont "play as intended". people plays to win, and everybody knows that when 70% band vs 30%, 70% are having fun and thats all they care....
Did you understand anything I said in that post? I don't mean agree or something, you know just understand?
It is amazing how you keep coming to the wrong conclusions here. 1) It is an ideal situation and example of balanced state, like 50 vs 50 would be. It is put here to make the argument complete, you know that's what you when you make experiments, you present the neutral state first. Apple is hanging on the tree. What happens if apple stops hanging from the tree, you know? You need the apple on the tree in the first place 2) My point is not that the more than 2 factions solves everything, that it's a universal panacea for all imbalances everything AS I SAID! AS I ACTUALLY SAID THERE! I SAID THAT IT IS NOT! CAN YOU READ MAN!?! The point is that 2-faction setup is INHERENTLY IMBALANCED while a multi faction one IS NOT. Can you understand that? Can you?!?? 3) If you cannot understand from my arguments what a SELF-REGULATING system is (a hint - it regulates ITSELF, it doesn't require players to go against their win-loving nature, quite the opposite - it actually relies on players playing to win all the time and to seek numerical superiority whenever they can, comprende??) then I really cannot help you anymore. Instead trying to fight the force of nature (and I'll give you a hint, Einstein said it is the only thing he's certain is infinite) here's another good old Tommy to help me get my points across.
That's him actually looking at me for blowing the lid here. Man, I will never learn...
Signed the petition, for 3 simple reasons:
1. It makes sense from a lore point-of-view (and even from a realistic pov, its rarely ever "good versus bad" in reality).
2. The potential for chaotic fun is much greater with more factions (in my opinion of course).
3. If they already have multi-faction setup in the works, this petition wont harm, instead it will only be a confirmation that some people think its the right way to go. If they have 2-faction setup, its best to try and affect that decision as early as possible.
About the argument of population imbalances: in my opinion, it got nothing to do with number of factions. A 2-faction system can suffer badly from imbalances just as a 3 or 4-faction system can. There should be measures taken to solve or counter this regardless.
Mythic actually had an idea about how to solve this in Warhammer online (What did they call it? "Dogs of war?") Unfortunatly it never happened.
In my opinion they could have a "NPC support" feature like that to try and solve it. The side that has the lowest population could "sign out" support NPCs to aid them. The greater the imbalance, the stronger, more intimidating support troops.
Have you played W40k? no? Then how do you know its a bad design choice?
Give it a rest with your bullshit DAoC revival.
The game doesnt need multi factions to be good.
Playing: Rift, LotRO
Waiting on: GW2, BP
These all assume a system that does not bother to differentiate a player in a dominant faction from a player in a lesser faction. Why couldn't the game give npc allies (one example, something that is not superior to a human player but helps level a playing field a bit) to factions that have a lower presence on the battlefield. Similarly, why not give the best rewards for defeating the faction that currently has the highest "control" of a region, and thus encourage smaller faction players to band together against the greater threat for greater rewards?
I think part of the mistake being made here is the assumption that the system must passively accept imbalances in player factions. In my opinion it's entirely possilbe to encourage players to negate those imbalances through reward systems.
agree, 2 faction just shooting themselves trying to balance the population. Last thing we need is another warhammer with cap rvr zone unless this is another instance game which I wont bother to touch.
with swtor tera GW2 Secret world this game doesnt have a chance unless its realllllly good.
I don't neccesarily equate winning to fun. Most times I will pick the losing faction because its much more worthwile, for me, to work hard and try to turn things around thant to be handed everything on a sivler platter.
Vault-Tec analysts have concluded that the odds of worldwide nuclear armaggeddon this decade are 17,143,762... to 1.
I dont really know what kind of genetic illness affects your brain, but for the last time I'll try to get my point across
lets assume your starting posiion, 40 v 30 v 30, and lets assume against all logic that the 2 factions with 30 band together
(and thats a lot of assuming, in your own words people look for numeric advantage, so it would always make more sense that 40 and one of the 30 ally, just as I said, but watever...)
its now 40 v 60, right? so 2 factions gangbang one, and its a walk in th park thanks to sheer numbers
why in God's name do you think that once the 40 nation has dropped to 33, the other 2 factions will disband their alliance?
thats right, its moronic logic. They wont
they will keep doing what has been working for them for so long, and as weeks pass it will be just easier because the 40 faction (now 33) wil keep shrinking and shrinking as players in that faction keep rerolling or quitting the game.
its pretty simple, a 3 faction system is actually a 2 faction system once 2 factions in the game reach an agreement. Its just as much unbalanced as 2. not more, not less, just exactly the same.
and players WILL reach an agreement.
always.
period.
it doesnt self regulate, if that was true alliances would be automatically broken by the game everytime there's the need for a shift in power.on the contrary,
it 100% relies on players taking the "correct and honorable" decition.
newsflash for you: they rarely do....and thats an euphemism to say they never do...
seriously, I really dont know how to water this down more for you...I think if you didnt understand this by now I'll have to resort to sock puppets...considering your lack of intellect maybe I should have started there...
So 2 sucks, 3 just band together, so I assume the argument would extend to 5 factions would just team up or some such right?
Personally I dislike 2 factions since the lore doesn't support it. I was hoping for something like the Apocalypse chart where certain races/factions/whatever could team up etc etc.