2 team vs. 3 team and htc's take

[Dadano]

I'm sure there has been treads dedicated to this issue. Could someone point me in the right direction?

<>
Dano

[hubsonfire]

Been a long time since one of those threads popped up, but IIRC, the very basic premise was that with only 2 teams, greater numerical imbalance was likely in an unstructured environment like the MA. Can't search for numbers or 3 characters, but I think it was one of the ENY/side balancing threads from a couple of years ago. Might even be HiTech's thread.

[Grits]

HT said he has tried 2, 3, 4, and 5 and 3 works best.

[Murdr]

Originally posted by hitech
Just so everone knows,

Pyro and I have created a game with 4 countries.
Pyro and I have created a game with 2 countries
Pyro and I have created a game with 3 countries.

We think  3 works the best for unstrucksured game play.


HiTech

[/url]

[Mace2004]

Well, that was also before we had three arenas.  Since the biggest single problem right now appears to be lack of player density (with some notable individual exceptions) maybe going to two countries may work.  Snapshots with anywhere from 20-60 players seem to work well with two countries even though I understand the fundamental differences between a SS and arena play.  Aside from the values judgement regarding which chess piece has the superior socio-economic system the countries are all basically the same.  Eliminate one and the other two sides gain 50% in numbers which would make quite a difference in the low density late night (i.e., european) times.

Mace

[Lye-El]

Originally posted by Mace2004
Eliminate one and the other two sides gain 50% in numbers which would make quite a difference in the low density late night (i.e., european) times.

Mace

If they divided equally. Chances are most would go the the side with the most numbers. Look at the Knights in the Old MA. They were perpetually low but most people would join the Rook or Bish because they always had higher numbers.