I love this game but no other game I play has me tabbing out to fill time in

[Wiley]

That's just it.  Reducing the number of sides is not going to make things better.  In fact, it could make it worse.

So you have 30 vs 30, but half of one side does not want to fight, then you are stuck in a lopsided fight where the other side cannot find anyone to shoot at and you are overwhelmed by their numbers.

3 sides actually reduces the potential for that to happen.

Again, this goes to how players are playing the game and not about the number of sides.

That's my main concern with a 2 sided war is the base takers gravitating to one side and the two sides basically wind up being the "Winners" and the "Losers".  And that might even be a likely scenario.

There are nights though when overwhelming enemy odds would be a welcome sight for me over the maximum 4 planes (it's actually 2) worth of bardar on my fronts.

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

That's my main concern with a 2 sided war is the base takers gravitating to one side and the two sides basically wind up being the "Winners" and the "Losers".  And that might even be a likely scenario.

There are nights though when overwhelming enemy odds would be a welcome sight for me over the maximum 4 planes (it's actually 2) worth of bardar on my fronts.

Wiley.

There are mechanisms to prevent that.  I don't understand why this is such a concern any way.   I've never had this problem anywhere else.   People switch for balance.    The ENY hammer would actually be useful in this situation, too.

[Wiley]

People switch for balance.

I sure don't see it.  The vast majority here have their chesspiece underoos welded on tight.

Wiley.

[TheBug]

I think it would be great to switch to two sides just to see the drama on which one gets the axe.   

[Wiley]

I think it would be great to switch to two sides just to see the drama on which one gets the axe.   

Oh they'd have to change the names, not just drop one.  There'd still be plenty of drama though over "I've been (insert country here) for almost 20 years blah blah blah.  How will I ever know which side is morally superior now? blah blah blah"

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

I sure don't see it.  The vast majority here have their chesspiece underoos welded on tight.

Wiley.

Two-sides changes that dynamic dramatically.

Also, most don't switch because of the four-hour rule.

In any case, I'd rather be outnumbered by one side than ignored by two.

[TheBug]

Oh they'd have to change the names, not just drop one. 

Boring... 

I say a map reset at Friday 8pm EST, side that wins the map gets to pick the chess piece that goes.

That'll get people fighting. 

[Vraciu]

Boring... 

I say a map reset at Friday 8pm EST, side that wins the map gets to pick the chess piece that goes.

That'll get people fighting.

Hehehhehehe!   

[Wiley]

Boring... 

I say a map reset at Friday 8pm EST, side that wins the map gets to pick the chess piece that goes.

That'll get people fighting. 

Heh!   Not bad!

Two-sides changes that dynamic dramatically.

Based on what?  And HT's old game doesn't apply because the communities are vastly different.

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

Heh!   Not bad!

Based on what?  And HT's old game doesn't apply because the communities are vastly different.

Wiley.

Based on experience.

And again, I'd take being outnumbered to being ignored.

[Wiley]

Based on experience.

And again, I'd take being outnumbered to being ignored.

And that experience came from... WBs.

Honestly I would too but HTC's concerns are not dismissible.

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

And that experience came from... WBs.

Honestly I would too but HTC's concerns are not dismissible.

Wiley.

There's not much difference here than there, except that things have become quite a bit more toxic in AH lately.  I think people are getting frustrated again by the lower numbers.  We saw this right before the Steam boost lifted everyone's spirits.  People were much more antagonistic and chippy compared to their normal selves...

[Wiley]

There's not much difference here than there

I disagree.  Over there a lot higher proportion of the people were a lot more interested in playing a game against other people rather than horde rolling the other side unopposed.  They could still be dweeby AF about it, but they were generally there to PvP.

Wiley.

[FESS67]

Skuzzy,

With all due respect sir you are applying a mathematical solution to a problem that requires a practical solution.

The fact is with a 3 side war in the current game, even with 60 players a side, one of those sides is often left with nothing to do other than bomb empty bases in the hope the enemy will break away from the fight on their other front.

Truth is too many times we look at the map and see big dar bars over the other side as we twiddle our thumbs.

Kinda like the third wheel on a date.

[Vraciu]

I disagree.  Over there a lot higher proportion of the people were a lot more interested in playing a game against other people rather than horde rolling the other side unopposed.  They could still be dweeby AF about it, but they were generally there to PvP.

Wiley.

Could be.   I tend to think it is the same market segment made up of the same bell curve of players and hiders.   Limit the horde to 25% fuel and no good rides and they'll balance up right quick.  Or even better, make it harder to take bases as you get closer to winning.   At least that way the horde has to work for it.