Two sides

[CptTrips]

The strawman was your attempt to imply someone claimed 2-sides would magically never have side balancing issues that need to be managed.

Not at all what I said.  What I've been saying all along is you'd wind up with constant one-sided battles with one side being the "winners" and the other side being the "losers".  Oddly similar to what happened with H and G.

Wiley.

Does 3-sides ever have side balance issues?

[Wiley]

I think they should go to a single side! Then we can roll maps really quickly!

Turn it into a co-op vs AI game so we can have a token resistance as we roll each base and all the human players win. 

Does 3-sides ever have side balance issues?

We both know the answer to that.  Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped?  When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

We both know the answer to that.  Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped?

Are you saying similar has never happened with 3-sides?

When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.

You'll have to provide a direct quote for that.  I've never said that. 2-sides has the same side balancing issues as 3-sides.  No more, no less.
Having a third side have virtually no effect.  ENY is the proper mechanism.

Does ENY not work with 2-sides?

I would suggest ENY encouraging side balancing up to a point, and at some extreme point (like BF) then new players can't enter the high side or switch to the high side.

3-sides would have no advantage over that.  And balanced sides doesn't promise there won't be rolling anyway.  I've been in plenty of BF matches perfectly balanced numerically where one side was still steam-rolling the other.  War is Hell.

[Wiley]

Are you saying similar has never happened with 3-sides?

No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map.  Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.

You'll have to provide a direct quote for that.  I've never said that. 2-sides has the same side balancing issues as 3-sides.  No more, no less.
Having a third side have virtually no effect.  ENY is the proper mechanism.

Does ENY not work with 2-sides?

Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now?  I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?

I would suggest ENY encouraging side balancing up to a point, and at some extreme point (like BF) then new players can't enter the high side or switch to the high side.

Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?

3-sides would have no advantage over that.  And balanced sides doesn't promise there won't be rolling anyway.  I've been in plenty of BF matches perfectly balanced numerically where one side was still steam-rolling the other.  War is Hell.

Nope.  But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.

Wiley.

[Vraciu]

That's impossible.  I have been assured ad nauseum that this would never happen with a two sided war in a game similar to AH.

Wiley.

It can be easily mitigated in a way that's more effective than what we have now which is a de facto two-sided war where a third of the players are completely ignored. 

THIS DOESN'T WORK ANY MORE.

[Vraciu]

Turn it into a co-op vs AI game so we can have a token resistance as we roll each base and all the human players win. 

We both know the answer to that.  Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped?  When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.

Wiley.

If they want to roll the map in P-40Bs more power to them.   I'm always happy to club baby seals outnumbered ten to one.   Bring it.

[Vraciu]

No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map.  Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.

Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now?  I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?


Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?

Nope.  But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.

Wiley.

Three sides allows one side to be ignored by the others. 

Two sides allow EVERYONE to meet the point of attack.

[snugar109]

I think we should go 8 sides!!!!!

I prefer 6 really since we are in a chess theme to start with

[Wiley]

If they want to roll the map in P-40Bs more power to them.   I'm always happy to club baby seals outnumbered ten to one.   Bring it.

They'll do it.  1v10 odds don't result in a victory regardless of plane type unless the 10 are monumentally dim.

it will focus those 10v1 odds as the only fight on the map, so you either get to be one of the horde winners, or you get to be one of the losers.  I think you guys vastly overestimate the people who will sign up to be the losers.

Wiley.

[perdue3]

Two sides usually have more problems than three. Luckily, we have a system in place to balance. The problem with that system is it does not really work with the terribly low numbers we now have in the MA. If your side outnumbers the rest of the arena, you have to fly weak aircraft, switch sides, or log off. I think that is fair. It is not  fair if your side has 8 players, and the other two combine to 4. The system was designed to deal with hundreds of players, not a dozen. The ENY system needs to amended or adjusted, not abolished.

Two sides could potentially remedy the problem. However, I fear the same problem would exist but on a more severe scale. One side would always dominate and if you force folks to join the low side they simply won't play. Thus, one side will essentially never be able to fly P-51D's and the other will never win a map.

[Vraciu]

It is applicable because it is a two sided war versus a three sided war. Sure, the games are different, but the concepts are the same. Heroes and Generals had a two sided war unlike Aces High. It was hardly balanced. Then, they switched to a three sided war which is now much better, but still with problems. I am not sure how you find the two not directly comparable unless you are merely looking at game type.

AvA is empty because of other reasons, not side numbers. 

And if we keep going like this we will have an empty three-sided arena to go with it.

We had a popular AvA in WBs that for some strange reason became empty overnight and in its place the two-sided Main became the go-to arena.   It was a blast.   We never had any of these apocalyptic problems everyone on here uses an excuse to stick with something that doesn't work at current levels. 

You can blast me all you like, but the fact remains that an arena with three-sides now causes more problems than it solves.

[Vraciu]

They'll do it.  1v10 odds don't result in a victory regardless of plane type unless the 10 are monumentally dim.

it will focus those 10v1 odds as the only fight on the map, so you either get to be one of the horde winners, or you get to be one of the losers.  I think you guys vastly overestimate the people who will sign up to be the losers.

Wiley.

I would rather have 10:1 than 0:1.


And Captain Trips already explained why your doom and gloom argument will not happen.  Hitech has all the tools necessary to make sides balance in a two-country war.

Keep doing it this way and it will be academic all too soon.

[perdue3]

AvA is empty because of other reasons, not side numbers. 

And if we keep going like this we will have an empty three-sided arena to go with it.

We had a popular AvA in WBs that for some strange reason became empty overnight and in its place the two-sided Main became the go-to arena.   It was a blast.   We never had any of these apocalyptic problems everyone on here uses an excuse to stick with something that doesn't work at current levels. 

You can blast me all you like, but the fact remains that an arena with three-sides now causes more problems than it solves.

I misread dude. I thought you were talking about H&G being not directly comparable. I went back and read it, removed my post and got back on topic. My bad.

[Vraciu]

Two sides usually have more problems than three. Luckily, we have a system in place to balance. The problem with that system is it does not really work with the terribly low numbers we now have in the MA. If your side outnumbers the rest of the arena, you have to fly weak aircraft, switch sides, or log off. I think that is fair. It is not  fair if your side has 8 players, and the other two combine to 4. The system was designed to deal with hundreds of players, not a dozen. The ENY system needs to amended or adjusted, not abolished.

Two sides could potentially remedy the problem. However, I fear the same problem would exist but on a more severe scale. One side would always dominate and if you force folks to join the low side they simply won't play. Thus, one side will essentially never be able to fly P-51D's and the other will never win a map.

Well, we never had these issues in WB.    Maps ebbed and flowed.   People switched for balance.   It was a dynamic environment.    I also don't think we even had ENY, either.

[Vraciu]

I misread dude. I thought you were talking about H&G being not directly comparable. I went back and read it, removed my post and got back on topic. My bad.

No worries, bro.