1 faction discussion thread

[Pxtl]

@Nemo - 3 factions is really hard to do. It's hard to come up with ways there are exactly 3 ways to do things, and the interrelationships are tricky to balance.

What would you use as the 3rd defense-building/crawler besides shields and cloaking?

The more I think about it, the more I'm stuck on the approach of "3-4 land-labs that have a selection of hovers, bots, amphibs, jumpers, striders, and all-terrain units in diverse roles". Give each lab a gameplay theme, but one that does not restrict its gameplay too much - only about half the units in the lab are even designed with the theme in mind. stun-Lab, armor lab (resistance-oriented units like the Dragon's Egg and the Clogger), stealth lab, and damage lab (flame-units and extreme-firepower units like the Tremor). Edit: forget the can-get-anywhere con, just make a single can-get-anywhere con available to all with no special powers and then give each lab a fun, interesting, distinct con. So the opening game is factional, but as the game progresses players will consider bringing in another land-lab if their current land-lab has a particular role/terrain they want or a special unit they want.

[CarRepairer]

What is a faction? It is a group of units you select before the game that determines what strengths/weaknesses/strategies you have to play with.

Yes, that is exactly what it is and that is what makes games interesting. It's fun to have certain strengths/weaknesses/strategies that your enemy doesn't have, or that you didn't have last game that you have now.

I wish we had more factions. I tried making a chicken faction and it's just an unbalanced novelty faction, but I would always love having it there anyway (as an UP faction to handicap skilled players, as one example).

Very generally speaking, more stuff = fun, but only if it's in served in packets and not all at once. This can apply to any game, RTS or otherwise.

If we could have 10 well-balanced factions it would be an awesome game but it would take a balancing dev army. But we do have 2 well balanced factions now, why throw it away?

Though you can pretty easily get the other options with res or from an ally (though, not so much capture).

We have the power to change this, remember? We're the devs. I'm even working on a mod option to make a penalty to have foreign faction units. If having foreign tech is such a benefit then this cost should be well worth it. If having other tech is not a benefit then we need more differentiation.

[Nemo]

@Nemo - 3 factions is really hard to do. It's hard to come up with ways there are exactly 3 ways to do things, and the interrelationships are tricky to balance.

Pxtl, I'm currently working on a game with 4. There are plenty of ways to approach the problem, the means you outlined is one of the more difficult, I think. Where in starcraft do you have a situation where each of the faction's unit for a given situation is just one third of a three solution system?

Anyways. Adding factions only requires massive amounts of balance when you make the units very open-ended in role and consequently have many 'knife-edge' balance situations. However, the upshot of having open-ended roles is that you need comparatively few of them, substantially reducing your content requirement. To draw from S44, the most time-consuming balance issue has pretty much always been light vehicles and medium tanks. These are both very 'general purpose' units which represent a general power increase over the previous generation of units. Their roles are NOT specific, and consequently their place in the balance system is highly sensitive to changes elsewhere and requires repeated tuning. On the other side, a comparatively very -small- amount of time has been spent balancing snipers or AT troops; their very clear roles mean that any changes have very easily theorized effects.

But what I'm talking about entails more or less redesigning the game from the ground up, which I suppose nobody is all that thrilled to do.

[Pxtl]

In Starcraft? Many cases.

For example, building:

Zerg builders morph into building
Terrans build the building and are restricted from moving on until the building is complete.
Protoss builders only need to be present for the initial spawning of the building process.
Come up with a 4th option.

Terrain units do not heal (they are repaired)
Zerg units heal (cannot be repaired)
Protoss units are a mixture (un-repairable armor, regen-and-special-building-required-to-repair shields)
come up with a 4th option

Terran flying observer is the flying spellcaster
Protoss flying observer is the a dedicated observer unit
Zerg flying observer is the transport
come up with a 4th option.

With each dichotomy, it becomes harder and harder to come up with a way to make the faction "different" that is simple, fun, and distinct.

In large numbers of factions, there is less pressure to make every faction distinct from every other.

With only 2, in any case where distinction is hard, you can just reuse and i't snot obvious.

[Otherside]

the point of a faction is you are stuck with it for the whole game (sure you can con swap in team games but it rarely happens)

labs can easily be swapped around considering a lab a mini faction is a bit of a retarded statement seeing as you can swap whenever you want to as factory's are so cheap and once you have high BP you can swap factories at will without a problem.

the only way you can make the choices meaningful is giving labs very high costs and a low return on reclaim but then it will be a game of blind RPS at start.

[Nemo]

I'd argue that it's much more difficult to create a problem with -exactly- three solutions than it is to come up with another viable solution to any given problem, outside of mathematics. The systems we're dealing with are complex to the point of incomprehensibility. I'll grant you that in terms of tight design, having an easily classified approach to any given aspect of the game for each faction makes things more understandable to a new player, but the extent to which things are 'easily classified' or 'understandable' really depends on how coherent your overall design is. Internal consistency is really the key, I believe.


My point was that you can't see a marine, zergling, and zealot as the entire spectrum of approaches to 'first combat unit/meat of the army' - there is no real limit to takes on that role. Further, those units only loosely share roles. Part of the point of having different factions is to 1) have different takes on a particular role (screwdriver vs power drill; screwdriver can also be used as a lever, while the power drill is just really good at the main role) and 2) have different roles entirely (on team gets a saw, another team gets a hammer).

Anyways, that said, some answers. These probably sound bizarre, because starcraft is a tight design with a great deal of internal consistency. My points are just to show that the approaches taken in SC are hardly exhaustive for that particular mechanic.

For example, building:

Zerg builders morph into building
Terrans build the building and are restricted from moving on until the building is complete.
Protoss builders only need to be present for the initial spawning of the building process.

A mobile team without buildings.

Terrain units do not heal (they are repaired)
Zerg units heal (cannot be repaired)
Protoss units are a mixture (un-repairable armor, regen-and-special-building-required-to-repair shields)
come up with a 4th option

A team that doesn't use HP, but damage taken reduces the team supply of crystals, 0 crystals remaining turns the whole army instagibbable.

Terran flying observer is the flying spellcaster
Protoss flying observer is the a dedicated observer unit
Zerg flying observer is the transport
come up with a 4th option.

Flying observer is a gunship. Flying observer doesn't exist for a team, but instead they can drop hidden cameras onto the map at game start. Flying observer can land and morph into a building at any time. Flying observer is the means of resource collection.


Otherside: yep, I agree. Pricing factories into a range where essentially you can afford one or two per game is a situation where they'd reflect factions in terms of how they affect the player. That is a 'firm tree' approach, which puts more emphasis on making do with whatever set of units you have rather than trying to bring new units (tools) into a given situation/problem. The "blind RPS" situation, however, should only emerge if certain factories specifically counter other factories, which isn't often the case (map has a large role here, though). As long as unit roles are wide enough that they allow players to use them effectively outside of their 'intended' purpose, the RPS aspect of it shouldn't be too bad.

Of course, designing units that depend emphasize player usage to determine outcome without being overwhelmed by a system of counters is pretty tricky.

[luckywaldo7]

With Nemo having said that, I would like to remind everybody who is opposed to the 1faction idea that core and arm are basically mirror factions. They are so much alike that when you try to play the game with a chicken faction, the chickens just feel like a third leg. Its just weird having two almost identical factions and then a third one that is nothing like the first two.

If arm and core were combined it would leave room for chickens and hopefully maybe more truly unique factions. Factions that aren't just a new set of the same units with a different art style and slightly tweaked stats, but factions that actually play the game differently like the ones in Starcraft do.

[CarRepairer]

If arm and core were combined it would leave room for chickens

There's plenty of room now. Combining arm and core doesn't somehow free up space that isn't there.

Factions that aren't just a new set of the same units with a different art style and slightly tweaked stats, but factions that actually play the game differently like the ones in Starcraft do.

You somehow forgot the most important differentiation: different abilities. Core makes use of shields to push the enemy. Arm has cloaking for secretive commando missions. I'd say these two things are quite different, and I don't deny that they are more similar than the starcraft factions. But what I don't want is a schizophrenic faction with all of the above - shields, jamming, cloaking, emp, grav guns, all in one big jumble. I like the current setup.

[Otherside]

im all for diversifying arm and core even more

[Pxtl]

If we see the "captured/rezzed/given units get a penalty" then I could see the justification of it... but otherwise, this isn't Starcraft. Capturing enemy units doesn't require the full mana of a Dark Archon (and the captured units lack crucial upgrades so you'd have to climb the whole tech-tree to get them as useful as your standing army).

CA's 2-faction play is a technicality, particularly for Logos - it's trivial to get yourself a con-wreck - even more trivial in a teamgame where you can just share one. Functionally, it's a "starting factory". While I've never seen it done, a player could, if they choose, functionally switch factions as soon as they capture a single con.

@Nemo - each of your "4th way" ideas break an existing constant that exists for every faction in Star Craft (every other faction depends on drones for building, uses buildings, has hit-points, has a flying detector, etc.) At that point, you've suddenly got a "crazy" faction like the Chickens, which sticks out from the existing factions like a sore thumb. SC already has this problem with the Zerg larva-morphing - it's utterly weird that Zerg morph up to 3 larva while the other units build stuff at factories in a queue.

@Otherside: Imho, the big place that more differentiation is needed is the Vehicle labs. Veh labs are functionally the BA coke-and-pepsi ones with some tweaks. Kbots and tacbots have fantastic differentiation, tanks are good, but vehicles seriously need some loving - they need more faction-specific special powers. Put a grav-gun on the Leveller or something. Put stun-damage on the Arm Light artillery, and incendiary damage on the Core one. Cut the speed and range on the Janus and give it a sprint-command. Make the Ravager grow a small shield slowly when immobile (and lose it quickly when moving). Stuff like that. Give the vehicles some juju.

[Licho]

Saktoth my story is just extension of yours. Its not conflicting.

You know that my really preferred story is about fembots and manbots engaged in clash of penetrators.

I made this dark depressive extension to your background story, you can use it or you don't. I don't care.. Zero-K name is fine even without that extension.

[1v0ry_k1ng]

so rumour is 1 faction is not going to happen ^_^

[Gota]

That's a sneaky wolfe there ivory.

[Nemo]

These probably sound bizarre, because starcraft is a tight design with a great deal of internal consistency. My points are just to show that the approaches taken in SC are hardly exhaustive for that particular mechanic.

@Nemo - each of your "4th way" ideas break an existing constant that exists for every faction in Star Craft (every other faction depends on drones for building, uses buildings, has hit-points, has a flying detector, etc.) At that point, you've suddenly got a "crazy" faction like the Chickens, which sticks out from the existing factions like a sore thumb. SC already has this problem with the Zerg larva-morphing - it's utterly weird that Zerg morph up to 3 larva while the other units build stuff at factories in a queue.

The extent to which something 'sticks out' is only a function of the rest of the design.

[Pxtl]

But that's the point - factions are as much about what they have in common as what they have different. Having a faction that is playing a totally different game is jarring, compared to having 3 factions that are very similar in many aspects. It's like the Nova Logos Chickens problem.

You see the same difficulty in all the "3rd Faction" mods for OTA - they all Arm/Core/MyFaction is always Coke/Pepsi/Milkshake

[Nemo]

And my point was that if you're engaging is massive redesign efforts, the limit to the number of factions you can have is only the extent of your creativity/flexibility of your design.

Or do what I've done with S44 and have them be fairly similar in terms of roles but with important changes here and there to change how they handle different situations.

[Google_Frog]

Yes, that is exactly what it is and that is what makes games interesting. It's fun to have certain strengths/weaknesses/strategies that your enemy doesn't have, or that you didn't have last game that you have now.

Stop saying that 2 factions limits a player's options. In teamgames you have allies, they can share cons. You are in no way limited to using your faction's units and you can switch to any factory just as easily as any other.

If a penalty for capture/rezz/share was implemented it would not change anything. Sharing within a team does not change the theoretical in-game actions of a unit. Players would just have to co-ordinate their units.

I'd argue that it's much more difficult to create a problem with -exactly- three solutions than it is to come up with another viable solution to any given problem, outside of mathematics.

See Age of Mythology expansion, the 4th race doesn't really fit.

[JohannesH]

[Sharing within a team does not change the theoretical in-game actions of a unit.

In practical gameplay, it would have effect though

[Otherside]

WTB no con sharing or Con resing/caping without buildlists or only your faction build list so faction choice is permanent (like in warcraft3)

[Saktoth]

What is the real descision you make about how you're going to play the game? Is it Arm or Core, or is it Vech/Bot/Gun/Plane/Tank/Walker?

You always get mixed teams. You will have access to shields, even if you have to get your ally to build them. The real distinction between players in what they can do and how they work as a part of the team is their factory choice.

And with one faction, we can have even more factories, and they can be geniunely unique, because they dont need to mirror eachother anymore. Arm vech can move to hover and be made even more unique, we can have a dedicated stealth lab as well as AT/jumpers, dedicated amphs and hover labs that are land viable. Even more units per factory.

It's fun to have certain strengths/weaknesses/strategies that your enemy doesn't have, or that you didn't have last game that you have now.

Your describing factories. Faction is less important than factory. Your enemy will have the same abilities, they will be mixed faction.

It may be worth considering upgrade or 'tech' modules that unlock things like cloaking, shields, etc. A big investment for your team that allows you to access special abilities. Yes, anyone can make it- but you cant make everything at once.