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

[Vraciu]

We all understand how much you dislike Google, Microsoft, but the customer base uses what is delivered on their machines, they just use what ever that works for them.  You may have no trouble using your Duckduckgo to find what you want, but the majority of the potential customer base is using what they got and as several have pointed out, they can't find a listing for AH using the tools that came on their machine.

I hate google.  I tried ddg and didn’t like it either.  Now I’m using Bing.  We will see...

[Skuzzy]

Then what is the matter?

Here are a couple of HiTech's replies.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390473.msg5188686.html#msg5188686
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390589.msg5188631.html#msg5188631

[DmonSlyr]

IMO, players don't stay long because they enter the MA, take off, and have no idea where or what they are doing. Then they get battered in the dog eat dog MA. The distance to find the fight. Having to re-roll every time which a new stick's patients as they take 20 minutes to find a con, only to die quickly and have to do it all over again. That's why H2H really attracted me. I could fight quickly. Even if I died a lot. The MA is a whole nother level. Unfortunately the Furball arenas just haven't been good enough and the #s remain at 0, which means no one will go in there. I think the training videos and all of that is good. Learning how to set up your JS, find a find a fight, and not just waste your time floating in space, is what make it very hard for new players.

[FLOOB]

Here are a couple of HiTech's replies.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390473.msg5188686.html#msg5188686
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,390589.msg5188631.html#msg5188631

Thanks bruvah

[Skuzzy]

We all understand how much you dislike Google, Microsoft, but the customer base uses what is delivered on their machines, they just use what ever that works for them.  You may have no trouble using your Duckduckgo to find what you want, but the majority of the potential customer base is using what they got and as several have pointed out, they can't find a listing for AH using the tools that came on their machine.

You completely misunderstood my intent.  My intent was to show Google does not have much of the way of search information from me as I do not use them, or rarely use them.

[Dundee]

This was obvious when I created my first terrain. I experimented with a majority of airfields inside of 25 miles instead of all evenly spaced at 25 miles. Our smaller numbers don't need long transit times to keep us from super hoarding anymore. My latest design I just submitted has almost all feilds at the minimum of 19 miles. I suspect Hitech will only allow 13 miles on a setup like the center islands of NDisles and my Oceania as one off contained quick combat areas. This time around I did a 3 sector pond for quick task group combat as my experiment into game play design for AH3. My first two terrains were filled with experiments to understand how to evolve AH3 to address the needs of smaller numbers.

Anything more and we become War Thunder which is not what Aces High is.

I think when maps are turned over in less than 24 hours there is a real problem with the map......or is it the player base.... or a combination of both.

[Vraciu]

I think when maps are turned over in less than 24 hours there is a real problem with the map......or is it the player base.... or a combination of both.

Two-sided war, and harden the bases as more are taken so that the last push takes a lot of effort. 

What we have now is a two-sided war disguised as three.

[Skuzzy]

Two-sided war, and harden the bases as more are taken so that the last push takes a lot of effort. 

What we have now is a two-sided war disguised as three.

Let me toss some numbers at you and maybe you will understand why 3 sides is better.

Take 60 players total.
Now, in a 3 sided war, there could be 20 players per country.  Giving each 20 player country 40 potential targets to shoot at.

Now, in a 2 sided war, there could be 30 players per country.  Giving each 30 player country 30 potential targets to shoot at.

Get it?

So when you all start coming back and saying the countries are not that balanced and yet complain about no targets to shoot at,.....the solution should become apparent.

You want more targets to shoot at?  Sooooo....

[yes, I am trying to lead that stubborn horse to water....]

[Vraciu]

Let me toss some numbers at you and maybe you will understand why 3 sides is better.

Take 60 players total.
Now, in a 3 sided war, there could be 20 players per country.  Giving each 20 player country 40 potential targets to shoot at.

Now, in a 2 sided war, there could be 30 players per country.  Giving each 30 player country 30 potential targets to shoot at.

Get it?

So when you all start coming back and saying the countries are not that balanced and yet complain about no targets to shoot at,.....the solution should become apparent.

You want more targets to shoot at?  Sooooo....

[yes, I am trying to lead that stubborn horse to water....]

No, you are just (gently) insulting us.   (Okay maybe not...)

I'll give you another scenario (that's much more common).   No matter how many players you have on the three sides if the war is on a front that doesn't meet your own then you have nothing to do but take empty bases.

The Nits and the Bish fight it out on the other side of the map and the Rooks get to twiddle thumbs.   That's what usually happens.    So if you switch sides to find action you get ENY'd and stuck for four hours.

The numbers are simply too diluted for three sides at the moment.   I've played three-sided (AH) and two-sided (WB) arenas with these numbers and the two-sided provided more action.    My opinion.   It's worth about as much as you can sell it for--which is not a nickel.      

1) If two sides is not the answer then the obvious solution is to drive up numbers, and that mystery is still being solved.

2) The other is to funnel action via the map structure, which we see Bustr doing.

(I still can't help but think two sides would concentrate the fighting until we get back into the higher participation levels of previous years.  Action breeds interest.)

[Skuzzy]

What you just mentioned has little to do with the number of sides and more to do with how players are playing the game.  The number of sides will not change that.  They still will play the game they way they are playing now, but now you will have forced fewer people into confronting them which really serves to exacerbate the situation.

[Vraciu]

What you just mentioned has little to do with the number of sides and more to do with how players are playing the game.  The number of sides will not change that.

How could it not?

If an attack occurs on my front it can always be opposed.

If it occurs half way across the map on the other guy's front I can certainly join in but I'll need my drop tanks and a lot of time to get there.

This is an unfortunate reality lately.

[Vraciu]

What you just mentioned has little to do with the number of sides and more to do with how players are playing the game.  The number of sides will not change that.  They still will play the game they way they are playing now, but now you will have forced fewer people into confronting them which really serves to exacerbate the situation.

(I missed your edit, sorry.)

I don't see how it forces fewer people to confront them.

Let's look at it this way:  If it's 30/30/30 and the first two 30s are fighting all the way across the map on THEIR front and not mine then that's 30 vs 30 with 30 sitting around.   If you switch that to two fronts now you have 45 vs 45.   

45 > 30, and 90 > 60.

I understand the balance concerns, but surely that can be worked out by the players.  I know we did it all the time in Brand X.

Any way, just thinking out loud, not trying to be confrontational.  Obviously numbers drive everything and that's where the brain power needs to be directed (how to get new players to stay).

[Skuzzy]

You are painting with a very specific brush.  I could counter that quite easily, but then it just gets into specific situations.

Your original specific brush was about people not wanting to fight and that is not going to change with number of sides.

If 30 people do not want to fight, then those 30 are not going to fight no matter the number of sides.

Mathematically, increasing the odds of finding a player wanting to fight is going to be achieved with higher numbers of targets to shoot at.  With 1:1 you lose any chance of that happening.

Yes, you can come up with specific situations where any scenario will fail, but for the most part the best you can hope for is to have more chances to shoot at something, and not less.

[Wiley]

You are painting with a very specific brush.  I could counter that quite easily, but then it just gets into specific situations.

It is a specific situation, but it is not an uncommon one in the arena between 8 and midnight eastern.  The side with no action may change, but it happens often enough in a week to be annoying.

Wiley.

[Skuzzy]

It is a specific situation, but it is not an uncommon one in the arena between 8 and midnight eastern.  The side with no action may change, but it happens often enough in a week to be annoying.

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.