Two sides

[CptTrips]

And they're round based, not long term strategic, which is an enormous difference.

More thoughts....

The main reason BF is 2-sided is because it is AvA.

However, now that I think about it, maybe a reason that works so well is that they are small arena 64 player.  (Don't laugh, AH may get there.  )
If they tried to scatter that with 3-sides they'd probably run into the same problems with fight density and the critical mass for one good battle that 1/3 of the players can't get over to.

 

[Shuffler]

I'll have mashed potatoes and fried okra .   Thank you.

[CptTrips]

I'll have mashed potatoes and fried okra .   Thank you.

Good choice. 

[yipi]

Everyone in our Squad talks all the time about wanting to go to two sides. It should be about what we need to do to get more new players and bring back the ones that quit. New players that get on now it looks really boring to them so lets fix that. If they get on and see fights happening on a smaller map with 2 sides that will get them interested. Can call the sides 'Blue and 'Red' or whatever. The new Offline Missions is a big plus for guys to learn so that they can compete in the Main Arenas. Problem with 3 sides is that if your getting overwhelmed u just go to other side of the map or Vice Versa. With 2 sides you have to stay and fight it out which is the biggest benefit. I think it's time to change. At least lets do an Experimental Arena to try it out with maybe a Medium size map. Where I work we form QIT teams with persons at different levels before we implement the design. I would recommend that HiTech forms a team to at least study it if they haven't done one yet and post a forum on it.

[CptTrips]

I think it's time to change. At least lets do an Experimental Arena to try it out with maybe a Medium size map.

The problem is, that will fail for reasons having nothing to do with 2 vs 3 side.

Players are cattle.  Cattle herd into the main arena.  They don't even think about it.  They just reach up and click the Melee. 

If you want to test it, put 2-sided in the Melee and move 3-side off to a side arena and label it "3-Side".     But that would be equally unfair.

The best way would be to run a "Two-Sided Tuesday" configuration for a month or two in the Melee, then poll to see if people like it.

The real problem though is the code wasn't written to support it, so I guess it's not feasible (Which is a different issue than if it is advantageous. ).

 

[yipi]

Yep I totally agree with you. Have a two sided days see how it goes.

[hitech]

Not going to happen.
HiTech

[CptTrips]

Not going to happen.
HiTech

   Well, there you go.

Neither will peace of earth or goodwill towards men.   (The two are probably not related. )

[Wiley]

And 3-sides does not appear to be preventing a population drop in AH.

I just think that when player populations are below 200-300, the downsides of 3 sides outweigh the downsides of 2 sides.

In a perfect world, the code should be configurable to support 2..N countries as needs dictate.  To my shock, we don't appear to live in a perfect world.

And I disagree.  So here we are.

I just found it funny that what I expected would happen had happened in another game when the possibility had been completely dismissed by some people.  Granted, tech imbalance could've been a factor, but I'd expect if it was there, adding a third country wouldn't inherently fix that. Adding a third country seemed to help with whatever was causing one side to go on that streak though.

As with anything, it's REALLY rare that a single factor affects a situation, but it's a better example than WB IMO.  For one thing, the market changed significantly between then and now.  For another, the community in WB was vastly different from AH.

Like you said about feasibility, if they're going to put in that much effort, "it worked in WBs at a time when 3 would've likely worked as well." and hope isn't a whole lot to recommend it.

More thoughts....

The main reason BF is 2-sided is because it is AvA.

However, now that I think about it, maybe a reason that works so well is that they are small arena 64 player.

That coupled with the fact that a "round" ends in minutes not days.  IMO it's just not comparable.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Like you said about feasibility, if they're going to put in that much effort, "it worked in WBs at a time when 3 would've likely worked as well." and hope isn't a whole lot to recommend it.

In the real world, feasibility is a reality that can't be ignored.

But the trend line has been consistently downward for a decade, so the thought of just doing-what-you've-always-done seems to have risks as well.  Unless you believe in magic. 

[Wiley]

In the real world, feasibility is a reality that can't be ignored.

But the trend line has been consistently downward for a decade, so the thought of just doing-what-you've-always-done seems to have risks as well.  Unless you believe in magic.

The dating sim is sarcasm.  The WT clone is not.

Arena wide strategic combat is not what people are looking for anymore.  In the heyday people were tolerating that aspect of the game until someone else came up with something like WT.  PS2 vs BF is the same difference.  Orders of magnitude difference in demand.  People don't want long term strategery.

About the only thing I could see pulling people into current AH style gameplay is if the game looked and played like Flight Simulator 2020.  Even then, who knows?

And for some, that arena gameplay when it's good is what we want.  Hence why we aren't playing IL2 or WT.

Wiley.

[Traveler]

  Well, there you go.

Neither will peace of earth or goodwill towards men.   (The two are probably not related. )

I think the correct quote is "peace on earth and goodwill towards men." 

[yipi]

Nevermind trying to bring new ideas wont hear from me again ever on the forum. Good luck

[CptTrips]

And for some, that arena gameplay when it's good is what we want.

The Melee isn't the only game-play in AH.  Are you saying Scenarios, TFT, FSO aren't fun? 

Those are much more similar to BF than they are to the Melee.  They have a definable beginning, middle, and end within a fixed time-frame with specified victory conditions.   I'd say events are significantly more engaging than the wandering around aimlessly for days picking your nose activity of the Main.


My dream version of AH would be a hybrid mode very similar to BF.  (Yeah, I know, hate on me.  ) 

Balanced, 2-Sided ,1 hour mini-scenarios with defined victory conditions and limit clock.  Divide up, choose flights, start the clock, take off, fight like Hell at maximum intensity for a 1 hour max sprint.  Boom. Session scoreboard and stats.  Winner or loser, beginning, middle, end within a time frame a play can get through in the time that evening they have to play.  Swap maps and missions.  10 minute intermission.  Again! 

You could get more actual combat time in a setup like that in a night as you do in a month in the Melee.  You could actually see the fruits of your effort within your evening, instead of always leaving things half finished. Players can run if they want, but they'll be losing within the hour.  If they want to win, they'll have to fight for the points.  Ticket-clock is ticking.


I was hoping maybe that was where WO:P was maybe headed, but apparently not.






   

[CptTrips]

I think the correct quote is "peace on earth and goodwill towards men."

Lol.  You think you could get both!!!????!