Quote Originally Posted by Sidamel View Post
There you are utterly wrong. At best it's different but not easier. Depending on heavily how your matchmaking is.

For example Aion, it had all kind of group pvp from 6vs6 , 12 vs 12 , 24 vs 24 etc. Despite having a more or less okish balance between classes, the matches that were even you could count on fingers.
Why? Because you can't influence the matchmaking and the skill of players. This is idea behind having 3 sides to counter these problems.

Is it better? Who knows. But the influence on balancing isn't so different. A disadvantage is clearly that the battleground can get very chaotic with having 3 "groups".
Again, what you're saying doesn't make any sense. Three teams bring objectively more difficulties into the mix, both in balancing and matchmaking, than two teams. It's literally the most simple of math.

Aion is also one of the worst examples you could have come up with regarding PvP balance, it shouldn't even be part of the discussion. It was a shitshow on release, albeit an extremely fun one, and that is even more true today - but that had very little to do with having two teams and everything with faction/race imbalance. And faction imbalance especially is also way, way worse in a 3-faction scenario because one faction is almost aways going to be unplayable.
Have you tried a War in New World as the underdog faction? You basically had a 0% chance to win which I'd argue is somewhat worse than Aion's PvP being imbalanced 90% of the time.

Three teams don't counter anything, they literally make it worse, I have no idea what you're even trying to argue here. Give me one example of well-designed and moderately balanced 1v1v1 PvP that compares to the battlegrounds in games like WoW, SWTOR, GW2, or even ESO (which isn't exactly known for its good instanced PvP).