One faction, 2x units? or 2 factions?

I have to agree with Spooks here.

http://www.google.com.au/#q=define:faction

At no point does it mean they drive different shaped tanks, or do things differently. Nobody in a war goes: "I don't like those guys, even though they have awesome guns; I'm going to avoid their stuff out of spite and principal."

When you're in a war: you use weapons that are effective. If the enemy has more effective weapons that you: you steal them.

Exactly. Thygrrr made a more streamlined poll about this: viewtopic.php?f=61&t=34495 , although he still uses "one faction" . Anyway, I am fine with the current approach Uber is taking. One set of units for all factions. However, in the spirit of TA, I would like it if at some point there was simply a massive amount of units available. In which case it may occur, that one "faction" does not use the exact same units as the other "faction" anymore, even though they have access to the same set of units.

Redefining the use of the word faction (even to a more correct definition) in this case doesn't actualy do much to address an argument.

And those visual distinctions are important because they denote whatever minor (or major) gameplay differences exist between the two races. Players will play whichever race they have a preference towards, these preferences will create conflict within the users to defend their choice (no matter how insignificant that choice may be). Arm for life, GDI > Nod and Alliance players have no souls. Swearing by planes isn't going to do much when you just switch to whatever is most appropriate in the given situation. Would TA have been anywhere near as much fun talking about if you gave arm all core's special units and cut core out entierly?

And while modding could add new factions, they will in all likelyhood never be "official" and not every player will have that mod, religating them to being closed circles of discussion instead of assumed knowledge for anyone who has played the game.

I have to disagree with you, many countries use different tanks.
And they all think theres is better, I guess it depends on how they like to wage war.

US: M1A2
UK: Challenger 2
China: Type 99
Russia: T-90
Japan: Type 10

Each country is a different faction, right? And many countries use the same Tanks etc., because they buy them from each other, or make joint ventures etc.

difference between factions thematicaly would be because of the preference of their styles of command. They optimise your factories to build the units that they prefer so that they can be built in the most ecenomical and efficient manner possible. Why create a factory 10% more expensive than it needs to be to build the light tank that fits your doctrin of fighting. The justification is really meaningless as you can justify anything. What matters is the reasons for the decision.

What i've been attempting to argue for is the in game definition of the players choice of faction, or at least the aknowledgement that officialy there will (or at least will eventualy, even if eventualy is never reached) be that definition.

My point is, they all have different capabilities!
And they're from different factions.

And my (and John Mavor's) point is, that many miltiary units and weapons are used by several factions, not just one.

Why do you want that definition?

Because it creates the ability for people to express their light hearted conflicts beyond just tactical decisions. Identifying yourself with an arm equivalent or core equivalent allows for every new person to the game to be part of that identity and that identity has a purpose, to destroy all external forces to you. You can argue that clans and such all serve the same purpose but at the end of the day not only are clans non destinct and to the ley user near meaningless, but they also are inherantly closed circles of people.

The triumph of winning over an opposing faction instead of just some person the same as you breeds conversation by the creation of this external threat.

This poll makes no sense.

In short: you have no imagination . Indulge yourself in the creation of your own 'factions' in your head.

While you are free to be dismissive of me i'd rather you actualy argue against my points.

What is there to argue against personal preference?

I'm ten grand short of voicing my personal preference here. Otherwise i'd never use the word cultural.

You wanting to have distinct factions is the personal preference of you and other people, but not mine.

Sigh...

Studies show that different types of people are drawn to the otherwise identicle factions [1] and that these differences then lead to discussion amoungst groups [2]. These discussions are a form of communication leading to groupwork and friendships and rivalries [3][4] helping to create a players online identity [5]. This social interaction then leads to a stronger game community.

[1] Mosley, Ian D. (2010) "Personality and Character Selection in World of Warcraft," McNair Scholars Research Journal: Vol. 6: Iss. 1, Article 12.
[2] Albert M. Muniz, Jr. and Lawrence O. Hamer (2001) ,"Us Versus Them: Oppositional Brand Loyalty and the Cola Wars", in Advances in Consumer Research Volume 28, eds. Mary C. Gilly and Joan Meyers-Levy, Advances in Consumer Research Volume 28 : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 355-361.
[3] Hatzipanagos, S. (2005). Empathic Interfaces and Communication Protocols: Groupwork and Dialogues in Discussion Forums. In P. Kommers & G. Richards (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2005 (pp. 2004-2011). Chesapeake, VA: AACE.
[4] Creative Player Actions in FPS Online Video Games: Playing Counter-Strike by Talmadge Wright, Eric Boria and Paul Breidenbach
[5] Strangers and friends: collaborative play in world of warcraft, Bonnie Nardi, Justin Harris

I'm not sure all those references are perfect as i'm pretty sleep deprived but, in short, I'm not arguing this based on personal preference.

Your argument is still based on a personal preference, you are just trying to give it more weight with scientific analysis about factionalism. It is what you want for the game after all.

What should i base the things i say on then? The whisperings of faries? or maybe you've got a magic 8 ball i can borrow?

Incorrect, his argument matches his preference, it's not based on it. What it's based on is the scientific analysis.

Fair enough.

Factionalism and Loyalism are traits that I detest, so I do not care much about "factions" being in the game. For all I care, the actual factions in the game can be named "Orange" and "Red". Or RED and BLU. Or Terrorists and Counter-Terrorists.

Also I'd argue that factions are not a necessity for the traits that yogurt is looking for. Publication [4] in particular talks about the "complex social world" that you enter when playing FPS multiplayer games. In these games, you don't root for one of the factions or identify yourself with them, you play Terrorist in one round and Counter-terrorist in another. You sometimes play on BLU and sometimes on RED (or both within the same map time on Attack/Defend maps for instance).