Does PvP need a 3-way conflict to stay interesting?

brihtwulf

I've been wondering this with the emergence of another  "realm vs realm" PvP system in Elder Scrolls Online.  It's similar (I won't say exactly because that would anger the DAoC fans) to Dark Age of Camelot in terms of the 3-way conflict and the conquest/siege warfare involved.  And there seems to be a lot of support for this type of PvP.  My question is, why, and does this type of PvP hold more longevity than the 2-sided conflicts in other MMO's?

There are a variety of games with very successful PvP components that involve 3 factions, and particularly when there is some sort of conquest or territory control involved.  To name a few, you have EVE Online (though the faction separation there isn't strict), Planetside 2, DAoC, and ESO.  But is this type of PvP system better?  I'm curious to hear other players' opinions.

I've personally enjoyed the PvP in these games more, though I'm not an avid PvP fan all the time.  I didn't find the PvP in games like WoW or even Star Wars: The Old Republic as engaging.  Maybe it felt less strategic and more like an over-sized duel in large format PvP.  And any time I spent in open PvP was about 99% "ganking" where players who completely outmatched weaker players spent their time insta-killing them in order to grief their opponent.  And as I'm not someone who would want to take part in that (from either side), I always stayed away from it.

So, what kind of PvP do you prefer, and why?

Yoda_Clone

Depending on individual personalities, you will get a wide spectrum of answers.  The "Gankers" and the "Elitists" are going to have their opinions and rationale for those opinions; the "Carebears" are going to have theirs, with perfectly good reasons for them, too.

Going back all the way to UO, I've seen every system abused in one way or another because of that spectrum of personalities.  As such, I don't think there is a "good" PvP system.  For instance, 3-way conflict in DAoC worked well; it did not work so well in GW2 because it turned into zerg Vs. zerg and keep-trading for the points, and I personally think it sucks in ESO (the map is too big for three difference armies to ever become simultaneously engaged, so the whole pretext behind a three-way conflict is lost).

I personally prefer old-fashioned open world PvP:

- with no looting

- with safe zones for low levels

- with some zones designated as consensual PvP only

- with NPC guards protecting quest hubs

This minimizes the amount of griefing.

Add in battlegrounds (small, medium, large) for the simple reason that respawning five minutes away from a battle ala ESO after dying 5 seconds into a fight is not enjoyable for anyone... it's really stupid, stupid design.

brihtwulf

I think there are still a few games that even have a level-difference restriction when it comes to PvP.  I think Everquest and EQ2 have that.  I think something like that does a lot to help prevent that sort of "griefing" behavior.  I guess it would be difficult to have a perfect PvP system though.  For example, if you were unable to kill someone if you had already done so within a short period of time, I suppose that might be taken advantage of in some way.  Or with level barriers, you could run into problems with people trying to use that to their advantage.  So, if someone was 6 levels over you, you couldn't help your friend who was one level higher when they were attacked by said player.

I haven't gotten into any PvP in ESO yet, but the idea seemed sound.  I guess if you're spawning really far away from the conflict though, that could be really frustrating.  I don't want to spend most of my play time running to the action.

Mysta

Nah, case in point, Lineage 2. Player made sides!

nhiscool

Originally posted by Mysta
Nah, case in point, Lineage 2. Player made sides!

L2 was for elf boobies. Can't really say L2 lasted very long tbh.

Unknown

It's not the only way to do PvP, but the point of having three instead of two is that you have a wildcard in case one faction is too strong. In a two-faction system it's a huge issue if one side always wins.

Helleri

My answer is that it always makes things more interesting; But, not necessarily better.

Aeonblades

3 faction has always been infinitely more fun to me. With two faction PvP you end up with debacles like WoW and Rift have/had where one faction completely over powers the other.

brihtwulf

It makes me wonder why more games don't have 3-way (or odd-sided) PvP.  Maybe it's the lore in some cases, as with SWTOR.  But I get the feeling sometimes it was more of a design and development choice in order to keep things simpler.

bcbully

It needs a minimum of three (Never forget Ilum). I prefer player made faction though, which are unlimited like EVE or Wushu.

Vermillion_Raventhal

Player factions and limited shallow power gaps.

DEAD.line

3 factions doesn't mean better balance than 2. A 40v40 battleground is more balanced than un-capped 3 faction owpvp.

But to discuss you're OP, ganking and other afairs, are a matter of game design. IMO, terrible owpvp is when there's no objectives or goals, so t's just random killing.

Regarding faction-less FFA, the problem with this system is abuse. Players are idiots in the end, and most ffa pvp games end up with a small selection of mega guild alliances dominating everything, which makes it basically the same as faction based pvp. Nothing wrong with FFA btw. It's just that factions are much, much easier to balance and make for a good time, whether you're competative or casual.

2 factions is cool, but it's basically 1v1 and it's a 50/50 split. Not bad, but comparaded to 3 F's, it's minial.

3 factions makes you and your team inferior in numbers compared to the enemy. But the cool part is that they're enemies in themselves. So it's a 33.3% 3 way split. It gives multiple adversaries, a great sense of danger if done well and better splitting of the playerbase.

2 factions IMHO, feels better for small- medium scale fights between guilds.

It's also because of this that 4 or more F's don't matter that much, unless it's tons of them. 4 factions doesn't seem to add much compared to 3, the way 3 adds compared to 2. Also, it segregates players even more.

EDIT: This doesn't mean that 3 teams is the only way, just that, overall, it seems to be the easiest and best method.

Lyrian

I think that the Player Created Faction method is the best way to manage PvP. I have yet to feel ANY sort of connection to a static faction in a game.

nariusseldon

Originally posted by brihtwulf

So, what kind of PvP do you prefer, and why?

e-sport type instanced pvp.

Why? So that it does not get in the way of pve. My preference is that pvp and pve should be two separate games.

Pilnkplonk

It depends heavily on whether the said PvP is persistent or not.

For persistent PvP, like an ongoing war, 3 factions or more is better.

For single matches, like an individual battle, 2 factions is definitely better.

A simile: Imagine a soccer league with only 2 teams.... or a soccer match with 3 teams or more...

I find this pretty basic, really. I haven't the foggiest why online multiplayer game devs find this so hard to understand. WAR developers got all this particulary stupidly... First they make a persistent PvP game which fails because it's 2 faction only, and then they tried to show what they learned by creating a match-based one with 3 teams which, of course, fails largely because of that. Duh, talk about game design fail of epic proportions.

It's basic game theory really. A system with 3 or more opposing sides tends to be self-stabilyzing. A system with only 2 is inherently unstable. When designing 2-player board games you keep having to invent systems which favor the loosing side so the positive feedback doesn't make the game's conclusion too obvious too early. In 3 or more player games you usually have the opposite problem and have to create systems which "push" the game towards resolution. So, if you want to make a PvP game that lasts indefinitely without a clear conclusion - go 3 faction. If you want a conclusion to come naturally  then 2-player is best.

And besides, big persistent "war" games although having 3 or more sides on the big map, tend to have indivudal conflicts 2-sided. While there are 3 factions in PS2, 3-faction battles are pretty much non-existent. Down on ground level its always 2 factions slugging it out. So, it all depends.

Quirhid

3-way is for casual PvP when the winner doesn't matter.

I prefer E-sport.

Triadninja

I was under the impression that having 3 sides helped to balance out factions, so no one side could be "the cool kid side". If one faction grew larger/got better than another, having the third faction helped because you would have two factions to fight against instead of just one, or from the other point of view, for example Planetside: If you like playing on the New Conglomerate side because of their weaponstyle, but the Terran Republic is on a mean stomping streak, NC could team up with the Vanu Sovereignty to help push back the TR. Then once everything is settled, the fighting goes back to 3-faction battle royale.

 

Like others have said, it doesn't always work, such as Guild Wars 2's WvWvW being a giant zerg rush. However, I wouldn't blame the 3 faction system, and rather blame the pvp mechanics/map setup of the game. Planetside and PS2 are doing well with the faction system because they have the lattice system, which esentially forces players to take control of a specific outpost/base before going onto the next one, in a series of connections. That helps to "control" the zerg, thus making the 3 faction system work better.

Siris23

3 faction works better when there aren't (reachable) caps on combat, but as soon as you have caps that are regularly reached the number of factions doesn't matter as much, IMO.

Gamer54321

Btw, Sa-Matra's Arma 2 Wasteland (multiplayer mission), has these parties (basicly, more than 2):

Blufor (blue team), sees blue tags to id friendlies within 1000m

Opfor (red team), sees red tags to id friendlies within 1000m

Independent (green team) , sees green tags to id friendlies within 1000m

 

What is special about the independent team, is that these have a "shoot-anyone-rule" so to speak, being able to shoot at both , blue, red and other green teams. So independent team can be a bunch of smaller teams, that are hostile to the rest of the players.

Fdzzaigl

It really isn't about the number of factions at all. Whether you have two, three, four or 2048, it doesn't matter one bit if you don't feel part of that faction, if you feel like every battle exists only to get some more points for gear.

The important thing is to make players care and identify with their faction. Games like DAoC but also certain servers in WoW did this successfully and many guilds make up the virtual factions in sandboxes.

True heartfelt (but hopefully good-natured) rivalry, the will to prove yourself, to claim something for your group, that's what makes PvP successful.

 

General-Zod

Originally posted by Fdzzaigl

It really isn't about the number of factions at all. Whether you have two, three, four or 2048, it doesn't matter one bit if you don't feel part of that faction, if you feel like every battle exists only to get some more points for gear.

The important thing is to make players care and identify with their faction. Games like DAoC but also certain servers in WoW did this successfully and many guilds make up the virtual factions in sandboxes.

True heartfelt (but hopefully good-natured) rivalry, the will to prove yourself, to claim something for your group, that's what makes PvP successful.

 

This.. However, I love a good "blood feud" with another player.

Don't care for the type of PvP its more about the reason why i'm fighting.

 

Satsunoryu

Definitely not about the # of factions.  It's about the implementation of PVP content and how fun it is.  These are games, so if they are actually fun and you want to keep coming back to fight, that's success.  

waynejr2

I have been a wargamer and a boardgamer for over 40 years.   IMO, what will happen will be based on how the players are rewarded for their efforts.  If you take a game like diplomacy and look at the big tourneys, you will see that what happens is the biggest sides take out the smaller sides until a victory occurs.  the bigger fish eating the little fish it the natural thing to do in this system.  Unless a system is in place to protect the little fish, I don't believe people who sell the idea that the two smaller will gang up on the large unless the system rewards it appropriately.

MorningStarGG

Simple question, simple answer. No, but it does need more than 2, usually 3 is the sweet spot to make it balanced as then no one faction can remain in power forever as the others will work to dethrone them.

blackcat35

In guild wars 2 they bring 3 different servers into conflict so you have a 3 way pvp fight as one of your options for pvp.  Its not the only option, they also have group pvp of 8 vs 8.  Every week it changes and people move up or down based on an elo point system in how they did during the week vs the other two servers.  So usually the more numbers/strategy/and tactics you use to hold key points for longer lets you move up the ladder.  The better your server does in the pvp during the week gives you extra bonuses, so during the weekend your usually getting boosts from the 3 sided server conflict, like 19% overall xp bonus.

There are times when fights are pretty close and thus the 3 way conflict makes things even more interesting because diplomacy brings in the 2 vs 1.  Often though, its just a blow out where one is clearly better than the other two.  Even if the other 2 group up vs the other 1, it doesn't matter.  Sometimes its a little closer and competitive, although usually within the first few days you know what position your going to end with for the week.

when your getting alot of people fighting against each other, having more than just 2 factions makes things more interesting.  In case one of the factions just folds or isn't competitive, you have a backup faction to keep up the fight.  I think its a good design decision to have 3 factions fighting each other.

Apraxis

Originally posted by brihtwulf

I've been wondering this with the emergence of another  "realm vs realm" PvP system in Elder Scrolls Online.  It's similar (I won't say exactly because that would anger the DAoC fans) to Dark Age of Camelot in terms of the 3-way conflict and the conquest/siege warfare involved.  And there seems to be a lot of support for this type of PvP.  My question is, why, and does this type of PvP hold more longevity than the 2-sided conflicts in other MMO's?

There are a variety of games with very successful PvP components that involve 3 factions, and particularly when there is some sort of conquest or territory control involved.  To name a few, you have EVE Online (though the faction separation there isn't strict), Planetside 2, DAoC, and ESO.  But is this type of PvP system better?  I'm curious to hear other players' opinions.

I've personally enjoyed the PvP in these games more, though I'm not an avid PvP fan all the time.  I didn't find the PvP in games like WoW or even Star Wars: The Old Republic as engaging.  Maybe it felt less strategic and more like an over-sized duel in large format PvP.  And any time I spent in open PvP was about 99% "ganking" where players who completely outmatched weaker players spent their time insta-killing them in order to grief their opponent.  And as I'm not someone who would want to take part in that (from either side), I always stayed away from it.

So, what kind of PvP do you prefer, and why?

About the faction numbers. It is not really reduced to MMOs.

Ask a Risk player (strategy board game) and he will tell you that a match with 3 or more player is more fun than with 2. Or that uneven numbers usually give better matches.

And it is because of the possibility of intervention of a not involved party. Two parties attack each other.. a third party get involved to mix it up.. and usually the third party will attack the bigger, dominating party and you get somewhat of a equilibrium.

With other words faction imbalanced are not that relevant.(at least up to a certain point)

Another point you have more options for alliances and betrayal, although this is almost unused in most MMOs.

Although all this more or less only relevant in territorial warfare games.