2 Country AH

[captain1ma]

No comment...

yeah we wouldn't want to go fight, where someone might give you some competition!

[gyrene81]

I don't understand this argument. If one was to believed then this, then the case for having infant countries should be desired as more countries == more 'choice'.

Do you believe that a rook airfield is any different than a knit airfield?

Do you want 100 crayons or do you want 50 crayons and 50 crayons or do you want 33 crayons, 33 crayons and 34 crayons?

what is not to understand? if you have a set of choices to make every day and someone takes any one of those choices away from you, it doesn't matter whether it was a popular choice or not, you won't like the fact that someone decided you didn't need it. throughout this discussion i've repeatedly stated the population will not regulate itself, most especially with just two sides and/or without being forced. and anyone who was around when there were two lw arenas knows what happens when people are denied a choice or forced to make a choice they do not want to make, i.e. arena caps.

one element that is not being considered in the grand two sided plan is player loyalty to one country. it's country loyalty that for whatever reasons plays a significant part in the overall balance. just looking at the concept of country loyalty alone, with just two sides the imbalance has a greater impact because the largest percentage of the population has developed a sense of loyalty to one side or the other. that sense of loyalty is driven mostly by the people who are on each side rather than a desire for side balance or individual ideas of "good gameplay". it boils down to simple psychology, where there is currently a three sided rivalry that eventually balances itself out, because people have two other choices they can make if they don't like something about their current choice. whereas a two sided rivalry will end up with an imbalance that can't be worked out. think about it. think about the people you really dislike being on the same side with because of their attitudes or behavior. what if you were forced to be on the same side as them because they populate both of only two choices you have? consider all the possibilites and outcomes that could arise from just one aspect of human interaction. if all the "popular" people migrated to on one side and all the "donkeys" migrated to the other, what incentives would there need to be in order for the best percentage of the overall population to voluntarily put aside their personality differences and balance the sides? the small percentage of people who don't fit within either group and readily switch sides to attempt balancing the numbers would not make a difference, because inevitably the differences in populations would be beyond what that small percentage could offset. it's very plain to see that the two sided idea does not consider the role player interactions and personality differences would make in the balance. just look at what happened to the populations in the early and mid war arenas. personality and behavior of certain individuals or groups of people, are always stated as being the primary reasons for the population drop. yet after all the time that has passed, neither of those two arenas has regained their past popularity.

[grizz441]

TBH, I don't necessarily think two sides wouldn't "work", it very well may, but it's way too risky to even attempt it.

Advantages:

You can't hide from a particular squad by going to other side of map.

It simplifies strategy to where it's easy to understand exactly what is going on.

Roster numbers will be more of what you see is what you get.  You won't have the high number side being ganged on both fronts, or the low numbers side only ganging on one front and being ganged on the other.

Disadvantages:

Unbalanced numbers are extremely more damaging to game play.  Not only that but it could easily create a domino effect of players migrating to the "winning" side because no one wants to play on a losing team, except the vet heroes.

Redoing every single map for a 2 player game.  Would take an incredible amount of time.

You are taking away something and adding nothing of quantifiable value to the game.  Bound to piss off a lot of people when something is taken away.

You run the risk of creating much larger concentrations of players into condensed space.  You might end up having a mega furball with 100 planes.  Sounds cool to me as a vet, but the new player stands no chance. NONE. Neither does the guy with an average computer.


All in all, it's not even close to being worth it.

[gyrene81]

nice post grizz    as much as it kills me to admit it...

[Ardy123]

So you want 'freedom of choice' but you don't believe that giving people choice will work...

on i've repeatedly stated the population will not regulate itself, most especially with just two sides and/or without being forced.

If you look at my previous posts, I suggested this too.. Either way, do you have a suggestion to improve the situation?

If so wouldn't a mechanism to prevent them from switching the numerically advantaged side be advantageous?
Or is the 'freedom' of choosing a side more important than having good game play?

It breaks down into to groups...
1) people who believe everyone but the muppets and a few others would be on one country...
2) people who believe that high eny and clouds of green will encourage people to switch...

And there are two approaches...
1) enable people to freely switch with no penalty.
2) penalize people who switch to encourage stability.

[gyrene81]

So you want 'freedom of choice' but you don't believe that giving people choice will work...

If you look at my previous posts, I suggested this too.. Either way, do you have a suggestion to improve the situation?

i don't see an issue that requires an alternative solution. population numbers fluctuate for almost as many reasons as there are players. you few who think there is an issue are trying to change people's behavior and it won't work. you're not giving a choice, just limiting the available choices. may as well try to shut down the lw arena and force people to choose between ew and mw, you will lose a large number of players that don't like either choice.

[TonyJoey]

Unbalanced numbers are extremely more damaging to game play.  Not only that but it could easily create a domino effect of players migrating to the "winning" side because no one wants to play on a losing team, except the vet heroes.

And I'm sure every single one of those heroes would have a blast shooting down the hoardes of High ENY planes with 100 perk 262s.  

[TonyJoey]

Oh, and one more thing. For the Grammar Nazi:



Yea, you Zoney.   I looked through my original post and have tried to fix a few errors to make it bearable enough to read.  

I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be beneficial 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 there to be a fight on every front.
*There would also be a greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. For example, if there were 8 total fights on the map, simple math would show 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 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour country 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. With only one enemy, knocking them out would provide a bigger advantage than if you were facing two countries simaltaneously.
 Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.


/Discuss