Side switch times

[Hoplite]

None of this is helpful input.  *shrug*

[Latrobe]

This morning I was on the Bish, had switch a few hours ago to defend against Rook hordes. There was 4 Rooks vs 4 Knights vs 20 Bish, and I was unable to switch sides for another 8 hours. 12 hour rule does not work and needs to be fixed.

Just hoped on now to check the MA. 5 Rooks, 8 Knights, 15 Bish. Yup 12 hour rule sure is keeping those sides even. 

[Hoplite]

This morning I was on the Bish, had switch a few hours ago to defend against Rook hordes. There was 4 Rooks vs 4 Knights vs 20 Bish, and I was unable to switch sides for another 8 hours. 12 hour rule does not work and needs to be fixed.

Just hoped on now to check the MA. 5 Rooks, 8 Knights, 15 Bish. Yup 12 hour rule sure is keeping those sides even. 

I don't think switching it to one hour will do so either as I think the imbalance has more to do with other factors  e.g. a sizeable percentage of the AH player base are "chess piece loyal".

That said, changing the time would make it easier for the population of players who don't care about such things to find a fight, especially on the larger maps.

[Hoplite]

This is exactly why I do not agree with the sentiments of those who think changing the time will ruin the game for those who want to capture bases, win maps i.e. I don't have hard figures, but it appears a large percentage of the population wouldn't use the time change because they identify themselves as "Rooks" or "Bish".  It's my hunch only a small percentage of the AH player base would ever use the side switch.  

Again, it's just a hunch.  I could be wrong.   

[tunnelrat]

Maybe it's time to do a trial run with just 2 countries for a tour or so?  I dunno what kind of a rat's nest that would be behind the scenes, but setting side-switch to 1 hour and just having two countries... Aces would probably last another 10 years... still no other game out there than can do what Aces does.

[guncrasher]

2 weeks. Nuff said.
Would luv to resub if the gameplay did worth 15$. The game would surely worth it, the gameplay isnt even close as i couldnt really find a fight in 2 weeks. Guessing it sucks, considering it is an air combat game or something.
By the way, let me ask, which squadron youre in?

so you couldn't find a fight but two days ago you got ten kills.



semp

[Drane]

ok popped in to late war arena 9:00 a.m. cst and this is what I found about ENY and side switching. Look at country status and text buffer comments.

The reason there's so many knights in the tower is some of us just got shot down by the bish horde at 42.





this screen shot was taken a few minutes later

[SirNuke]

This morning I was on the Bish, had switch a few hours ago to defend against Rook hordes. There was 4 Rooks vs 4 Knights vs 20 Bish, and I was unable to switch sides for another 8 hours. 12 hour rule does not work and needs to be fixed.

Just hoped on now to check the MA. 5 Rooks, 8 Knights, 15 Bish. Yup 12 hour rule sure is keeping those sides even. 

these numbers sadden me

[Wiley]

This is exactly why I do not agree with the sentiments of those who think changing the time will ruin the game for those who want to capture bases, win maps i.e. I don't have hard figures, but it appears a large percentage of the population wouldn't use the time change because they identify themselves as "Rooks" or "Bish".  It's my hunch only a small percentage of the AH player base would ever use the side switch.  

Again, it's just a hunch.  I could be wrong.   

Absolutely.  The true downside to it is the chesspiece underoo brigade.  They get completely bent out of shape if someone that was just on their side is suddenly on the other side, because 'How can I trust a guy that just hops sides?!'

If their mission runs into any kind of resistance, the only possible explanation is spiez, and if they see someone who was on their side a moment ago and is suddenly against them, they obviously must have ratted out the mission.  They don't want gameplay, they want to toolshed.

The sad thing is, I bet there would be a market for a co-op arena, with a bunch of AI enemy planes that fly over the enemy base and put up a token defense but aren't difficult to shoot down and have no real chance of shooting the players down.  Most mission runners would probably eat that up, as the general consensus among them seems to be if the mission meets resistance, it's doomed to failure.

Wiley.

[Hoplite]

Absolutely.  The true downside to it is the chesspiece underoo brigade.  They get completely bent out of shape if someone that was just on their side is suddenly on the other side, because 'How can I trust a guy that just hops sides?!'

If their mission runs into any kind of resistance, the only possible explanation is spiez, and if they see someone who was on their side a moment ago and is suddenly against them, they obviously must have ratted out the mission.  They don't want gameplay, they want to toolshed.

The sad thing is, I bet there would be a market for a co-op arena, with a bunch of AI enemy planes that fly over the enemy base and put up a token defense but aren't difficult to shoot down and have no real chance of shooting the players down.  Most mission runners would probably eat that up, as the general consensus among them seems to be if the mission meets resistance, it's doomed to failure.

Wiley.

heh...."chesspiece underoo brigage".  



In all fairness, there are spiez.  What I don't understand is the resistance to the idea of spiez in the MA.  

The base-taker/war-winner crowd imply the MA is a war zone.  Some go so far as to state that there are no rules governing combat in the MA, so HOs etc are valid shots, don't expect fairness, yada yada yada.  While I do not consider myself part of the war winning crowd as I don't care who wins the war, I 100% agree with this viewpoint.  The MA is not the DA.  The MA more closely simulates life in that nothing is guaranteed to be fair.  It also is a war zone because objectives exist, territory is taken through the use of force, strategy and tactics are employed to obtain these objectives, etc.

So if all this is true, and war-winners like/want a war zone.....why are spiez bad?  Spying has been a part of warfare ever since one of our first hairy ancestors picked up a rock and beat the brains out of another hairy ancestor.  If spiez are the main resistance to side switching it appears to me to be a pretty hypocritical position to take given the other viewpoints.

[Wiley]

heh...."chesspiece underoo brigage".  



In all fairness, there are spiez.  What I don't understand is the resistance to the idea of spiez in the MA.  

The base-taker/war-winner crowd imply the MA is a war zone.  Some go so far as to state that there are no rules governing combat in the MA, so HOs etc are valid shots, don't expect fairness, yada yada yada.  While I do not consider myself part of the war winning crowd as I don't care who wins the war, I 100% agree with this viewpoint.  The MA is not the DA.  The MA more closely simulates life in that nothing is guaranteed to be fair.  It also is a war zone because objectives exist, territory is taken through the use of force, strategy and tactics are employed to obtain these objectives, etc.

So if all this is true, and war-winners like/want a war zone.....why are spiez bad?  Spying has been a part of warfare ever since one of our first hairy ancestors picked up a rock and beat the brains out of another hairy ancestor.  If spiez are the main resistance to side switching it appears to me to be a pretty hypocritical position to take given the other viewpoints.

Truthfully, I am not a fan of spying.  It bypasses a lot of gameplay mechanics that exist to make the game fun and give both sides a chance.

With that said, within the gameplay mechanics provided I am of the mindset that whatever the situation I run into is, I will use whatever tools are at my disposal to kill as many of them as I can and try to RTB.  I don't intentionally fly in a friendly horde, I generally look for the biggest enemy bardar I can find and head that way, hopefully with just slightly fewer friendlies.    If I switch sides, I generally 'forget' what I saw on the previous side and base what I'm going to do on what I can see on the new side's bar dar.  It really doesn't make that much difference most of the time unless there was an NOE smash and grab that doesn't show up.

The war winners don't want a war zone though.  They want a token defense that has no real chance so they can get some kills as they steamroll the base.  Every single time I see someone complaining about spiez it's because their mission met resistance.  Not many of these are NOE missions either, these people are saying they upped and were headed toward the enemy front when they met resistance, and therefore the mission is ruined.

Let that sink in a bit.  They met resistance, and their gameplay was ruined.  Why are they here again?

Wiley.

[Hoplite]

The war winners don't want a war zone though.  They want a token defense that has no real chance so they can get some kills as they steamroll the base.  Every single time I see someone complaining about spiez it's because their mission met resistance.  Not many of these are NOE missions either, these people are saying they upped and were headed toward the enemy front when they met resistance, and therefore the mission is ruined.

Let that sink in a bit.  They met resistance, and their gameplay was ruined.  Why are they here again?

Wiley.

  You may have a point there.

[grizz441]

This is exactly why I do not agree with the sentiments of those who think changing the time will ruin the game for those who want to capture bases, win maps i.e. I don't have hard figures, but it appears a large percentage of the population wouldn't use the time change because they identify themselves as "Rooks" or "Bish".  It's my hunch only a small percentage of the AH player base would ever use the side switch.  

Again, it's just a hunch.  I could be wrong.   

If there are fifty of us, for example, that want it switched, that is not a small and negligible percentage of the player base.  It is also a microcosm of the overall sentiment.  It would be foolish to think just because someone is not on the bbs, they must not agree with us.  If 80-90% of us here think it should be changed, chances are, a large percentage of non bbs players feel the same.

[Hoplite]

If there are fifty of us, for example, that want it switched, that is not a small and negligible percentage of the player base.  It is also a microcosm of the overall sentiment.  It would be foolish to think just because someone is not on the bbs, they must not agree with us.  If 80-90% of us here think it should be changed, chances are, a large percentage of non bbs players feel the same.

True, but I still think the group is a much smaller percentage of the player base than the side loyal.   But if you are correct it may well explain why HTC seems so reluctant to put the change in place.

[Hoplite]

BTW Grizz...you do realize you are now the one bringing up reasons why changing switch times might be a bad idea... even tho' you are for it?