Side Switch time

[Wiley]

you organize a horde then switch to oppose the horde.


semp

And this works more than once?  That's nearly at the level of hitting yourself.

People shouldn't get bent out of shape if their horde runs into opposition.

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

And this works more than once?  That's nearly at the level of hitting yourself.

People shouldn't get bent out of shape if their horde runs into opposition.

Wiley.

ok you organize a mission then switch and kill the goons and the bombers, you know their location.  but it's cool as all missions should run  into opposition.


semp

[gyrene81]

And this works more than once?  That's nearly at the level of hitting yourself.

People shouldn't get bent out of shape if their horde runs into opposition.

Wiley.

i've seen it work very well. opposition is one thing, but having guys jump sides just to rack up kills on a mission that they would not have otherwise known about, is as bad as perk farming in the ew arena.

[Wiley]

ok you organize a mission then switch and kill the goons and the bombers, you know their location.  but it's cool as all missions should run  into opposition.


semp

Understand, I agree it's dweebery of the highest order.

i've seen it work very well. opposition is one thing, but having guys jump sides just to rack up kills on a mission that they would not have otherwise known about, is as bad as perk farming in the ew arena.

Ok...  Now bear with me I understand this doesn't happen much, and I also agree that if it's an NOE, it's a whole different ball of wax.  With that said, what is the effective difference between a group of guys that do this, and a group of guys that sit and watch bardar when the opposition is running missions.  I mean actually watch bardar and analyze what they're seeing.

Red bar dar begins to grow a couple sectors back from the enemy's front line.  It gets full, and doesn't move out of the sector for around 15-20 minutes.  A radar hero porks the dar on a frontline friendly base.  Calling it out on country channel at this point generally gets a limited response, but the point is the information is there.  I'd submit it gets roughly the same response as those couple guys switching sides to go after the mission.

What is the difference in gameplay other than who the red guys are?

Wiley.

[Mongoose]

  It's completely different.  In one case, you are using the tools the way they are supposed to be used.  In the other case, you are deliberately standing people up in a line, just so you can gun them down.

  One is good tactics, the other is treachery.

[Wiley]

  It's completely different.  In one case, you are using the tools the way they are supposed to be used.  In the other case, you are deliberately standing people up in a line, just so you can gun them down.

  One is good tactics, the other is treachery.

I didn't ask how it makes people feel, I asked what is the difference in gameplay for the mission goers?

Wiley.

[guncrasher]

I didn't ask how it makes people feel, I asked what is the difference in gameplay for the mission goers?

Wiley.

a waste of time as the goons are dead.  or the bombing mission that you planned gets cut short as they know exactly where you are.  or the frustration of finding out that the guy you just saved is now the one who shot you down when you couldnt fight back.

I wish people were honest enough to say "I couldnt care less about numbers, I switch to get more kills", instead of this pathetic "i want to help the low side".




semp

[ink]

a waste of time as the goons are dead.  or the bombing mission that you planned gets cut short as they know exactly where you are.  or the frustration of finding out that the guy you just saved is now the one who shot you down when you couldnt fight back.

I wish people were honest enough to say "I couldnt care less about numbers, I switch to get more kills", instead of this pathetic "i want to help the low side".




semp

ehhmmm....excuse me

[bustr]

I wish people were honest enough to say "I couldnt care less about numbers, I switch to get more kills", instead of this pathetic "i want to help the low side".

semp

Unless their complaints of a lack of skill and willingness to fight in the MA are altruistic?? So they follow fights to find the occasional challenge, is the motivation which is rarely as loudly voiced. Still, the players you are complaining about have a certain amount of self realization, that they will gain more opportunities to fleece the low skill herd than being on a high number side. But, that's such ugly self serving imagery.

So semp are you upset at being prevaricated to with altruistic imagery or, that there is a need by those players to offer that imagery? Either way the herd still gets fleeced.

[guncrasher]

ehhmmm....excuse me

you are excused.

Unless their complaints of a lack of skill and willingness to fight in the MA are altruistic?? So they follow fights to find the occasional challenge, is the motivation which is rarely as loudly voiced. Still, the players you are complaining about have a certain amount of self realization, that they will gain more opportunities to fleece the low skill herd than being on a high number side. But, that's such ugly self serving imagery.

So semp are you upset at being prevaricated to with altruistic imagery or, that there is a need by those players to offer that imagery? Either way the herd still gets fleeced.

I am not upset.


semp

[kvuo75]

I switch to get more kills", instead of this pathetic "i want to help the low side".

I "help" the low side because there's more stuff to shoot at, therefore more kills.

what's wrong with that?


honestly, I rarely have to switch sides.. for many many months, bish were outnumbered, so I stayed bish.. now rooks are the low side, I stay there until I notice a new trend (squads switching back or whatever caused it)..

[MK-84]

For me it is frustrating to join the side with the least players only to end up being on the side with the most players shortly afterwards.  I assume that the reason for the wait time is certainly not to prevent my scenario, but I don't like that aspect anyways.

[kvuo75]

For me it is frustrating to join the side with the least players only to end up being on the side with the most players shortly afterwards.  I assume that the reason for the wait time is certainly not to prevent my scenario, but I don't like that aspect anyways.

that's why I like the idea of being allowed to switch to the lowest side at any time.


(wasn't my idea btw, I don't remember who came up with it tho)

[JUGgler]

a waste of time as the goons are dead.  or the bombing mission that you planned gets cut short as they know exactly where you are.  or the frustration of finding out that the guy you just saved is now the one who shot you down when you couldnt fight back.

I wish people were honest enough to say "I couldnt care less about numbers, I switch to get more kills", instead of this pathetic "i want to help the low side".




semp

This is a fair wish, and I'll agree. When i played I could have cared less about "helping" the low # side, for me it was finding reasonable action, reasonably quickly with as little "friendly (same country)" competition as possible!!!

With this said, I also never switched because I had inside info to bust a mission or anything of the sort. I'll add that I doubt very seriously that anyone with some longevity in this game would stack the deck so much in their own favor!

Until the game designer can find a way to "inspire" folks to "want" to claim allegiance to one side I'm afraid the requirement and necessity of being able to switch countries within a reasonable time limit will remain.

When i played, it was frustrating to see some action for a short time, have it dry up, make my 1 and only "allowable" country switch for the day seeing a little more action then invariably having it dry up and now being able to do nothing about it!

If the worry for having a more frequent table is that peeps will use it to bust missions then may I suggest a simple solution: How about change the mechanics for mission generation?

1 - Make all mission generation "blind". All folks who join the mission will know nothing about it except what plane they can choose and launch time. Only the generator knows what, where, and how
2 - Make it so dar will not show any mission for at least 1 sector to all, even friendlies. This will allow the mission to get away clean and unseen for at least one sector. Anyone who switches to bust this mission will have no idea where it launched from or where it is going until it shows on dar at least 1 sector later. This would easily prevent "busters" as they would be essentially "without information".

These changes should allow the return of the 1 hour switch rule, or better yet "switch at will" IMHO!

If this is not liked, then charge perks for switching "at will" I would have paid 500 perks to switch when I desired---- each time  

I would say most folks who have earned a bunch of perks are not the types to "game the system" in the manner you fear!


 



JUGgler

[The Fugitive]

SNIP...

Until the game designer can find a way to "inspire" folks to "want" to claim allegiance to one side I'm afraid the requirement and necessity of being able to switch countries within a reasonable time limit will remain.


 



JUGgler

This! I wouldn't have a problem with being aligned with a "team" if there was a constant war going on. What we have are more and more people looking to avoid battle to grab the carrot at the end of the stick the quickest, easiest way they can. They do not concern themselves with the "journey" to that end game. That's the part of this game that has be come more and more rare.

Battles are what make up the "war", not the 25 perks you get for winning. Until the game can get back to that type of play switching countries is going to be a necessity to be able to find those battles.