THE FINAL SOLUTIONS

[49ZERO]

Free to play cost me over 100 dollars a month and I don't care aslong as I'm having fun. Taking my wife out to dinner cost me 120 dollars and I'm good with that aswell. Hell just going to a bar is far more expensive than this game is but that is not the point. More players more word of mouth more players more revenue more players more fun.

[Vraciu]

I admire Dale sticking to his honest business plan while other games bait and switch an intellectually immature customer source. The only reason I suggest a 'free plane/vehicle of the week' option is to try to help wean the FTP addicted player off that.

+1 for the reasoning.   I'd add it is also to give those of us who *DO* pay more stuff to shoot at.

[Vraciu]

More players more word of mouth more players more revenue more players more fun.

Bingo.

If x% will pay to sub then you drive revenue from that x% by increasing total numbers.

Critical mass has a value all its own.

[FLS]

Because they just do.  If they don't then ENY will crush them.

As it is this is a de facto two-sided war with three chess pieces.

It will never be changed so no use discussing it.   

So ENY works with 2 countries but not with 3?

But it doesn't work with the de facto 2 sided war, it requires an actual 2 sided war?

I missed the evidence supporting that theory.

If you assume that the sides will usually be unbalanced what would be the best theoretical solution?

I find the thread title politically offensive. 

A WW2 game thread could have a better title.   

You have to realize that we are in the free to play era. The competition for players is more than ever. Sometimes you need to bait and wait and I believe most gamers would be drawn to the mid and late planes and tanks eventually. As of side balance if one side had eny the other would not have a 3rd country spoiler. The battles would be bigger and defense more intense.

Why does the pay arena always have more players than the free arena?

[Lusche]

I find the thread title politically offensive. 

I actually was quite irritated when I read the title on a WW2 war game forum...

[49ZERO]

I give up see you all later in a few months. Try to do something constructive is pointless.

[FLS]

I give up see you all later in a few months. Try to do something constructive is pointless.

Many things are pointless but discussing ideas for the game isn't one of them.

If you can't defend your idea maybe it's not a good idea. 

[BuckShot]

Good.  Bring your friends so the rest of us can shoot you down.

I'll get a couple of my squaddies to re-up and that will more than offset your cancellation.

You missed the point, it would be bad for the game....oh, and the 109f4 is more of a match for the 51 than most realize.

[Lusche]

I give up see you all later in a few months. Try to do something constructive is pointless.

What exactly did you expect or hope for?
And remember, in the end it's not us players you have to convince of an idea...

[Lusche]

....oh, and the 109f4 is more of a match for the 51 than most realize.

It certainly is... as long as the Pony pilot messes up or plays along... 

[Arlo]

Many things are pointless but discussing ideas for the game isn't one of them.

If you can't defend your idea maybe it's not a good idea. 

^ This.

[Vraciu]

So ENY works with 2 countries but not with 3?

But it doesn't work with the de facto 2 sided war, it requires an actual 2 sided war?

I missed the evidence supporting that theory.

If you assume that the sides will usually be unbalanced what would be the best theoretical solution?

A WW2 game thread could have a better title.   

Why does the pay arena always have more players than the free arena?

Not gonna' debate you on it.  Not worth my time.  It will never change any way.  I stand by my statement.  It's a two-sided war, two against one.  Three sides of  30+30 against 30 is a far cry from two sides of 60 vs 30.   Such a simple concept. 

[Vraciu]

You missed the point, it would be bad for the game....oh, and the 109f4 is more of a match for the 51 than most realize.

Who said anything about the F4?   

Bring it.  You'll resubscribe in no time. 

[FLS]

Not gonna' debate you on it.  Not worth my time.  It will never change any way.  I stand by my statement.  It's a two-sided war, two against one.  Three sides of  30+30 against 30 is a far cry from two sides of 60 vs 30.   Such a simple concept.

Feel free to stop posting.  And good luck with that.

I haven't seen any complaints that the 3 sides all have the same number of players or wishes for a 2 sided 60 vs 30 arena. I expect simple concepts to make more sense. Perhaps something is missing.

[zack1234]

I find the thread title politically offensive. 

I though it was a topic about the war, then found out it was the usually gibberish