Forget 2 faction, 3 faction, etc. Lets talk about Faction Webs

robert4818 · August 2011

This idea is much more suited to a game that is fluid and dynamic.

Our standard games divide players up into teams instead of factions. But if you think about it, in real life, if we were to divide people into factions you would find that there are multiplye layers of factions, and on top of that, many people would belong to multiple factions, and certain factions would include people from multiple other factions.

As an example, lets take a look at the US southern border:

We have two "country" factions, Mexico, and the United states. For sake of ease, we can claim that everybody would belong to one of those two factions.

We have the INS Faction that is wholly a part of the US faction.

We have a number of different Cartel factions. These are mainly Mexican factions, but also include US faction members as well. The Cartel Factions are at war with each other, but in the event of a US-Mexico war, might side with mexico and join together against US.

There are also Corporate Factions that span both sides.

All in all, its a fairly complicated web.

We could mimic that in an MMO setting to some extent, but it doesn't need to be as complex as what we see in the above example. The idea though is that with enough over-lapping factions, and a fluid world of alliances we could have a very interesting game world.

For example. Lets take a look at Mass Effect:

Racial Factions

Corporate Factions, span multiple races

Miilitary Factions, some span races, some don't.

Organizational Factions, some span races, some don't. A person might be a member of a Race, Corporate/Military, and an Organization Faction. Each with its own goals, and its own penalties for "dropping out of".

Its not increadibly fleshed out, but what do you think?

TheLizardbones · August 2011

I think it's a cool idea. I'm sure there's a reason it's not done like that though.

I always thought a faction within a faction kind of thing would be neat. So you're part of the Horde (in WoW), but you're kind of an outlaw faction. So you're Horde, you hate the Alliance, and you're fine overall with how the Horde is run, you'd just like to have a slightly less lawful area...maybe where you eat people instead of just killing them. Or perhaps you're Horde, but you're a member of a Rebel faction, actively trying to overthrow the current leaders, so you're own, much more radical leaders can take over.

Fallen Earth tried to do something interesting with factions, but I think it fell kind of flat...I'm not sure if the developer just ran out of steam with it, or if the players just didn't want to play it the way the developers put it in there.

Axehilt · August 2011

Not really sure what this sort of faction system gets us which isn't already taken care of by (a) player factions or (b) a set number of factions.

Sounds like it muddles the elegant simplicity of "I'm purple; blue and red are my enemies."

I mean if we agree that population imbalances are the primary shortcoming of set-faction systems, then we can certainly pursue solutions to that clear problem. Like mercenary factions who earn slightly better rewards but are always assigned to aid the underdog faction (and so have a higher risk of not earning much reward due to overwhelming enemy odds.) There's also no-faction, where factions don't really enter into PVP at all (most of the best PVP games already work like this.)

robert4818 · August 2011

Originally posted by Axehilt
Not really sure what this sort of faction system gets us which isn't already taken care of by (a) player factions or (b) a set number of factions.

Sounds like it muddles the elegant simplicity of "I'm purple; blue and red are my enemies."

I mean if we agree that population imbalances are the primary shortcoming of set-faction systems, then we can certainly pursue solutions to that clear problem. Like mercenary factions who earn slightly better rewards but are always assigned to aid the underdog faction (and so have a higher risk of not earning much reward due to overwhelming enemy odds.) There's also no-faction, where factions don't really enter into PVP at all (most of the best PVP games already work like this.)

It muddles the simplicity of it. But this is due to the fact that, as I said, its a concept for a much more fluid style of world.

Sagasaint · August 2011

dunno what for the lenghy post...OP´s idea of factions are "guilds"...

biplex · August 2011

Originally posted by robert4818
We have two "country" factions, Mexico, and the United states. For sake of ease, we can claim that everybody would belong to one of those two factions.
We have the INS Faction that is wholly a part of the US faction.
We have a number of different Cartel factions. These are mainly Mexican factions, but also include US faction members as well. The Cartel Factions are at war with each other, but in the event of a US-Mexico war, might side with mexico and join together against US.
There are also Corporate Factions that span both sides.

Why would you need MMORPGs for? Seems you are quite busy already with all those factions of yours

But to het to the point. Player dirven "factions" seems like the perfect solution. It gets simple and complicated at the same time. Hopefuly TERA will do it fine with it's politival system.

MumboJumbo · August 2011

As stated: It fits between:

1. Set Number of Factions F = (1,2,3... x)

&

2. Player Factions, where n = number of players and Total possible No of F = n/x or something where min size of F = "x" eg.

I'm sure a mathematiciam can use a more simple notation than that rough scribble!

Problems:

Each Faction potentially cuts up the player base.
Balancing Factions, dominance, alliances

Motivations:

Some form of signalling system for players to use between the multiple factions they are part of eg (white) players agree to not fight in an area and conduct cooperative activities, (blue) players can fight another faction not allianced with theirs (red) players can fight between factions in an alliance and other factions not allied.
Different resources in different areas, areas could change the signal color or keep it set at different levels of affiliation?

I like the Cartel Eg

Scales of competition & cooperation:

1) Cartel local vs Neighbouring cartels: Aggressive

2) Mexican Cartel + Neighbours: Truce

3) Mexican Cartels: Alliance

4) International Cartels: Cooperation

Dynamic shifts in territory control and juxtapositon and specialization of narcotics distribution:

And another layer perhaps PvE or PvP for the factions above or below to duke out with as well:

6) Mexican Local Police

7) Mexican Special Narcotic Division set up by Government to combat corruption in 6)

8) Military Advisors from US

9) International Cooperations against cartels

Tricky to get the right balance of "webs"?

Phry · August 2011

for that kind of thing, you might want to take a look at Eve, from racials to Corporate Alliances etc, with areas of 'influence' being Soveriegnty over the systems they have captured/inhabit.. its just one of the things that Eve online does extremely well

drbaltazar · August 2011

Complexity ads dev time.so gane maker keep it as simple as they can get away with.also guild vs guild pretty much do whaf you say they could just do dailys in open instanced area and it would get insane fast. No need of added work and it would be fun

Kyleran · August 2011

Originally posted by Phry
for that kind of thing, you might want to take a look at Eve, from racials to Corporate Alliances etc, with areas of 'influence' being Soveriegnty over the systems they have captured/inhabit.. its just one of the things that Eve online does extremely well

I agree, EVE is the closest we have right now. Some players role play and are hostile to other races based on lore, (faction wars) others fight because they are mercanaries for hire. Some fight for their team (red vs blue) while others fight under the flag of piracy.

Then there are those fighting for their corporation, who are allied into a formal alliance who may also form a greater coaltion for mutual defense against massive fleets.

There are mining groups, those who dominate wormhole space, industrial empires and trading cartels who may all ally themselves to one of the above at any time depending on circumstances.

shantideva · August 2011

You should try Face of Mankind, player run factions with player made missions etc, would be a good foundation for what you are getting at.

Majinash · August 2011

Originally posted by Kyleran

I agree, EVE is the closest we have right now.

I disagree that EVE is the closest. I think EVE is on the same level (when it comes to this subject) as every other game that doesn't have any "factions" in it. Lineage2 uses only guilds and has castles instead zero sec systems. AoC, Darkfall ect, any game that includes a FFA type PvP system (with or without flagging rules) is on the same level as EVE.

What I get from this is being able to belong to more than 1 faction at a time, a much deeper more complex system. I don't know of any game that has different catagories of "factions" like the drug cartel/nationality example given here.

That is pretty deep, pretty complex, and a long way off even an Indie game based on where the market seems to be heading: ALL GAMES MUST HAVE TWO FACTIONS!

Amaranthar · August 2011

One of the problems with PvP of any kind is giving it meaning. Territory control is a big positive for this. And I think bonuses to resources because of that territorial control is something too. But those things still lack the kind of meaning to the game that adding this sort of fluidity would add.

Picture a world where factions are fluid. It adds that "ever changing" effect. But it also can add politics between factions (for good or bad). It gives it that free floating aspect that can allow for opposition to spring up based on actions in the game, in a way that has meaing to the game world. Intermingling factions is a big part of this.

A) Racial factions are good. But they are fixed. Adding fluidity to them would be good, but then you can have all sorts of mixing that ruins the flavor of the game world. Orcs and men in the same guild, and that sort of thing.

Guild warfare is good. But it's totally not fixed, and too chaotic to maintain the flavor of a worldly, interactively social game. It looses meaning to the rest of the game world and it's players. And in my opinion, a game would be better if guild wars mean something to more than just those guilds. A lot of players don't loke meaningless (to them) PvP in their game, even if they aren't a part of it. And games need to have these players if they want to be vibrant. I think adding meaning to it, even for a player who's outside of it, makes it "feel right".

To understand what I'm getting at, think of factions as having a number on a scale of -10 to 0 to +10. And to maintain some control so the game world makes sense, the game can dictate what a particular faction has for a number on that scale. The object here is to allow multiple factions, and to average the numbers accordingly.

Now, lets also add more faction types.

Racial
Cult (religious factions/ethos)
Kingdom (major NPC, and I think there would be a way to add player made kingdoms as well)

So, lets give some faction numbers to these now.

Racial-- Orcs are -10, humans are +8, and Elves are +10
Cult-- Worshippers of the Deamon God are -10, the Nature Deity are 0, the Storm God are +5, and the Sun God are +10.
Members of the Kingdom of Deepbowels are -10, Kingdom of Underearth are -5, Kingdom of Glenwood are +2, and the Kingdom of Mountainpeak are +6.

(These are just rough, just to make the point of this post.)

Now lets do some math.

Suppose 3 players are both an Orc, born into the world in the Kingdom of Underearth. Each player's point average then is (Orc)-10, plus (Kingdom of Underearth)-5 = -15. Average that by dividing by 2 = -7.5
Now, Orc Player #1 Joins the Cult of the Deamon God. He adds -10 to his total, giving him a total of -25, and divides by 3 to get an average = -8.3
Orc Player #2 joins the Cult of a Nature deity (of caves), and adds a 0 to his total = -15, but now divides by 3 for an average = -5
Orc Player #3 joins no Cults, and remains the same = -7.5

Lets do the exact reverse (to make it simple) number wise, for 3 Elve and 3 Humans.

The 3 Elves would have results exactly the opposite (since they are +10 Racial to the Orcs -10 Racial). They'd be at averages of +8.3, +5, and +7.5
The Humans would be a little different since their Racial score starts at +8. Their final averages would be 2 less for each compared to the Elves. +6.3, +3, and +5.5

Now give this system some rules for warfare, alliances, etc.

Faction points within 5 of eachother cannot war. Otherwise they can war.
Factions within 10 of each other can be in alliance.
Factions 15 points apart are in automatic warfare.

So, Orc #1 is in automatic warfare with Elves #1 and #3, but not with Elf #2. The reason is because of the Orc's Kingdom is not the most evil and Elf #2's Cult if pure neutral (0). But if this Orc leaves his Kingdom (officially) and joins the Kingdom of Deepbowels, he will now be in automatic Warfare with Elf #2. Or if Elf #2 leaves his Cult and joins one that's more Good (by 1.7 points), the same will happen.

Now, you can take a Guild system, and allow each guild to set their own parameters. An Orc guild can choose to be part of the Kingdom of Deepbowels (registered with that Kingdom). This is a -10, so each member in that guild now adds this number to their total and averages it again.

So Orc #1 would

Be an Orc (-10)
Be a citizen of Underearth (-5)
Worship the Deamon God (-10)
Be in a guild that is registered under the Kingdom of Deepbowels (-10)
Total is -35, divided by 4 for an average = -8.75

Now, Orc #1 (who hasn't changed Kingdoms yet), still isn't in automatic warfare with Elf #2 because their faction averages still don't add up to a 15 point difference.

However, here's where special circumstances come into play. Modifiers. Mods can be added directly to the final average score. Mods can include things like being at war with an associated element of another player's score. So, if Orc #1's guild is at war with any Elf registered guild, and if Orc #1 gets a modifier of -5 to all Elves as a result, he is now in auto war mode with Elf #2. This adds sort of an automatic alliance system that just makes sense.

Also, special quests can modify the final average score. An Orc on a quest to steal an Elven artifact should be in automatic warfare mode with all Elves, and visa versa. Add in subterfuge skills, such as "Disguise", or "Stealth", and things get very interesting.

And with a good Justice system, this can be incorporated. It should be much less of a crime for Orc #1 to kill Elf #2 (outside of warfare) than it is for him to kill Orc #2 or #3.

So, you get a lot of variable Fluidity through player choices, and what happens in the game world. And I believe it still leaves players who simply don't want to PvP to make their own choices to keep them out of it except in cases where the PKer would have to suffer from the Justice System. While still maintaining worldly consistency.

It would also allow for a few players who really try, through game play, to join the "other side". The Evil Elf, the good Orc. By stepping one way or the other through factions, with difficulty, but doable. I haven't explained how this can be done system wise, but with restrictions based on each faction type, and modified by the player's average faction score, and with special quests, etc., this can be done, yet difficult so it's actually an achievement for the player. And a rarity, making it more special.

tochicool · August 2011

I love the idea of this. Like, you could be an outlaw, spy or just a free man.

Howdy, Stranger!

Forget 2 faction, 3 faction, etc. Lets talk about Faction Webs

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV

Howdy, Stranger!

Quick Links

Forget 2 faction, 3 faction, etc. Lets talk about Faction Webs

Comments

Fools find no pleasure in understanding but delight in airing their own opinions. Pvbs 18:2, NIV