GET RID of 3 Country war - It failed

[Ramesis]

Do away with squads and have the game spawn the player into the lowest numbered country.
You want fair, there it is.

Coogan

-1

[Wiley]

I think it's the opposite. People blame 3 sided wars for ganging... but the hanging would be just as bad in a 2 sided war. Except in a 3 sided war the 2 ganging countries eventually have an incentive to fight when they need each others fields to win.

This.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

This.

Wiley.

So if you have one country with 30 players, and eventually the two smaller countries with 15 each decide to join forces against them, how is this different than two sides?

It seems more often it is the country with 30 and the second biggest country with 20 decide to just gang the weaker country with 10 rather than fight each other?  Is that the part that is better than two sides?

And if a great, balanced fight does start somewhere on the map, it is almost always inaccessible by the third country.  Is that the part that's better?  In a two sided war, all fights are accessible by all players.

In either two or three sided war, ENY, possibly supply-ENY,  are the better tools to ensure fair balance.

But it doesn't matter.  It can't be feasibly changed at this point. 

[Wiley]

And if a great, balanced fight does start somewhere on the map, it is almost always inaccessible by the third country.  Is that the part that's better?  In a two sided war, all fights are accessible by all players.

That is the only benefit to 2 sides, and I personally think it would be offset by one side constantly having higher numbers and facerolling the map.

But it doesn't matter.  It can't be feasibly changed at this point.

Yup.  Maybe in the next game.

Wiley.

[Spikes]

In order to have 2 sides you would need a severe match making thing in place. Autobalance or severe ENY and lower switch time to encourage even sides. In a FPS autobalance is fine, in this game, it would not be fine at all.

It is unfortunate for the low number side to get pushed back on both fronts, but the point is once that is done, the two higher countries have nothing to do but to fight eachother, thus splitting their forces and allowing the low country to push back.

[Shuffler]

Humans are the issue..... not 3 sides. Your ideology means nothing to someone who would burn a building.... just to burn it.

[CptTrips]

That is the only benefit to 2 sides, and I personally think it would be offset by one side constantly having higher numbers and facerolling the map.

There is no offset.  The maps are currently, and commonly, being rolled by higher numbers, apparently.  So that statement implies that 3 sides is not suffering that same problem. 

The better tool to adjust that is ENY, and possibly Supply-ENY  cranking up more and more painfully until numbers even out.  When the high number side is reduced to flying DR.I with no bombs, and no troops, and 1/4 fuel against the other side with free ME-262, numbers will balance.  Operant conditioning can work wonders.  Of course, you have to have a reasonable switch timer so players can adjust to get out from under that.  That would work with 2 or 3 sides.  (Note: that won't occur just because one side is losing.  It only kicks in with numbers imbalance.)  That should be cranked up even with 3 sides.  But you do have to allow them to switch so it can have it's intended effect.


Two sides would have at least two main advantages, IMHO.

1. It would have on average a shorter linear frontage thus increasing density along the front for any given number of players.

2. Any fight in the arena is equally accessible by all players.  No ignored teams looking over at a fight they'd really like to get over to and join.


3-sides worked great when you had more players because it tends to spread the fights around on more frontage and that improves server performance.  And with enough players, there are plenty of fights everywhere for everyone. 

At this point in time, spreading players around is probably counter productive.

As far as the argument that it creates ebb and flow, I find that weak.  I've played plenty of games of two-sided Battlefield that had amazing ebb and flow.  I've seen some truly heroic comebacks.

Do two-sided NFL games never have ebb and flow?

Why don't they have 3-side NBA?

Unfortunately, even 3-sides wouldn't make baseball interesting.

Hmmm now 3-sided hockey is something I'd actually pay money to watch. 


But yeah, maybe the next game.     
It doesn't have to BE two-sided.  it should just have the ability to configure two-sided the way you can configure a 512x512 map or a 256x256 map depending on your current needs. 





 

[Wiley]

There is no offset.  The maps are currently, and commonly, being rolled by higher numbers, apparently.  So that statement implies that 3 sides is not suffering that same problem. 

I don't think it's suffering it to the same degree.  Based on what we see in the MA,  IMO the horde or be crushed gameplay would be dialed up to 11 with 2 sides because they only have to worry about 1 front and 1 set of enemies.  With the 3 sides, you see the three sides interacting in multiple ways creating somewhat diversified gameplay versus the horde and roll.

It may not happen as often as we'd like, but it is possible and it does happen.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

I don't think it's suffering it to the same degree. 

How are you measuring that?

Based on what we see in the MA,  IMO the horde or be crushed gameplay would be dialed up to 11 with 2 sides because they only have to worry about 1 front and 1 set of enemies.  With the 3 sides, you see the three sides interacting in multiple ways creating somewhat diversified gameplay versus the horde and roll.

That is an assertion.

I can make another assertion.  if numbers are kept reasonably even by mechanisms that are better able to accomplish that, then what you describe won't matter.

If they all hoard up to take one base at a time, I'll split my same numbers into 4 strike groups and take their undefended bases at 4:1 ratio.  They will have to suffer the attrition of 4:1 base loss, or split up their hoard to defend. 

Yen/Yang.   

[Wiley]

I can make another assertion.  if numbers are kept reasonably even by mechanisms that are better able to accomplish that, then what you describe won't matter.

Well it's just that simple.  The question is how do we get there.  While you're at solving that, can you make it so more people play too?

edit:  Also

If they all hoard up to take one base at a time, I'll split my same numbers into 4 strike groups and take their undefended bases at 4:1 ratio.  They will have to suffer the attrition of 4:1 base loss, or split up their hoard to defend. 

When in the last couple years have you EVER seen that level of coordination on any side in the MA?

Wiley.

[eddiek]

"Do two-sided NFL games never have ebb and flow?

Why don't they have 3-side NBA?

Unfortunately, even 3-sides wouldn't make baseball interesting.

Hmmm now 3-sided hockey is something I'd actually pay money to watch."

I think I know what you were trying to get at, but none of those are even comparable to AH.
Each of those sports have rules on how many players are on a team, how many are on the field/court/rink during play.
AH has none of those rules.  If AH did the deal where a person was automatically logged onto the country with lower number to keep it even, you might be able to make the above comparison.
I think everyone has accurately touched on potential problem areas to some extent, based on their experience and perspective.
Personally, I would like to see the playable area (number of sectors available for play) expand and contract based on the number of people in the arena.  Watched my son playing several online games in which the fighting area decreased in size as the matches went along.  Something like that "might" work if it funneled players into contact with one another and made them fight.
I would also like to see if the ENY could be tweaked so if a country has overwhelming numbers advantages, their planeset, especially bombers, be curtailed until the numbers even out.
The disparity in numbers could be addressed by either strengthening targets on the lower number sides, and reducing the hardness of the higher numbered country(ies).
Any way you look at it, there would be a ton of coding by HiTech to modify stuff, and bugs to work out, and players threatening to quit, etc.
Everyone wants to their own thing, and from what I understood of what HiTech has said, he wants it that way.  From what I've seen the past couple years, people want to hit undefended bases with little opposition, or, send the "horde" over and just overwhelm the enemy (imagine an NFL game where one team put 11 players on the field, and the other sent 22 or 33 players).  The latter is why I left the Bishops about a month ago, just not interested in flying with a horde (actually heard a couple players saying "let's go horde a base"). 
The 3 country concept definitely hasn't "failed", it is the players who make it appear that way.  I find fights against both Bish and Rooks each time I log in, just look at the map, pick a base, and go fight.

[The Fugitive]

How are you measuring that?


That is an assertion.

I can make another assertion.  if numbers are kept reasonably even by mechanisms that are better able to accomplish that, then what you describe won't matter.

If they all hoard up to take one base at a time, I'll split my same numbers into 4 strike groups and take their undefended bases at 4:1 ratio.  They will have to suffer the attrition of 4:1 base loss, or split up their hoard to defend. 

Yen/Yang.   

This is another problem, very rarely do you see someone step up as the "General" and lead, let alone have players follow.

To many splinter groups running around willy nilly.

[Wiley]

This is another problem, very rarely do you see someone step up as the "General" and lead, let alone have players follow.

To many splinter groups running around willy nilly.

Fly nit.  There are plenty of generals with all kinds of ideas what people should be doing at all times.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

While you're at solving that, can you make it so more people play too?

Well.  That's the bigger question and makes the other moot. 

If you put 500 players back in that arena, 3-sides is a great format.  Superior even.

And like I said, I can totally believe the assumption is too baked into the code to alter at this point.  And if you did, it might have advantages for those who are left, but isn't going to put hundreds more back in the arena.

[CptTrips]

(imagine an NFL game where one team put 11 players on the field, and the other sent 22 or 33 players). 

Lets separate the numbers balance problem.  That sucks with 2 or 3 sides.  I don't buy any magical benefit to 3-sides in a numerically unbalanced case.

Forced side balancing is an option that many games take, and some handle it well.  Battlefield will side balance but still keep a "Party" of 5 guys together in the same squad most of the time.  It might move squads around to balance, but in 90% cases will keep them together.  In some cases a squad member will have to get pulled over to the other side temporarily, but it will pull him back automatically as soon as a slot opens.  But a "party" is a max of 5 players.  It's a well thought out system, but not one I'd necessarily recommend for AH.

For AH, I think numbers balance could be achieved by a reasonable switch time, combined with aggressive ENY, combined with supply-ENY so that at certain imbalances, ordnance, fuel, troops, start getting affected as well has plane choice.  That can be done even with 3-sides I believe. (I'd leave hardness alone.  That would be confusing.)

So once count balance has been take out of the equation, the  advantages of 3 sides start looking pretty weak against the advantages of 2 sides given the current player count. 

IMHO.