Two Teams

[ONTOS]

The ONLY reason for two countries, is there are not enough players for three countries. However, I see no advantage to it. The players of the country you delete may not want to join one of the other countries. Just saying.

You get more with a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word.

[Randy1]

. . .I know there are more dollars in ground vehicles since you only need minimal brain activity to be successful but its not what I am looking for. . . .

Are you ever wrong on that one.  You have to develop cunning and guile to be really good in tanks.   I would wager a cool drink of water that if you were in a tigerII that pretty muck kills everything with one shot and a really good tank player was in something like an easy to kill M4, you would lose 3 out of 4 times.

Some players have developed good tank killing skills in the M8.  For them it is a cat and mouse game.

[bustr]

Like Dunbar's number where a person can only maintain relationships or a feeling of community with up to 80-200 people, I wonder if the OP is trying to describe something similar. Is it possible where games are concerned that there is a number threshold where 2 sides work better than 3 sides. 3 sides seems to work fine from about 80 and up with the fun factor increasing proportionally. Below that, things can get boring due to the availability of dispersion avenues that help larger numbers act slightly strategic and fight each other.

2 sides has the problem that there is no where to go if you don't like the matchup or, you are familiar with the player names on the opposing side who will be a none stop tower ticket any time you up. So your choices, log off or help create a side imbalance. The average person quickly looses interest in being the guy in the barrel. And quicker side switching only starts a whack a mole game of who doesn't want to be out numbered or face being in the barrel at the hands of some bored vet.

The problem with most analysis of this situation is the OPs always want a tiny number of average players to be forced to fight them. While projecting that those nameless players who will be in that arena will play nice by those OPs slewed projections about human nature to sell the idea. Those average nameless players will understand, it's for the good of AH3 and it's future that they allow themselves to be clubbed continuously at will until the OPs go to bed.   

[FLS]

The ONLY reason for two countries, is there are not enough players for three countries. However, I see no advantage to it. The players of the country you delete may not want to join one of the other countries. Just saying.

You only need 3 players for 3 countries but I agree that more is better.

[Dawger]

Seems like this a player-driven game.  If "most" players wanted air-air fights, that's what we would have.  Players would gravitate to two near-by bases, would switch countries to have two even sides, wouldn't try to capture, wouldn't vultch, wouldn't kill radar, etc., etc..., and there would be a nice continuous furball for all to enjoy.

However, since that isn't what is happening it seems reasonable to assume that "most" players don't want it to happen.  So, having only two sides wouldn't necessarily create gameplay that is already possible but for whatever reason doesn't happen.

Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.

GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.

GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is  GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.

[FLS]

GV's are historical targets for attack aircraft. 

If you fly low and heavy you're likely to be attacked by other aircraft.

[EskimoJoe]

You only need 3 players for 3 countries but I agree that more is better.

Sure, but unless there is somewhere for those 3 players from 3 countries to quickly meet up and have a 1v1v1 fight, they might as well be flying in circles offline.

[Vraciu]

Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.

GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.

GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is  GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.

This game is done.  We saw this death march at brand x.  The irony is that the cause is the same. 

[The Fugitive]

Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.

GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.

GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is  GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.

Kong didn't say anything about GVs. Yes the new update does lend it self to GV eye candy and I certainly hope they draw some players from "that other tank game". I am pretty good at bombing tanks 

The point Kong was trying to make, i believe, was the style of game play has changed over the years. Back in the early years, Im talking tour 30-40ish. the game was all about air combat. Of course we didn't have a heck of a lot of GVs. But soon it became about squads, ans then base captures, and win the war, but through it all is was the FIGHT for those goals.

The goals now is to see which team can reset the map the quickest. Fighting slows down that process and so it is avoided with NOEs, or moving to undefended sides of the map only to move again as soon as a defender does show up.

Changing the maps, or the number of teams isn't going to bring back the glory days or air combat. Whats going to need to happen is players are going to have to change and WANT to fight. I think there are "carrots" HTC could use to entice players to fight more but can the code be re-written , do they even want to?

Personally, Im with Lazer and want to see more fights, however I know many players who just dont want to fight. They are more than happy to fly 3 hours to drop strats, or drive an hour to take out some factory with a GV, or sit for hours waiting for some poor sap to spawn into the spawn they have camped.

Its like handing a guy a golf club and telling him he can't play baseball any more, he has to play golf. For some guys this is OK, they like golf too. For others they may tell you were can put that golf club and walk away. Its a fine line HTC has to walk.

[FLS]

Sure, but unless there is somewhere for those 3 players from 3 countries to quickly meet up and have a 1v1v1 fight, they might as well be flying in circles offline.

Not only is there a place to meet up there is radio and text communication to make it easier.

[Hajo]

What disappoints me is when I log on, check the roster for players in the arena, and find few if any aircraft up and the battle is in GVs.  This is around 12PM EST.

Logged on again later with well over 100 players on line and again the number of players in GVs greatly out numbered the players in the air.

I upped once.  Then logged. I was so bored I dove on the six of some bombers for something to do and got wasted. I refuse to tell someone how they should play.  I'm not paying their subscription for the game.

It's fun when the gv'ers and flyers are at equal number. Then it is fun for both air a ground game play working together.  When it's not, I'll log and comeback the next day.

[shift8]

I must be playing a very different game than some of you. I get on from various times between 12PM and 12AM and I never had any difficulty finding contacts. Most of the time in fact, there are so many contact its a bit overwhelming. For the past week or so I have seen many of the characters of this thread complain on the 200 that they cant find "fights" when there are relatively large multi-full-dar bar engagements going on. These game characters are involved in said fights, because I shoot them down in said fights. And vice versa. So I have no idea what the complaint is here.

[Lazerr]

I must be playing a very different game than some of you. I get on from various times between 12PM and 12AM and I never had any difficulty finding contacts. Most of the time in fact, there are so many contact its a bit overwhelming. For the past week or so I have seen many of the characters of this thread complain on the 200 that they cant find "fights" when there are relatively large multi-full-dar bar engagements going on. These game characters are involved in said fights, because I shoot them down in said fights. And vice versa. So I have no idea what the complaint is here.

I don't know who you are in game, I don't think I care either.  I will refer to you as "character".

After a switch in job shifts, I play weekdays, normally after 12am CST.

There was 17 bishops, 7 knights, and 6 rooks online.  Its not even ENY I am complaining about, because most of my time is in early/midwar rides, its the lack of something to shoot.

I have a feeling you and I might consider a fight something totally different too.

[Bruv119]

it's ok if you run into 6 bish taking a field from a CV with no defenders.

Makes it very lively for a poor hurricane trying to get some air.     

As I mainly play these hours you have to take the rough with the smooth.   Problem is those 6 guys then dissipate and go for the next soft target and your left trying to work out where they will go next.   I don't enjoy killing GV's.   Ahh thats a lie I do! but would rather dogfight.   

The solution seems to be to just log off which only compounds the problem for everyone else.   Hate to say it but off hours is dead until America wakes up.   Then lets also mention the switch time, Bish always have the lead and there are wild swings between knights and rooks.   I end up fighting Bish 80% of the time because they are usually 20+ ENY.  I would pay 100 perks just to switch to the low numbered team when in reality I should be paid those 100 perks for balancing the teams!   and helping alleviate Bish from ENY prison.   

I dont think having two teams will help as they will just keep going where the enemy is not.  The ONLY solution is a SMALL map with free switching to low numbered team. 

[shift8]

I don't know who you are in game, I don't think I care either.  I will refer to you as "character".

After a switch in job shifts, I play weekdays, normally after 12am CST.

There was 17 bishops, 7 knights, and 6 rooks online.  Its not even ENY I am complaining about, because most of my time is in early/midwar rides, its the lack of something to shoot.

I have a feeling you and I might consider a fight something totally different too.

Well all I know is this.

The typical in game count appears to be about 140-190 players with the low end at around 2pm and the high end at around 7-12pm. EST. I see this all the time. Every day. The only times I see very low player counts is when extremely late at night or early in the morning.

What makes more more confused by this complaint is the times I see this happening. You and several others, violator for example, were having a rather lively conversation that was literally the subject of this thread just a few days ago. All these people were cramming the 200 with exclamations of how they was never any action, and they couldn't find a fight. These people were referencing the then in game time. There were almost 200 people on. And there was a rather large fight going on in the vicinity that the persons talking were flying at. By large, I mean several full dar bars. I mean 10-20+ airplanes within a grid of each other, if not within icon range even, at any given point. I was not having a problem finding "fights" and was rather perplexed by everyone complaining about it.

There are lull periods in game, to be sure. But I generally dont see an issue in finding a decent amount of action.


Regarding what pacing issues there may be, I think a better solution is redesigned maps. Not smaller per-se, but made to accommodate smaller player counts.