Two sides

[hazmatt]

I'm sure it was covered somewhere here but I missed it.

What was the reasoning we can't have smaller maps?

[CptTrips]

I'm sure it was covered somewhere here but I missed it.

What was the reasoning we can't have smaller maps?

I think smaller maps, with proportionally fewer bases would help.  I'd hope Hitech would be willing to reduce the required field spacing to 1/2 sector to increase the action:transit ratio.

I think one issue you'd have to design around would be causing to the strats and HQ to be too easy to drop in such tight spaces.  You might have to pull them out from the center mass of fields and end up with a kind of hub and spoke configuration. 

Maybe an  island map would be ideal for this with a central continent and archipelagos extending out to an HQ island that could also host a bomber base. 

[Vraciu]

Point Counterpoint to ACHOO :

The world is round

 

 

 

[SPKmes]

I blame apple.... before the regeneration of apple people knew how to make choices for themselves...

[CptTrips]

I blame apple.... before the regeneration of apple people knew how to make choices for themselves...

But people are making choices for themselves.  That's why there are fewer and fewer players every year.

Except for the players we are losing by natural causes.  I wonder how many games out there are losing an appreciable percentage of their player base to old age. 

[Ramesis]

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. 

Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be 
 

[DmonSlyr]

Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be 

Map taking should correlate into the furballing, bomb runs, and tank support fights. That's how the good battles happen that keep people in the game. The battle to take bases is the most important aspect but good battles for bases will have all the parts of the game in the main battle. That's why I think zones worth higher perks in areas of strategic importance might create more battles. The maps should not be so big that small 2 person fights are scattered around the map. Areas of base clusters might work out better that each have their own strats and VH bases. Would make for a lot of fun.

[SPKmes]

But people are making choices for themselves.  That's why there are fewer and fewer players every year.

Except for the players we are losing by natural causes.  I wonder how many games out there are losing an appreciable percentage of their player base to old age. 

Some are for sure... many many more are guided... sad reality of this time

[Vraciu]

Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be 

The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.

[CptTrips]

Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...

I don't understand your logic.  How do you think having 2-sides would prevent you from taking a base?

Are you saying two sides would make it less likely you could take an undefended base?

I'm sure somewhere along the front of even a 2-sided map you can find an undefended base to take if you want.  You just might have to hurry a little more.

[guncrasher]

The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.

You mean force people to furball.   Players are gonna play which ever way they want.

The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.   

Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.

semp

[Ciaphas]

The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.   

It's crazy how having to many options can be  counter productive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vraciu]

You mean force people to furball.   Players are gonna play which ever way they want.

The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.   

Yeah.   Let's try and encourage people to sigin up/stay in a combat game where everyone avoids combat.  Brilliant plan.

If Hitech listens to you he will have six subscribers left, and most of them are posting in this thread. 

Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.

semp

That's happening more and more every day already.  Combat avoidance is "popular" by default, kinda like being the last cannibal on the Island.  The warriors have moved on.   New ones see nothing of interest and leave. 

[Vraciu]

It's crazy how having to many options can be  counter productive.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

When a gourmet burger joint starts serving pizza, Japanese Tepanyaki, and spaghetti it is a sure sign of over-diversification.   Airlines don't sell cars for a reason.

[CptTrips]

Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.

So what you are saying is that by denying players smaller maps with shorter flight times, you are wanting to force them to play the way you want them to by forcing boring long flights to empty bases?

Why is forcing larger maps on players that want smaller maps different than forcing smaller maps on people that want larger maps?

And aren't you forcing 3 sides on people that want two?

Any change you make or don't make , whether making smaller maps or larger maps or keeping them  the same, or go 2-sided or stay 3-sided is always going to force something on someone that doesn't like it.