One faction, 2x units? or 2 factions?

RED and BLU are actualy a really good example of characterising identicle factions. All the team fortess players i know have a large preference for one colour or the other, in part because they have a superstition about the quality of players on each team but also because of the ongoing stigma that grows out of the puerly thematic differences. The consistant destinction between red and blu allows them to identify with those groups in a way that isn't possible with a single faction.

So what is your concern for Planetary Annihilation then? In Team Fortress and Counter Strike, both teams also have the "same set of units", just like they will in Planetary Annihilation (at least initially).

Because there are two clearly defined sides (considerably less relivant in CS, although apparently some people profess that CT is better) to the conflict. Valve in particular has put in lots of effort to characterise the lore of team fortress (including consistant styles of architecture for each team) and the reasons for the conflict. They aren't actualy just colours in TF2, they are the REDs and the BLUs. Colours in PA are just to identify which player is which and serve no further of this purpose.

Never mind that this single forum thread link is obviously a horrible source for an assessment like that, but it should come as no surprise that generally more people root for CT more, since they are the archetypical 'good guys' . Not everyone wants to be a good guy.

First and foremost, VALVe has put a lot of effort into distinguishing BLU and RED for gameplay reasons, in order to clearly see the enemy at a glance and to see in which area in general you currently are in a map, just by looking at the objects and colours around you (i.e. whether you are in a "BLU area" or a "RED area"). Any actual "lore" was not present at first and the humoristic "lore" we have now was later introduced with new content updates, over many years. Which of course kept people interested.

In a game like Planetary Annihilation such distinctions are not necessary for the sake of gameplay. It's just additional fluff that would cost them more money with little gain imho.


Well, anyway, I understand your point of view, but I am simply deeply against it. I understand why you want it, but I prefer the opposite. I don't care if there is an ARM or CORE faction, I don't care if there is a UEF, Aeon or Cybran faction. I don't care about any new factions they come up with. These are all very artificial things I would never be able to identify with. I like how they are doing things with Planetary Annhilation and I love John Mavor's quote

which is just how I think. When I play games like these, I always like to build up my own imaginative universe around it. Whenever possible.

I believe we have reached an accord, and i'm sure everyone is tired of this debate. So let us sally forth into a less contentious area.

Surprisingly clear results, and not the one I would have expected to be honest. I would have thought more people would be hopeful for two factions. I personally would prefer two factions even if they end up being fairly similar (as in TA) but I think I could actually be okay with two identical factions as well for a game like this.

At the end of the day, it's still a Red vs Blue game even if both sides are identical. It'll still be fun.

I'm not too surprised with the results; I think we were all hoping for more variety in gameplay, and if Uber really works to ensure that PA is as moddable (and that the ease of modding isn't significantly harder...) as TA, I think we will see no shortage of third-party faction options.

That said, so far with 33 votes, just under 90.9% support (fully, or, as an alternative) a single faction with twice the units. And the exclusive support for radically different factions is at 3%...

Maybe something could be said about TA/SupCom/PA's community versus Starcraft

The poll isn't exactly worded fairly - for example, "ONE faction, 2x the units" vs "TWO factions, similar". If two similar factions shared 90% common units, for example, having one faction could mean 100 units, having two would mean ~80 units per faction, NOT the 50 that is implied by the "2x" wording.

Actually, that's exactly the idea... since each faction would have different models for the units, different animations, etc..

So it'd still basically be same amount of work even if two units are functionally equivalent.

"Two factions, similar" to me means IDENTICAL units between the factions, except for a few faction-specific ones. What you are describing sounds like "Two factions, really different". To use 100 units as a comparison:

A) One faction: 100 units.
B) Two factions, really different: 100 units, 50 per faction.
C) Two factions, similar: 100 units, 90 per faction.

I believe B is probably out of reach given the budget & necessary minimum number of units. But I'd sacrifice 10 units for the sake of some kind of faction diversity, easy. The poll doesn't really reflect the above options though.

No... similar as in ARM and CORE... see my first post:

And by radically different, I really mean something like the Zerg versus Terrans, or that other faction. Different gameplay, different strategies, etc.. etc..

A good ARM player could switch to CORE and play just as well without having ever played CORE before, but that's probably not gonna be the same thing for Zerg to Terran.

So, again... the choices are a) ONE faction, 100 units, b) TWO factions, 50 units each (50 ARM, 50 CORE), or c) TWO factions, 50 units each (50 Zerg, 50 Terran)

And if you were following from the linked thread, the reason for creating this poll was to find out what people were really looking for when they were asking for multiple factions -- if they were asking for a TA-like experience, or something more akin to StarCraft.

You're right, there is no option for a shared pool of units with some different (unshared) units.... but that's mostly because I didn't catch that idea (and I dont think most of us did) at the time.

You're welcome to create a new poll though, e.g., "If we could have two factions with common SHARED units, and some unique ones, would it be possible as a stretchgoal?" (or something like that)

At this point, the forum has voiced its opinion on other types of multi-faction options, so it's probably best to start that discussion anew.

Yogurt has a serious point.

And if we all recall, there was a strong reason for playing ARM or CORE, and hardly anyone had no preference.

My estimates would be slightly different:
development time is split between art, programming and balancing

a)ONE faction 80 units (high balancing and programming cost, medium art cost)
b)TWO factions, 50 units each (50 ARM, 50 CORE) (high art cost, medium balancing and programming cost)
b)TWO factions, 50 units each (30 Zerg, 30 Terran) (lower art cost, very high programming and balancing cost)

Well, there was a story preference.. and apart from that, the style I suppose... at least speaking for myself.

But yes, everyone I know had a favorite side (self included), and with very few exceptions, we stuck to that side in all games.

I'm a little confused with your estimates... mainly because you rate the single-faction option as a high balance cost meaning its harder to balance two exactly identical factions... higher than that of two similar factions...

I mean... I would rate a) as the easiest (since any balancing you do on A would be the minimum that you'd do for the other factions...)

... unless you're suggesting that the number of ways 100 units can interact with itself is higher than 50 units with another 50 units... though I would argue that any balancing done on a faction versus itself should be done even if there are multiple factions... etc...

Anyways... I don't see how art cost is lower or higher... art cost is probably easiest quantified as # of units... so if we're talking about 100 unique units that have been modeled and animated... that's the same art cost across each category.

That said, I (agree?) that a is probably the easiest to do, b requires more work, and c substantially more work...when it comes to balancing.

ok let me explain, if you balance two units which are very similar it is relatively easy.
if you have 80 unique units, that requires more balancing.

with 2 total different factions, you will need inner balance and outer balance, sounds fun right

all 1v1 matches would be fair, even without any balancing at all (with the 1 faction option) but that doesn't make it interesting. Balancing also includes inter-balancing units, making the all useful.

definition of balance:

"The largest amount of viable options possible"

options would be picking either a certain faction or unit.

if the best strategy is to spam tier 1 basic tanks in all scenarios, then it is fair, but certainly not interesting.

I still don't quite buy 'inner balance', but yes, I get what you're saying

Judging from the recent Kickstarter update, I dont think a second faction is likely anytime soon (within the stretchgoals)... and... I'm very happy to see the new updates

(And equally happy for us to do this stuff via mods)

Why is it not an option to have two factions mostly made up of the same units then? Has the advantages of both (high number of units, less balance required, less development time, some faction diversity)

EDIT: Ignore the above it was answered in ghargoil's post.

Everyone already voted here... and:

yep, sorry, saw that a bit too late

Hehe, no problem. If you make the post, I'll be happy to vote... and I have some ideas to share.