Factions/Unit Set

All I have to say for those who say 1 faction is fine is "Would you have liked/loved TA if you could only play Arm Vs Arm or Core Vs Core? the answer is obviously NO, I am an ARM player and I love to hate the core with there fat **** units like cans an sumo's, yes they have krogoth which is really cool but I love my mavericks and pee wees, I think we need fractions and this poll of less than 200 says nothing compared to the millions who will buy this game, Name me one top line RTS that would have been BETTER with only one faction? StarCraft only playing terran? Warcraft 1/2/3 only playing humans? lets face it we need 2 factions from the start.

Thanks for reading

Great, someone else who is ignoring all the discussion that came before and is using arguments we've already crushed.

To say only having 1 faction is the same as playing a Mirror match-up in other RTS games shows a certain lack of critical thought in regards to the topic. The idea is that the Single PA faction will have far more unit variety.

Mike

I had already typed out a snarky comment about the 'thanks for reading' but decided not to post it, knowing either you or Nano would do a far better job than I ever could

Great, someone else who is ignoring all the discussion that came before and is using arguments we've already crushed.

To say only having 1 faction is the same as playing a Mirror match-up in other RTS games shows a certain lack of critical thought in regards to the topic. The idea is that the Single PA faction will have far more unit variety.

Mike

Crushed??? Thats cute
No need to be so defensive about my polite personal opinion, I am still waiting for your answer would TA, Supcom, SC, WC1-2-3 have been better with only 1 faction??? And name me one top level rts game that has only 1 faction???
The problem is like all those games when you get right down to it you end up using only a small fraction of the units available because there more effective so having different factions forces different strats which forces you to use different units which makes the game more entertaining and harder.

I'd say thanks for reading but that seems to offend some people

You're still working under the faulty Assumption that designing a game with only one faction is the same thing as only having 1 faction from a game designed around multiple factions.

It's not.

Mike

Pretty much this. The difference between a faction from, say, DoW or DoWII, and PA's faction is massive. In DoW, each army had its own quirks, ex. Eldar are Subversive trolly elves, Space Marines are 4 THE EMPRAH PURGE THE DAEMONS AND HERETICS and Tyranids are adaptive space dinosaurs.

PA's faction on the other hand has everything bundled into one. You have subversive units (bots), front-line combat units (tanks), adaptive units (fabbers), heavy support units (air), and the list goes on.

So what are the differences between my units and my opponents units apart from the colour? None=mirror
I would even accept one side focusing on lasers and the other bullets with different looks but the exact same match up on speed abilities damage ect.

Just because you have units available, doesn't mean you will use them.

A mirror match is (at least what I consider one to be) when you actually use the same units as your opponent. Sure, sometimes you will get mirror matchups, but if you have factions then you will sometimes get mirror matchups anyhow.

If you want to make the argument about players using only the best and most overpowered units, hence having frequent mirror matchups - then that's a problem of balance, not of lack of factions.

I don't understand the problem with my opponents units being the same as mine.

I would want my opponent's sword to be the same as mine in a sword fight. That way I know he won't pull a gun out of the hilt and shoot me in the face.

Maybe they would, at least there would be no balance problems and maybe more unit variety late-game.

Chess. It's not exactly real time (through they have strict time limits on turns in tournaments), but top level none the less.

And again, you are assuming that the game designed for one faction is like one faction from the game, designed for multiple factions. It's not like that, it's the opposite. Imagine having ALL factions under control at once and picking your set of units not before the game even starts, but as the part of the core gameplay. Isn't it even more entertaining and harder?

We're going to have a set of more than a hundred different units. What are the chances, you will use the same as your opponent? And why would you want to do that?
And why would you want pure cosmetic difference? It's pointless and it goes against all your other arguments.

You have clearly demonstrated that you have not read any of the posts preceding yours in any detail whatsoever, so why should others extend you the same courtesy?

I didn't mean that's exactly what I want I just would settle for any difference at all really just for the start at least

I have been playing online RTS games since TA dial up and I still play TA, SC2,WC3 online but I'm starting to feel like the people for 1 set of units for all just haven't played enough RTS online because all though I understand your idea of how this would work, it just never works out like that, TA with the download has 5000 UNITS to choose from but guess how many are actually used in online battles?????? 10 MAX in an online competitive game, why you ask because THERE THE MOST EFFECTIVE UNITS OUT OF 5000, SC2 you use about 5 OUT OF ALL UNITS or 3 if your TERRAN so this idea that "you will have so much choice it will make people chose different" never happens and never will, at the start of the game maybe but over time Pro's will figure out the most effective set of units that work the best together and guess what that's all everyone will use. it's going to be terran vs terran arm vs arm orks vs orks ect,
or maybe you want to talk about PA 5v5 ect where all you will be doing is spamming 1 unit type for team, this isn't my idea of continual fun and again that's why 1v1 gameplay online is the most popular and most watched on you tube.

You've just countered your own argument. As you've just said, it already happens no matter how many factions you put in the game, so Uber may as well focus their efforts on getting other game features done to a higher level, and leave us one faction to spam one unit type of.

Then I am afraid you will remain most unsettled. As you have already pointed out in your spectacularly backfiring starcraft example, multiple factions do not lead to unit diversity.

Why then, would Uber waste their time?

So I assume you have never played online RTS before or SC2 for example??? if you have like me you would know that when your for example protoss and you face zerg you use different units and strat compared with facing terran and diff again when facing pro v pro
thus making the game much thicker and fuller with many more strats and forces you to use diff units to play with, it makes the game more fun which is why SC2 is the most poplular rts since TA and WC3, this will become terran v terran v terran v terran v terran yay

This is just offensive.

1 - You constantly say "never", while your argument is only based on two examples.
2 - It has nothing to do with number of factions (in FA you don't have much choice either, especially lategame) and everything to do with unit-to-unit balance inside the faction, which is easier to do when you only have one.

I assume you have never played Zero-K. The amount of variety is astonishing and there is only 1 faction in Zero-K. Try it out! It is free.
(Of course I guess you could argue that the initial factory choice is somewhat of a short term faction choice.)

Anyway. With proper balancing, many strategies and builds should be viable in PA.
Actually if there is actually only 1 build for every match-up in Starcraft I'd say it is pretty poorly balanced. A well balanced strategy game requires that there are many viable builds and strategies in the same match-up. Otherwise the game is strategically shallow.

1 - It's "never" because I have played pretty much every single RTS game there is since dial up and so if you want more examples I will be here all night, if you think I'm wrong name me 1 high end RTS game that's played online that contradicts my statements? BTW so far I have used SC2, WC1/2/3, Supcom, TA with its 5000 units(downloaded), do you need to recount how many RTS game examples that is?

2 - Of course it has to do with factions/unit sets and yes I agree it will be much easier and guess what easier means to hard core players? quickly boring.

At the end of the day I am only a long time RTS player and not a game designer ect so all I wanted to do here is point out my many years of playing history experience and what always happens in these situation when both teams have the exact same units at there disposal/mirror, believe me or don't I really don't care anymore but the truth is different factions/unit sets makes the game more fun for the player as it forces the player to use different units and strats when facing an opponent with a different unit set, which is obviously harder which equals fun.
or we can use the other arguments "nar it's multiple factions in your team" cool so do you want me to spam a tank, a plane, a ship or a bot for the entire game awesome, basically it forces you to play in groups others wise it becomes arm v arm or terran v terran which gets boring fast

Stating that Uber would save a lot of money on not building a staue from pure gold is not offensive?

Or perheps stating a scenario is only possible if someone has an attention of a gnat is not offensive?

Or saying someones argument is invalid even thought you have no strong backup is not offenive.

I must use your favourite term to sum up this situation.
Hipocrisy.

darthpsycho, You have only ever played games with "gimped" factions that have a single division of the total unit pool.

Of course mirror-matches in those games were boring. It's like playing cards with only one suit.