2 Country AH

[TonyJoey]

I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be benficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:

*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for their to be a fight on every front.
*A greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. i.e. 8 total fights on the map, simple math shows us that 8/2>8/3
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were say 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed
*The HQ's and factories would become more important as there is only 1 enemy, and knocking them out provides a bigger advantage in the overall war than if you had two enemies.

Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.


/Discuss

[Krusty]

Forget it.

2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.


EDIT: Doesn't matter if we USE all 3 sides to their full potential, the principle of the setup outweighs 2 sides.

[TonyJoey]

Forget it.

2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.

With such a large front and so many more targets base wise, I find a stalemate difficult to reach.

[gyrene81]

Forget it.

2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.


EDIT: Doesn't matter if we USE all 3 sides to their full potential, the principle of the setup outweighs 2 sides.

unfortunately, krusty is correct...2 sides wonderland is just a pipe dream for people who are used to first person shooters. 400 person team death match with no timer.

[Messiah]

unfortunately, krusty is correct...2 sides wonderland is just a pipe dream for people who are used to first person shooters. 400 person team death match with no timer.

How is that any different than the 3 way "team deathmatch" we have now? And in what way would that have anything at all to do with first person shooters? Timer? If you're going to post your opinion at least make it logical.

[SmokinLoon]

If HTC wanted to test that theory, they could shut down the all three main servers for "maintenance" and just see how the AvA server goes.    Yes, the plane set would be MUCH more restrictive, but they could open it up and let loose the dogs of war and allow any and all aircraft for both sides.  And then.... BAM!  We know it works or doesnt.     

[crazyivan]

* A plethora of historical and new player made maps.

Interesting idea but, I here the loyal whines of "Where did chess piece <insert> go waaaaaaa?"

[TonyJoey]

We could maybe rid ourselves of the whole chess piece thing entirely, and just go with Coke vs Pepsi. 

[gyrene81]

How is that any different than the 3 way "team deathmatch" we have now? And in what way would that have anything at all to do with first person shooters? Timer? If you're going to post your opinion at least make it logical.

you've never played team death match have you? yes, timer...tdm's have rounds, and each round has a timer to end the round then tally the scores for each person. 2 sided match ups in the main arenas would end up being much more endless repetitive brawls than what happens now, without goals and little possibility of any victory. you think the hordes are bad now, 2 sided would be worse than furball lake. with 3 sides there are 2 fronts to fight on and 2 enemy populations to deal with.

that enough logic for you cupcake?

[AKP]

that enough logic for you cupcake?

  You called him "cupcake" 

[skorpion]

I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be benficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:

*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for their to be a fight on every front.
*A greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. i.e. 8 total fights on the map, simple math shows us that 8/2>8/3
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were say 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed
*The HQ's and factories would become more important as there is only 1 enemy, and knocking them out provides a bigger advantage in the overall war than if you had two enemies.

Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.


/Discuss

no. the way we  have it is fine right now.

[TonyJoey]

no. the way we  have it is fine right now.

Thanks, but saying no isn't really a very good reason. On the other hand, I can definately see Krusty's point about checks and balances. I won't try to to argue with you about the current state of the game, as that would completely derail the whole point of the thread. If you want to discuss the idea, post any and all flaws you find in it, be my guest, but don't just brush it off.

[skorpion]

Thanks, but saying no isn't really a very good reason. On the other hand, I can definately see Krusty's point about checks and balances. I won't try to to argue with you about the current state of the game, as that would completely derail the whole point of the thread. If you want to discuss the idea, post any and all flaws you find in it, be my guest, but don't just brush it off.

"NO. THE WAY WE HAVE IT IS FINE" what part didnt you understand? thats my reasoning. id prefer not to have 2 sides because it could horribly alter the balance in the game. say if we take out knits, and lets say a good chunk of the knits go rooks. see the problem? also, squads could be divided because of this.


that good enough for you?

[Karnak]

HiTech has run games with two, three and four sides.  He says three is best.

[ACE]

"NO. THE WAY WE HAVE IT IS FINE" what part didnt you understand? thats my reasoning. id prefer not to have 2 sides because it could horribly alter the balance in the game. say if we take out knits, and lets say a good chunk of the knits go rooks. see the problem? also, squads could be divided because of this.


that good enough for you?

The first post you made didn't get the answer TJ expected.  You said no. That doesnt tell him why.   Then you come back with a smart remark.  Very childish sir.