Two sides

[FLS]

Is 3-sides saving Aces High?

Straw man makes a lot of convenient easy to refute statements. 

[CptTrips]

Straw man makes a lot of convenient easy to refute statements. 

Are you afraid to answer?

[Shuffler]

Don't put words in my mouth.

MMO's are a social game, social constructs change with time. If what TC stated is true in terms of time frames. It would stand to reason that another study would be needed.


Dale has already given his verdict on the subject, what is happening now is called a conversation.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

From your post that is what it looks like. Simply search the BBS and you will see how he explained it.

[FLS]

Are you afraid to answer?

Who said 3 sides is saving Aces High? Nobody.

It's a false argument that diminishes your credibility.

[guncrasher]

I posted something asking people to think about players in this game.  let me give you some facts:

-you cant force people to play the way you want.  try it and they will log off.

-people want to play the way they see fit, change that they will log off.

-this isnt a furballing game, force people to furball all the time and they will get bored and they will log off.

-it's about fun using ww2 airplanes, your idea of fun isnt everybody's idea of fun

-hitech and I dont speak for him, I think he sees some of what I posted above.

-feel free to post more or less of what I posted above.


semp

[CptTrips]

Who said 3 sides is saving Aces High? Nobody.

It's a false argument that diminishes your credibility.

If you insinuate 2-sides was supposed to have been able to save WB with all its various problems, why wouldn't it be fair to assume 3-sides should be able to save Aces High with all its various problems?


Your unwillingness to answer a simple question diminishes your credibility.

[FLS]

If you insinuate 2-sides was supposed to have been able to save WB with all its various problems, why wouldn't it be fair to assume 3-sides should be able to save Aces High with all its various problems?

...

Because that's just you making up false arguments that you wish were true.

[Puma44]

[FLS]

Two sides works with the right people. So does three sides. As long as you have the right people playing it makes no difference. 

Two sides means joining the gang or getting banged when there's inequality.

Three sides gives you another option.

[CptTrips]

Because that's just you making up false arguments that you wish were true.

Because that's just you deflecting to avoid answering a simple question.

[TequilaChaser]

Should have been reply # 1 to this thread.....

[CptTrips]

Two sides works with the right people. So does three sides. As long as you have the right people playing it makes no difference. 

It's not about the right or the wrong people.  It's about enough or too few people.  You find a way to put 400-500 players back in the arena and my argument over two sides is over.  3-Sides works great with 500 player.  Better even.

Two sides means joining the gang or getting banged when there's inequality.

Wait, now you're insinuating there is never gang-banging or side inequality in a 3-sided design? 

Or you're suggesting that when one side vastly outnumbers the other two sides and is banging, that the low side players should just switch to the winning side?

Look, 2-sided and 3-sided just have the same issues with side balancing.  The mechanism to address count imbalance exist and work equally well (or not) for 2 or 3 sides. Additional mechanism exist to add like hard side balance limits.  Some games even temporarily switch players to sides between "sorties" if needed to balance.  Those are all possible design choices.  Games that make billions use those successfully so don't pretend the world would end.

The issue between 2-sides or 3-sides is about tighter fight density and access to any point on the frontage by all players so you don't end up with one great fight on the map that the numbers will support and 1/3 of the players logged in can't get over to it and have to content themselves with long flights to attach empty bases. 

I'm done.  Believe what you want to believe.  The numbers will eventually resolve the issue one way or another.  Until then, I'll content myself with those (gasp) 2-sided scenarios. 

[Ciaphas]

semp: If you complain that players are spread too thin in the maps.  Maybe try to understand why.  And the problem isn't big maps.  Players themselves can fix that and concentrate on same base.  But why they don't do it?

me: What is your understanding as to why they are spread out?

semp: Answer my question first.

me: It's simple, excessive choice vs. time available, gratification/fulfillment vs. down time to target once one is selected.

Still waiting on your understanding on why people are spread to thin... .

I posted something asking people to think about players in this game.  let me give you some facts:

-you cant force people to play the way you want.  try it and they will log off.

not relevant to this conversation

-people want to play the way they see fit, change that they will log off.

not relevant to this conversation

-this isnt a furballing game, force people to furball all the time and they will get bored and they will log off.

out of all the things posted, this is the only thing you picked up on? There are so many factors that are affecting this game outside the realm of furballing. There appears to be game mechanic issues, training issues, and content issues that the player is aware of and in most cases we all would like to see them resolved. Dale looks at this game from a different perspective than we do, what he doesn't see we might see and vice versa.

-it's about fun using ww2 airplanes, your idea of fun isnt everybody's idea of fun.

fun, that's an interesting concept in this conversation. One could argue that the difference in numbers from say 10 yrs ago and now would indicate that many people are not having fun in the MA and many of those people have either A. cancelled subs, B. Moved to FSO permanently or C. Only fly in scenarios. It begs to question, what was the catalyst that drove people from the MA?  I suspect that there are many reasons but I would place it in four categories: 1. Those that got all huffy that they might need to upgrade their commodore 64 machines to continue playing (which is a completely different conversation) 2. Those that have seen no value added to the stagnant game play of the MA, 3. Those that are getting up there in years and are no longer physically able to fly, and 4. Those that for whatever reason have moved on to greener gaming pastures.

-hitech and I dont speak for him, I think he sees some of what I posted above. not relevant to this conversation

-feel free to post more or less of what I posted above. Same ol knee jerk responses void of any actual depth of conversation


semp

[hitech]

He can code it to disable one side and offset that with ENY adjustments for the remaining two. 

It’s not an insurmountable hurdle. 

Frankly, he’s made a lifetime of money off this game as it is.   He could close it down tomorrow and not miss it. 

We already have two sides with the added benefit of pissing off a third of the players on a daily basis due to their inability to find a fight...

Player retention.

Fewer bases. 

Two sides. 

Any of these three things would be a massive help.

You have just shown how you truly are speaking out your rear sphincter.

how would you have any clue about the financials of aces high or more in particular my personal finances.

your arguments are completely unreasoned anytime somebody disagree with you you just move the goalposts and try to some other reason to prove you're right.

You continually post straw man arguments stating why the way things are with no validation to your assumptions.

you are so narrow mindedly looking at issues that you just want one thing and have no concept of the unintended consequences of your desiree.

Here's one simple unintended consequence. if things were changed to to two sides what is the next thing you think people would ask for.

No one in this thread is even posted the real reasons there are three sides.

the reason is not to spread out gameplay the reason is it gives a much bigger variants of gameplay .
with two sides each map continually is falt exactly the same way. you jump into the arena there's one side to fight there's no ebenflow and variance to the battles as there are with three sides.

As far as not enough players for three sides.
when I learn to play air warrior there were three sides and a Max of 32 players in the arena.

And don't go thinking I just stick my head in the sand saying that everything's alright with AH.

there might be a few mistakes in this typing because I did it all via voice with my phone.

In conclusion blow it out your aromatic rear spincter.

Hitech

[Vraciu]

Point is two sides didn't save WB.

Point is three isn't saving AH.

Point is nothing could save WBs from Wild Bill.