2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design

[Arlo]

Wut? 

I'm pretty sure I had replied to Wiley.

Ah. My bad. You did. Still, feel free. 

[Arlo]

Can't we all just...... act like you are responding to us?


Now I must slap you with a dead trout.    neeeee

[FLS]

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous. 
...

What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.

[Shuffler]

What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.

Your argument has been deemed argumentative just for arguments sake and we will argue that point until you run out of argus or ments. At which point we will poke you with a used toadstool.

[CptTrips]

What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.

I think Caldera explained that sufficiently.

Refer to post #31

[Shuffler]

I think Caldera explained that sufficiently.

What the heck kind of bait do you use to catch those?

[FLS]

I think Caldera explained that sufficiently.

Refer to post #31

He said people don't care about two sides enough to go to a different arena. 

[CptTrips]

He said people don't care about two sides enough to go to a different arena. 

Would people desire a 3-sided arena enough to follow it to the Special Events?

Yep.  Disingenuous.

[FLS]

Would people desire a 3-sided arena enough to follow it to the Special Events?

Yep.  Disingenuous.

Try insulting me if you don't have an argument.  Mind the irony.   

The real issue is what do you want to do that you can't do now?

[CptTrips]

Try insulting me if you don't have an argument.  Mind the irony.   

The real issue is what do you want to do that you can't do now?

Try reading it again.  I said your "argument" was disingenuous. 

The bottom line is that you know how the herd mentality works, but you're trying to pretend that you don't.

The test is simple:

Put a 2-side in the Main.
Put the 3-sided in the Special Events Arena.

If there is no herd mentality, and everyone prefers 3-sided, then the Special Events will be full and the Main empty. 
No one is being deprived.  The 3-sided is right there in the Special Events Arena.  Go play in it.

Would you agree that is a fair test?  If not, why not?

[FLS]

Because I never said people prefer 3 sides.

[CptTrips]

Because I never said people prefer 3 sides.

Ah now we are getting somewhere.

It might be interesting to know, wouldn't it?

But also, would the above be a fair test?

[FLS]

You have no skin in the game. What if it's a disaster?

[CptTrips]

You have no skin in the game. What if it's a disaster?

You didn't answer the question.  Would it be a fair test?

Why would it be a disaster?  Anyone who wants would just go play the normal 3-side in the Special Events, right?
Being in the Special Events Arena wouldn't prevent anyone from going in there right? 

[The Fugitive]

So I was first thinking that ENY wasn't very successful in getting people to switch to the lower side, but I can see how it would be successful in handicapping people who choose to stay on the larger side.  So I concede that point to you.

But then I think ENY would solve many of the perceived weaknesses of a 2-sided area as well.

As far as your other points of it removing choices, other than the choice of playing for the third team, I just don't see it being any different than when we had higher player/front mileage density due to having 650 players.  Instead of having more players, you are just increasing the density by shortening the front lines.

You are hardly shortening the front lines by going to a 2 sided war. Your example went from what 1.6 to 1.9? Yup, big jump there. 

You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front.  I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook. 

But in a 2 sided war you will be forcing players to one side or the other as they log in to continually try to balance the sides. Doing so will split squads/friends/groups, again Forcing them to switch side IF they have not done so with in the 6 hour limit. As the "social" side of the game is a big thing for most players that is a big limitation that your adding in. How can that be better over all for the game?