One race = perfect balance!

Factions add an exponential level of complexity in a game that already is going to struggle with being simple.

I wonder if faction traits might be a possibility? Some games let you pick between various bonuses(or penalties) suited to your style of play. I guess that could end up making a few cookie cutter builds and end up pretty pointless.

Basically, you're saying that instead of the whine:

"Panzer IV is OP compared to Sherman!" (Same role on the battlefield, one much better than the other for different factions, so A vs A) we'd have "3 panzer IV are much better than 1 King Tiger" (So similar role or even different roles but different units in the same faction, one that's worth using and one that's harder to use. A vs B).

People saying that 1 faction = Balance are sort of delusional, but are also right: You will not see most sort of imbalances that plague most games, but there will always be the "Units imbalances" that are, hopefully, easily solved.

But people saying "One faction = Boring" are also wrong. It all depends on how the game is made. In total Annihilation, you could start with Kbots or Vehicles. I know I prefered Kbots, but I had friends preferring vehicles, or even some starting with planes, etc... IF the single faction has enough diversity for players to be able to play their way depending on their build order (With sneaky units, light units, heavy units, vehicles, robots, planes, hovercrafts, etc...) so that a single faction can be played as if it was at least as diverse as 3 factions depending on who you play against, offering different tactical possibilities, it'll be fine.

Can you guys stop saying that there will be only one "faction"? There will be one "UNIT POOL". We dont know about factions yet (Different factions would use the same units, but they could still have a visual or story difference).

{R} Multiple factions: #1 #2
Source: The thread that everybody should read but nobody apparently reads.

Yay, another person who believes most of the work is in making up the units. It's not, most of the work that goes into creating a unit is the modeling, so only making 1 set of units to save work and then making them visually different would be stupid.

Who said anything about new models?

Different visuals could be made with skins, or small parts "glued" onto exsisting models (Yes thats technicaly new mini models, but it wouldent be a start from scratch). Or different laser colors. Or simply a new flag/badge thats shown on some buildings/big units.

Edit: And if they add any story element to the game another faction could (as said) have a vastly different story.

There's still no shortage of ways where balance can go horribly wrong with something like this even with a single race system. Sure, it removes one complication. But there's still plenty of complications left to deal with to get everything balanced up properly.

Nothing is ever truly balanced.

Sure, some games get close, but it's just never perfect. How well PA does on this front, is one of my larger concerns with this game. I am signed up to be in the Alpha, I am hoping I can do my small part there to help make things better. And at the end of the day, whatever else they may be, I think these guys have the best intentions at heart. I think they're going to do their best to make sure it's all done right.

Well, I'm not sure how a single race will work, at least in regards to my tactical expertise. Don't get me wrong I can fully understand the design necessities in a single race however, in some other strategy games the fun has been in each race having certain strengths to play to.

That said, with two tiers and potentially a lot of units and strategies to be discovered it could more be playing to the strengths of your play style but also offering more flexible solutions. Basically I can see the appeal in not being 'boxed-in' with units suited for only one narrow means of fighting.

As for diversity it could be that may just be down to customization,if each commander is unique then it would make sense that they'd choose tech that fit in with their preferences and strategies. If faction differences were necessary it could just be down to building options or maybe a restricted choice of blueprints a player can access reflecting their command styles.


It also fits the back-story too I suppose, if the Arm and Core of TA had collapsed then it seems reasonable to assume commanders are authorities unto themselves, with near infinite power being only held back by the existence of equals in capacity. Meaning each commander is either going to have to ally or destroy every other commander to ensure they and only they get the chance rebuild the galaxy or I dunno, cackle madly over the ashes... :lol:

I'll admit, it will be odd for me not being able to choose a different race. I liked varying between Arm and Core- then dallying between Cybran and UEF (though not Aeon, they just seemed too much like space hippies).

Having only one faction to choose from does still mean that the game can be enjoyable though, despite what might initially be thought. Although there may come times where it feels a bit repetitive and dull due to the same old units appearing again and again with the only variation being who controls them- there's still the possibility for expansions, updates or DLC. Though unlikely (I guess), Uber may decide at a later date to implement a new faction- but who knows.

Whatever Uber decide, it's all cool. When we get to the point that we have testing occurring on an Alpha/Beta level, testers can give some feedback on how things work- at present, things are still pretty fluid in a lot of ways and can thus be changed. I'm sure things will turn out fine. Trust in the Uber!

I agree, these guys know what they are doing. Besides, chess only has one set of units and it hasn't died out yet.

This is a very important point.

Different factions are usually made to create divergent play styles.
Ex.: Starcraft 2 has 3 factions. Zerg is a swarm faction, going for sheer volume of units. Protoss is a "expensive" faction, going for tough and very damaging units, but a lesser number of agents. Terran is a middle ground between both

Balancing is the study of viability of many strategies. When a side can use an "unbeatable" strategy the game is imbalanced. If you get the unit pool from Starcraft 2 (assuming that the game is currently balanced, witch it is overall) and create a single faction I can assure you that a single dominant strategy will emerge. Balancing will be needed to make sure there are strategies able to predict and counter said strategy or the game will indeed be boring.

In a game focused on strategy execution over tactical placement, every faction must have a very large options poll to drawn from because of the many demands each strategy may have. And they must be flexible to make many strategies viable.

TA will not have factions for the sake of divergent play styles. Factions, if they exist, will be only "skin packs" for the same unit poll. Your units will look cooler than the other guy`s units, if you like that "skin pack" you`re using. At least that`s what I figured.

Yeah balance is really difficult. Even stuff which looks balanced on the surface can end up unbalanced in the real world. Take SC2 TvT. Mech > Biomech > Bio > Mech. This looks like a reasonable balance. Until you realise a bio opening can easily move into bio mech but the other strategies don't really have workable transitions that don't put you behind.

Because of this nearly every TvT player opens bio and then transitions into biomech unless they spot a mech play. Because the standard play always counters mech very few people mech. Then you end up with two guys going bio->biomech and it becomes a pure execution contest.

This also seems intractable. The tiniest buff to mech would make bio completely unviable against it. Then you end up back with the hellion tank wars with a late game fight for air control.

I suppose it would be hard to justify a war when only one faction/side is involved.

I wouldn't mind the age-of-empires approach, with 2 dosen factions all sharing the same units, some missing a unit here and there and each possibly having a couple of units suiting to their faction. As long as the differences result in "focusing on a certain strategy" and not "limiting to a certain strategy"

Starcrafts balance relies on the click speed of the players and microing special abilities. Not exactly what I would call fun gameplay. More like having to do way more work than you should to have fun in a game. RTS should stay as RTS and MOBA type games should stay as moba. I almost want to call SC2 a real time MOBA with more units because thats almost how the gameplay feels with having to constantly select individual units and press special keys when there are far more pressing strategic and economical matters at hand. But if you don't baby sit every unit your fucked. Silly silly design decisions that lead to epic frustration. In FA just controlling your army and commander was enough to warrant full attention and then you have the exponential economy to control at the same time. Its such a wonderful balancing act of building and destruction without the frustration of having to manage every battle with 100% attention on the special unit moves.

Agree totally, Blizzard even banned players for DARING to try and automate some of the clicking with macros...HOW DARE THEY!

One question...MOBA?? wazat?

No... that`s not it. Balance makes sense only with equal skill levels. If one of the players is simply better than the other it`s not a balance issue, it`s a matchmaking issue. The player speed is important there but faster is not really better every time. Being able to make more actions quicker is important to every game and can give you an edge even in TA/SupCom. Micro is not about making a strategy viable, it`s about execution of parts of said strategy.

First: Starcraft 2 is just an example. A valid one because it is a RTS. A very important one competitively speaking. Yes, it is focused on tactics but it`s not a MOBA, that is definition stretching. You don`t need to like Starcraft 2 but you have to understand that it is the best example on balance nowadays. It`s not perfectly balanced but it is an example. I`m not saying that PA should emulate Starcraft 2 in any way. Please don`t say you understood that! I like PA exactly because it`s different and I wish it to stay different.

Two identical twins living in the same house can find reasons to fight, being 'different' is not compulsory.

After all, we are all 'human,' so we shouldn't have any need for conflict...right?

Do people actually play SC? It isn't until you get to masters that you can even differentiate on micro. SC is about macro up until the last 1% of players. If you are part of the 99% then the guy with better macro will nearly always win. Even at pro level you get players who some how manage to have an extra tank more than someone else.

Now SC is mechanics heavy which is not the same as micro no matter how often people conflate them.

Micro means actions that affect the efficiency of what you have.

Macro means actions that alter what you have.

Mechanics are the mechanisms of control regardless of the scope of the action.

Clicking 6,w to make a tank is macro, not micro. It is however a heavy mechanic.

I think sleepwarz at least has a point here which you are missing. The point is not to do with micro differences between players. I think it is about the maximum micro possible for players to output.

With perfect micro the balance of SCII would probably break. Has anyone seen the modded AIs for starcraft? Zerglings can easilly beat Siege Tanks, Marines are immune to Banelings, Stalkers are never caught by Marines. I think there is a lot to be said for balancing as if people have perfect micro as well as making the units reasonably easy to use. Additionally the unit counters and thus the whole game can change around as players become better or worse at micro. The balance is very tied up with unit usage.