Why not two Teams?

[EVZ]

that sounds like a really  good idea, cause i am tired fo having to go to the dueling arena when the ma is full

That's WAY to SUBTLE for some of these dweebs .... I like it!

I think that a 3 sided arena works best because it allows for a shifting dynamic that keeps changing. Even if it becomes cyclical, it's NOT the same thing all the time ... 4 sided can't be done symmetrically, one side will always have two basic enemies to confront and limited access to the 3rd enemy.

[Nathan60]

hitech ( HTC ) have already tried all the above mentioned stuff before, many years ago......


just saying

TC

How long ago? Was gameplay similar back then?

[Karnak]

How long ago? Was gameplay similar back then?

AH has always had three sides.  AH is also not HiTech's first game and the experience he was relating came from prior projects.

[skribetm]

/snip

WHat is also being left out is the fact that with three teams, every side will be ganged upon once in a while. With only two sides, you may quickly end up in one faction getting bigger and bigger, and the other smaller and smaller (this would be is massively amplified in an  Allied vs Axis setup, which is also often wished for in this context).
 Shuffling players without "affiliation' won't work, as there are actually very few players without a squad, and most of them are twoweekers, so they can't help the outnumbered side for the most part.

 /snip offtopic about spying*

with three teams, one of three sides will have sh@tty game experience once in a while, and for folks who only have 2-3 hrs on weekends to play, that would mean their 2-3 hrs of subscription per week is no value at all. hence i cancelled.
with two countries becoming unbalanced, ENY should work better rather than the current three. but i wont get my hopes up, ENY is also at Sh@tty settings at best.

just my 2 cents why i wont pay $14.99 to be ganged by two other sides for my weekend. no thanks.

so, whens the next scenario?

[TnDep]

The comment I saw somewhere along the way in the forum was that comparatively speaking, 3 teams provided more gameplay diversity than 2 teams.  The way I read it, with 2 teams you pretty much just got one or two fights going at a time.  With 3 sides, there are more possibilities.  Something along those lines.  Whether or not that applies today, I can't say, but that's what I read in an older post.

Wiley.

I'm a fighter at heart and here lately it's been hard to find a fight a few nights.  When one develops 5 to 10 minutes later the hangers get dropped and there goes the fight.  I could care less about winning the war, I just look for a good fight with full dar bars.  I'm not complaining just looking over you guys ideas wondering if it would help the game I like better.  I see what your saying though, I can see both sides.

[JUGgler]

Get rid of the 12 hour switch rule, and there will be many who will keep things balanced! 




JUGgler

[Raptor05121]

that sounds like a really  good idea, cause i am tired fo having to go to the dueling arena when the ma is full

I have never seen the new MA full. Highest I've seen it is 475/600

[TequilaChaser]

sorry for not responding, this thread was moved and I had forgotten about since it was out of view.....

Why didnt the 2 sided teams not work out TC you remember?

because, just like when a team/side is about to win now, what do you see? you experience a mass exodus to the winning side......  it becomes lopsided and it is no where near fun to play in that environment

AH has always had three sides.  AH is also not HiTech's first game and the experience he was relating came from prior projects.

Thanks Karnak, 

I should have posted that my long time ago meant in other WWII combat flight sim MMO games, not specifically Aces high........ but you answered the question for me, much appreciated.....

cheers

TC

[chaser]

The only thing I think would come from this is one massive horde fighting another massive hoarde. While I'll agree that everyday one of the countries gets ganged by the other 2, this is not the answer. However I usually enjoy playing for the team getting ganged because they usually have low numbers a big perk bonuses 

[LCADolby]

Get rid of the 12 hour switch rule, and there will be many who will keep things balanced! 




JUGgler

Agreed 12 hour rule has caused unwanted unbalanced sides and should be reduced.

[Selino631]

im perfectly happy with the 3 teams set up they currently have

[guncrasher]

Get rid of the 12 hour switch rule, and there will be many who will keep things balanced! 




JUGgler

it wasn't balanced when we had a one hour wait either.


Semp

[ink]

it wasn't balanced when we had a one hour wait either.


Semp

not to hijack...but when you said that to me last night about the ALT......it was long into the fight...I came across a P47 that was at my ALT he was my first contact.....he ran as soon as I got advantage

yes I did pick 1 con of 4 that was on a friendly.......

you guys were attacking me 5..6..and 7 on me   and then whine when I get ALT to be above you and make you work for your kill on me ......oh and come to find out..that high 47...was you

[wil3ur]

 

To get back on topic though... I don't think we need to go as far as restrict loadouts or planes like in AvA or SEA.  MW could remain MW.  What I'm proposing would allow a greater rotation of maps (everyone complains that there's not enough, or the ones in circulation suck and there's a TON of good maps out there).  It would also make more sense with a 12 hour side switch rule (if there's 3 teams, why not do 6 hours?  Same concept) as far as whatever that does for the game.  And finally, if it was implemented in the way I posted, where squads registered a side for a month, and floaters would be autoassigned to the side with low numbers, it would do one of two things:

Either drive the game more towards squad based dynamics (side balancing would have to be decided 1st come 1st serve, maybe have an online web based recruitment tool for assistance... wow bloat and headache), or people would just become more squadless, and the game would go into a more FFA constantly changing game dynamic due to the infinite variables in combinations of players and really suck for map rollover and base taking.

...or it would develop a happy medium as the game already has with current numbers, and the unaffiliated players would balance sides, eny would be decided on bases more than players and screw a lot less people a lot less of the time, and there's be a greater diversity of terrain and oppositional experience to enhance the game overall.

I feel this would be a huge bonus to the overall playability and longevity of the game, and wouldn't require a major overhaul of code to get it working.


Or we could just 

[guncrasher]

not to hijack...but when you said that to me last night about the ALT......it was long into the fight...I came across a P47 that was at my ALT he was my first contact.....he ran as soon as I got advantage

yes I did pick 1 con of 4 that was on a friendly.......

you guys were attacking me 5..6..and 7 on me   and then whine when I get ALT to be above you and make you work for your kill on me ......oh and come to find out..that high 47...was you

ink there was nothing wrong with the way you fought.  i wouldda dont eh same too, actually anybody else would have based on that situation.  i saw the film and only time you had many on you is when you were diving on somebody.  but claiming that you were killing only those above you as you did last night, was a little too thick, that was the only thing i question you about.


semp