the side balancing sucks

[Electroman]

So it sounds like there are a few suggestions on the table...

HiTech - Maybe the simplest to implement for the short term / trial phase would be to adjust the # of hours to switch between countries from 6 to...??? Sounds like it would require the least programming adjustment and has been brought up a few times. We could try it say for 3 months (or pick a figure) and see how it goes.

Could we give this a shot and go from there?

Personally (and playing devil's advocate...) I likely would not be using it as I like to stay with my specific country but there are others that like to jump to get the action.

Cheers,
Elec1

[hitech]

So it sounds like there are a few suggestions on the table...

HiTech - Maybe the simplest to implement for the short term / trial phase would be to adjust the # of hours to switch between countries from 6 to...??? Sounds like it would require the least programming adjustment and has been brought up a few times. We could try it say for 3 months (or pick a figure) and see how it goes.

Could we give this a shot and go from there?

Personally (and playing devil's advocate...) I likely would not be using it as I like to stay with my specific country but there are others that like to jump to get the action.

Cheers,
Elec1

I believe changing it to 24 would help more then lowering it.

HiTech

[Randy1]

I originally said this jokingly ,. . .

HiTech

Please, Please, don't even think about forcing side swaps.  I like my Rook friends.  After awhile you really get to know players.  Not saying I would not like the other countries, just you get tied to a country and enjoy those players. 

Besides we love to squeak about the bish and knits as they do about us.  That makes the game more competitive.  Lose the competitive edge the game offers and the game gets dull in a hurry.

[Shuffler]

Yall all quit try to tip cows.



 


Dang yankees..... just like hemorrhoids. 

[Wiley]

I believe changing it to 24 would help more then lowering it.

HiTech

At this point, I truly don't think changing it will make a difference.  Pretty sure the vast majority is side loyal, I just think that culture has become so entrenched here that you could put it from ten seconds to 1 week, and there'd be no measurable difference in side switchers.

Wiley.

[Shuffler]

At this point, I truly don't think changing it will make a difference.  Pretty sure the vast majority is side loyal, I just think that culture has become so entrenched here that you could put it from ten seconds to 1 week, and there'd be no measurable difference in side switchers.

Wiley.

I disagree.

[bustr]

Hitech,

Did 6 hours contribute to oscillations in country populations you said you were concerned about in one of the conversations before you changed the switch time to 6 hours?  Do longer side switch times lower those oscillations versus quicker times?

What kind of game like two side versus 3-4 sides and players numbers does instant to 1 hour side switching work for? Over the years both ENY and side switching has always appeared to be instantaneous gratification driven instead of long term stability driven. And I've been here since about April 02 I think.

[Vraciu]

I believe changing it to 24 would help more then lowering it.

HiTech

Try it.  Try no limit first.   Then compare the results. 

Eliminate chess pieces and go with colors.   Try that and see what happens.  Heck, spawn people country colors at random and let them switch around.   See what happens. 

Try no ENY below 100 players in combination with other things even.

You gotta try something. 

[Vraciu]

At this point, I truly don't think changing it will make a difference.  Pretty sure the vast majority is side loyal, I just think that culture has become so entrenched here that you could put it from ten seconds to 1 week, and there'd be no measurable difference in side switchers.

Wiley.

Split it to two or four and that goes away. 

Get rid of chess pieces even.   I don't imagine anyone will be loyal to being "purple". 

[Shuffler]

I want a 4th country for red headed step children.

[JunkyII]

 

[Wiley]

I disagree.

Based on what?  There's the same half dozen or so guys in the forum saying the same things they've been saying since more or less forever.

Split it to two or four and that goes away. 

Get rid of chess pieces even.   I don't imagine anyone will be loyal to being "purple". 

Then respectfully, you don't understand much about the people here.  They have their groups, whatever they change it to, people will gravitate to their buddies, no matter the banner they're flying under.

Regarding Bustr's post, the wildest short term side oscillations I've observed in this game since I joined have definitely been in the last year.

Forget countries.  Squads.  Your squad starts out with one base, location randomly generated.  First squad to 30 bases owned wins.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

They have their groups, whatever they change it to, people will gravitate to their buddies, no matter the banner they're flying under.

Absolutely. Replace Bishops, Knights, Rooks with Red, Blue, Green and people will be loyal to Red, Blue, Green. Replace them by 1,2,3 and the same will happen.

Forget countries.  Squads.  Your squad starts out with one base, location randomly generated.  First squad to 30 bases owned wins.

The imbalance would be incredible. Off hours, 20 to 40 players online. One squad manages to have 6 players up, but all the rest are technically single pilots.
And what about those people not in any squad? In this case, you probly would have to make the game round based and put the players into random but evenly distributed squads.

[Wiley]

The imbalance would be incredible. Off hours, 20 to 40 players online. One squad manages to have 6 players up, but all the rest are technically single pilots.
And what about those people not in any squad? In this case, you probly would have to make the game round based and put the players into random but evenly distributed squads.

Oh that was mostly tongue in cheek.  Of course it would never work.

Friendly groups would form though.  Pig Empire vs JG11 And Friends vs The North Island Irregulars etc etc.  People helping each other and backstabbing would be rampant.

What I truly think would make most players happy would be 2 teams.  The Winners (populated by the majority of players) and The Losers (populated by AI and people who like to defend).  The Losers would have a constant stream of AI low ENY aircraft that launch whenever a field is getting attacked so the Winners would have something to shoot at/vulch in addition to the buildings.  The players on the Losers side would have a world of enemies attacking their bases to shoot at, and the Winners would get to roll bases and get vulch kills until their hearts were content.  Everybody would win.

Wiley.

[puller]

This thread....

OK...what we have here is a core base of players that made the transition from 2 to 3...you have a vocal minority that are making something out if nothing...I don't have numbers but all I've seen is the rooks losing numbers since 3 came out...the nits have gained around 25 or so "new" players to boost their numbers and we wish have gained back less than 15 returning players...I don't know what else to say...the game is basically the same but to me a lot cooler than 2...I like 3 better...my dogfights look better...the gving in 3 is way better

I don't have any answers...I'll play this game till I can't anymore... But I will be totally pissed if I get placed on another country with or without my squad...