Two Country Sides or Auto Kick inactive players in the tower

[The Fugitive]

Time to try again then. 

It worked superbly in Warbirds and has worked well in many other games. 

Intransigence is not a virtue in and of itself.

hmmmmmm..... Warbirds, Warbirds...... OH I remember now, thats that game that crashed and burned years ago right? 

The only way a 2 sided war would work is if you control the number of players per side, forcing them to play on one side or the other as they log in. This would kill squad groups because you would never know which side you were going to be on.  I know, you'll say "we took care of that on our own and switched sides to make things even", ya well times change. What worked back them isnt going to work now. Players want to WIN they dont care about an even fight.

well it's not going to happen, so I'm not going to say anything else other than I know what will happen-I have played long enough to be pretty confident in my assumption.

.... and everyone was so positive we would NEVER see a B29 in the game. Never say never.

[CptTrips]

The only way a 2 sided war would work is if you control the number of players per side, forcing them to play on one side or the other as they log in.

Really?  What magical mechanism does 3-sided have to balance numbers that 2-sided wouldn't?

Lower the side switch to 30 min.  Jack-up ENY to Draconian levels so that a a certain point of unbalance even fuel, ord and troop availability are affected.  Numbers will balance.

[Vraciu]

hmmmmmm..... Warbirds, Warbirds...... OH I remember now, thats that game that crashed and burned years ago right? 

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?   

And it has nothing to do with a two-sided arena. 

The only way a 2 sided war would work is if you control the number of players per side, forcing them to play on one side or the other as they log in. This would kill squad groups because you would never know which side you were going to be on.  I know, you'll say "we took care of that on our own and switched sides to make things even",

AH is going to crash and burn because we don’t want to hurt anybody’s feewings.    Sounds like a great plan.

It’s time for squadrons to fight each other sometimes for fun, then, or pick up a frigging clipboard menu to see where their buddies are.

Yes, we switched sides for balance all the time and it worked just fine.    There are plenty of squadrons to spread out and even things.    Individuals like myself will switch for balance.   There are enough of us to do the job. 

ya well times change. What worked back them isnt going to work now. Players want to WIN they dont care about an even fight.

.... and everyone was so positive we would NEVER see a B29 in the game. Never say never.

The irony in this statement is ASTOUNDING.

[Vraciu]

Really?  What magical mechanism does 3-sided have to balance numbers that 2-sided wouldn't?

Lower the side switch to 30 min.  Jack-up ENY to Draconian levels so that a a certain point of unbalance even fuel, ord and troop availability are affected.  Numbers will balance.

Bingo. 

[CptTrips]

Oh, and I wouldn't crow too loudly about WB demise.

When was the last year AH had positive growth in population numbers?  2004? 2006?

Maybe we're just on a shallower glide slope.

[CptTrips]

And AW, that other 3-sided war?  Dead.

[Vraciu]

Oh, and I wouldn't crow too loudly about WB demise.

When was the last year AH had positive growth in population numbers?  2004? 2006?

Maybe we're just on a shallower glide slope.

I marched this death slog in WBs.   I’ve been sounding the alarm on this for years.    Nobody listens.   

At least HT has made some gameplay tweaks to help—like the new “dar” system. 

If we don’t do something to: 1) concentrate the action and 2) retain new players then this game is doomed to linger as a shadow of its former glory.   The end user is seen by many here as wrong.    The veto power of a wallet always wins, regardless.    That’s the issue we face. 

[Shuffler]

From what I hear.... we only have 11 years or so left on this planet anyway.   

[Vraciu]

From what I hear.... we only have 11 years or so left on this planet anyway.   

 

[The Fugitive]

Really?  What magical mechanism does 3-sided have to balance numbers that 2-sided wouldn't?

Lower the side switch to 30 min.  Jack-up ENY to Draconian levels so that a a certain point of unbalance even fuel, ord and troop availability are affected.  Numbers will balance.

Balancing? no, but it does give you options.  Switch to a new front and you can get a different type of fight. 2 sided you only have one front.

Sounds eerily familiar, doesn’t it?   

And it has nothing to do with a two-sided arena. 



AH is going to crash and burn because we don’t want to hurt anybody’s feewings.    Sounds like a great plan.

It’s time for squadrons to fight each other sometimes for fun, then, or pick up a frigging clipboard menu to see where their buddies are.

Yes, we switched sides for balance all the time and it worked just fine.    There are plenty of squadrons to spread out and even things.    Individuals like myself will switch for balance.   There are enough of us to do the job. 



The irony in this statement is ASTOUNDING.

That was the point I was trying to make you always say that "back in the day we would switch sides to even things up". That doesnt work any more there just arent enough players willing to do that. Which also goes along with your statements of how things are different "a two sided war didnt work then, but may work now because things change".

On one side of the coin your saying to try the old idea again because things change, yet on the other side of the coin your saying it will work because we use to do it back then. See?

And AW, that other 3-sided war?  Dead.

Who knows where that one would have gone had EA not killed it. They had a pretty tight following there and the game was continuing to improve as the tech did. There was lots of "hope" that with the money and tech coming in from EA that the game would really take off, but EA only wanted the code and dumped the games as quick as it could.

[Vraciu]

Balancing? no, but it does give you options.  Switch to a new front and you can get a different type of fight. 2 sided you only have one front.

This is not true.

There are times when the only way to switch to a new front is to switch teams entirely because the country you are on is being ignored.   This then exacerbates the ENY cycle and forces you to sit for four hours until you can switch again.   

With two sides EVERY PLAYER can reach the point of attack at any time.    With three sides one country can be (and often is) ignored leaving 1/3 of the players (we can assume equal numbers rather than mass log offs for the sake of argument) with nothing to do.

100% > 67%

That was the point I was trying to make you always say that "back in the day we would switch sides to even things up". That doesnt work any more there just arent enough players willing to do that. Which also goes along with your statements of how things are different "a two sided war didnt work then, but may work now because things change".

You still don’t get it.   You actually MADE my point.   (That’s why it was ironic.). Like it or not things HAVE changed.   So we either change with it or go meet the Dodo.

You are advocating a three-sided arena because it used to work. 

Well... 

ya well times change. What worked back them isnt going to work now.

And you are opposing a two-sided arena because it ALLEGEDLY didn’t work in the past.   

Well...

ya well times change. What worked back them isnt going to work now.

On one side of the coin your saying to try the old idea again because things change, yet on the other side of the coin your saying it will work because we use to do it back then. See?

Pot meet kettle.   On the one side of the coin you’re saying we should NOT try an old idea again because things don’t change, yet on the other side of the coin you’re saying it won’t work because things change.   See?

What we have now does not work and the only excuse for not trying it (other than some coding difficulties that can be overcome with some creative thinking) is the straw man that it will never work.    You’ll never know until you try using CURRENT conditions. 

Hitech can garner support and goodwill by rolling this out as a trial.    People can tough it out for a tour so we can gather data. 

Honestly, I don’t care if it runs every veteran out of the game so long as it brings in more players than it loses.  But I don’t think it will come to that with some advance notice and a request for patience.   

[CptTrips]

Balancing? no,

But that is not what you said.

The only way a 2 sided war would work is if you control the number of players per side, forcing them to play on one side or the other as they log in.

You're implying that 2-sides has some special problem with numbers balance that only forced team assignment would solve.  That is untrue.  2-sides has no problem with numbers balance that 3-sides doesn't already have.  As you now admit.

As to your claim that 3-sides has more options, I disagree when there are low numbers.  With low numbers there may only be enough players for one really great all-out fight like the old days.  That will inevitably be over on one front where 1/3 of the players can't get over to it.  Less fun.

2-sides supports low numbers better.  Any fight that occurs in the arena can be equally accessed by all players.

Like I said, it should be configurable.  When you get the population back up to 500 a night, 3-sides will rock.


 

[The Fugitive]

I agree there are problems, but in the 18 years I have been here Hitech has always said a 2 sided map isnt going to work. He isnt really known for changing his mind on this stuff. Banging your head on getting a 2 sided war in the MA is a waste of time, there are just too many issues with doing it.

Now making adjustment to what we have could help a bit. A setup where ENY checks the number of players and adjust the scaling of the ENY applied would be great. Lower numbers mean a slower change in the ENY change. It would help help when the numbers are lower.  Smaller maps until the numbers go back up. even BUSTR's new maps are too big most of the time these days. They may make for more options, but those options include avoiding other players.

For the most part, I dont think the game really has any problems other than a lack of numbers. The adjustments mentioned are just things to ease game into its death bed, not help it get better. What is needed is for more players to come in, and more players to STAY.

I think the biggest thing would be to make the default setting of the controls mouse and gamepad friendly. Auto set them to make the usable with scaling and buttons setup that mimic other game controls. Sliding the mouse back and forth should make the plane go up and down, but scale it so that a player can actually fly with it strait out of the box. The same goes for gamepads. if that is what they have/want to use make it so it work strait out of the box. Dont chase away these new guys because they cant figure out how to fly in the first 2 minutes.

I think the second biggest thing would be to add a free planeset for the MA. Free planes in the MA is where the new players want to be. Will it generate more conversion to the subscription plan? Maybe, but we wouldnt be a worst off than it is now, but we would have more numbers.

[Vraciu]

I think you are right overall.   

I think smaller maps would be a big help if we are going to keep three sides.   

This is vital.

[CptTrips]

I agree there are problems, but in the 18 years I have been here Hitech has always said a 2 sided map isnt going to work. He isnt really known for changing his mind on this stuff.

<Shug>. In 1999 he told me HTC would never work on another game besides Aces High.


Times change.  Situations change.  Markets change.

Life is change.