6 hours to change sides

[fufu]

Two likely reasons:  First, CT and AvA had limited plane sets, and each side was limited to a particular country's planes.  Many people refuse to go to an arena where they can't fly their favorite plane.  Second, and probably more important, people go to where the numbers are.  CT, AvA, and player maps were never able to compete with the MA, which had your pick of planes.

It's been quite awhile since I was on AvA staff, but we were able to use three-sided maps for two-sided play.  The third country had to have at least one base available to it.  We would pick one way off in a corner, and disable all planes and GVs at that field.

The only problem I see with at least trying two sides is that the third group of loyal players is going to have to migrate to one of the two sides.

- oldman

[DmonSlyr]

My problem with 2 sides is that I do feel one side would constantly have more players than the other and the complaints wouldnt end over that either. Its not necessarily about 2, 3, or even 4 sides thats the issue. The issue is maps that need to be removed that arent working well for the current #s. Like BowlMA, Oceania, and CraterMA and a couple others like 3 points that just arent working. With 3 teams, the guys who "just want to capture bases" can do that and go hoard around, and allows the other 2 sides to fight. For me I hate being on the hoard team, so id switch to the side thats being double hit and hope the fight is better.

Im with GG on the "what most players want". See for me, you cant say "this is how the gamers are now" when most of the fighter air combat types left due to specific issues that most of us have mentioned. A lot of guys come back and realize just how hard it is now, see the lack of battles in off hours or on their team and go play something else thats more actionable. Action is what most players want. Its been my arguement for a decade. But these huge maps dont do anything to promote fighting on all sides which is why im so vocal about removing them.

Im also thinking a slight adjustment to DARBARs might be in order. If people see a tiny dar they might not roll, but if the dar is lil bigger for 3-5 planes, maybe that would entice more players to roll. I think maps like this ATOLL map on right now are the perfect size. Shorter fights and easier to find where the action is.

[-gg-]

Two likely reasons:  First, CT and AvA had limited plane sets, and each side was limited to a particular country's planes.  Many people refuse to go to an arena where they can't fly their favorite plane.  Second, and probably more important, people go to where the numbers are.  CT, AvA, and player maps were never able to compete with the MA, which had your pick of planes.

It's been quite awhile since I was on AvA staff, but we were able to use three-sided maps for two-sided play.  The third country had to have at least one base available to it.  We would pick one way off in a corner, and disable all planes and GVs at that field.

The only problem I see with at least trying two sides is that the third group of loyal players is going to have to migrate to one of the two sides.

- oldman

That's exactly right about the other arenas and maps. You said it much better than I tried to express that. People want to be where the numbers are at.

As far as the issue of on a two-sided map that one country would have to choose a different country, that's why I suggested that there be two new countries created for that map rotation so that when that map came up it was two different countries other than the normal three so that it doesn't affect anything else. So that when that map came up you would initially either be a signed aside and then could change sides to balance things out or be with your squad but it wouldn't affect what country you were on the other maps.

So that wouldn't disrupt the squads or the balances on any other map. The two-sided map would just be its own new thing that would pop up in the rotation. I think that would be really cool and probably something new that could be fairly easy to try out.

[Oldman731]

It's been quite awhile since I was on AvA staff, but we were able to use three-sided maps for two-sided play.  The third country had to have at least one base available to it.  We would pick one way off in a corner, and disable all planes and GVs at that field.

The only problem I see with at least trying two sides is that the third group of loyal players is going to have to migrate to one of the two sides.

On further reflection, though, there is a more serious problem with this approach.  Once the map is "won," however that may be programmed, the subsequent map reset will require the same effort to turn three countries into two.  We didn't have this issue in AvA because there was no winning the map.

- oldman

[-gg-]

On further reflection, though, there is a more serious problem with this approach.  Once the map is "won," however that may be programmed, the subsequent map reset will require the same effort to turn three countries into two.  We didn't have this issue in AvA because there was no winning the map.

- oldman

I was thinking of this as being only one map. After that map was won, it goes to regular map rotation with the normal maps.

I think it would be a fun thing to try.

[Animl-AW]

 :ahandThe case that isn’t discussed

Let’s cut out technical issues, that do exist, aside

How does 2 countries make it easier to find a fight?
It’s always said but never backed up with details.

Do the masses want this change?
Only a hand full of people ask for this. I think for various reasons, if you took a vote it may not come out in that favor. A lot won’t simply for nostalgic reasons.

Like icon dar, a few are trying to force it on many, that didn’t end well. You cannot afford to lose 10-20 players, you have no buffer for experimental mistakes. How many are you willing to lose?  More people who gamble go home broke than those who take home wins.

What counter balance do you have from one side having 100 players and the other 20 players? Again people flock to where the numbers are and one country controls the map totally forever. It’s not just individuals its large sqds. 3 large sqds decide to go to one side ya just porked the game.

The whole game goes into turmoil mixing map types in rotation every time it comes around.

In the end, even if you dig up a technicality to push it on everyone the man in the seat has to be convinced to shred his baby far from its design and he has to code it.

It comes down to how many players are you willing to lose on an experiment? 
In a nut shell, just saying it fixes a fight problem doesn't cut it.

Major point. I have zero problem finding fights. And if it were true how is it the top pushers of no fights found have high ranking scores? That is a true Oxymoron. Is just not an honest B nor well thought out statement.

If one consistently lands 3-5 kills they are finding fights, point moot. If no fights found how does a player we know land 13 kills? Oldman logs in for 20-30 min and finds 3 fights.
A solution seeking a problem.

Start a test arena and see how it goes. Pushing it on the masses and your milage will vary

Edit: not so ironic pattern the players who push this the most are the same ones who make many false claims on many subjects. They rately prove their claims in any detail.

[Dadtallica]

Everyone will switch sides at map end for the win. Not everyone but it will be enough. That would for sure make the six hours even more relevant.

The decline would go from steady to suddenly sinking. Two sides would get old really fast.

In a two country system, population imbalance becomes much harder to offset and can create prolonged hoarding much easier than now.

The coding work is massive and the juice is not anywhere near worth the squeeze. There is no way the time and resources needed to make that happen would be wroth the trouble.

Some people have been flying the same country and squads for decades and maybe to some that’s not important but to others it’s very important. I would think number one on HTC’s list is making sure not to alienate the long time veteran members of this project. We’ve reached a point where that will always be more important than new players. Maintaining who is here now and perhaps attracting who used to be here will always be much more beneficial than trying to create a new player base.

Even if Dale had the money to spend on this and the people to do it, I would be willing to bet big money that two countries would not even crest the top 10 projects on their list.

If we are looking to speed up the beginning of the end or reach the middle of it sooner… then two countries would be the way to go.

[-gg-]

Everyone will switch sides at map end for the win. Not everyone but it will be enough. That would for sure make the six hours even more relevant.

The decline would go from steady to suddenly sinking. Two sides would get old really fast.

In a two country system, population imbalance becomes much harder to offset and can create prolonged hoarding much easier than now.

The coding work is massive and the juice is not anywhere near worth the squeeze. There is no way the time and resources needed to make that happen would be wroth the trouble.

Some people have been flying the same country and squads for decades and maybe to some that’s not important but to others it’s very important. I would think number one on HTC’s list is making sure not to alienate the long time veteran members of this project. We’ve reached a point where that will always be more important than new players. Maintaining who is here now and perhaps attracting who used to be here will always be much more beneficial than trying to create a new player base.

Even if Dale had the money to spend on this and the people to do it, I would be willing to bet big money that two countries would not even crest the top 10 projects on their list.

If we are looking to speed up the beginning of the end or reach the middle of it sooner… then two countries would be the way to go.

what prevents everyone from switching sides for the map win right now?

The two country map could be ONE MAP in the rotation.

What coding work woukld it entail? 

[LCADolby]

If you are really desperate to see a 2 side war play a bit of IL2 Combat Box or such and go Axis.

And, When the Allies with 7 times your number comes steam rolling through full of Tempests, you may finally understand not only the nature of weak men lop-siding the fight for their ego and low skill requirement gameplay, but also how arguing for 2 sides is a waste of time, effort and clicky-clacking at your keyboard.

[Animl-AW]

what prevents everyone from switching sides for the map win right now?

The two country map could be ONE MAP in the rotation.

What coding work woukld it entail?

Way past done with this subject.

[Animl-AW]

If you are really desperate to see a 2 side war play a bit of IL2 Combat Box or such and go Axis.

And, When the Allies with 7 times your number comes steam rolling through full of Tempests, you may finally understand not only the nature of weak mean lop-siding the fight for their ego and low skill requirement gameplay, but also how arguing for 2 sides is a waste of time, effort and clicky-clacking at your keyboard.

It all looks good on paper, then human nature

Prove you have a problem to begin with. Asking questions to avoid that is moot

[LCADolby]

It all looks good on paper, then human nature

Exactly

[Traveler]

Hitech explained his reasoning here....

https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,361462.msg4811379.html#msg4811379

That explanation is from 2014, 12 years ago when we used to have 600 in an arena,  HighTech will not spend the money to change code now.  probably forgot how to code.  but the number of sides should be reduced to two and the side switching could be cut to half an hour.  But that too will take money to change code and that's not gong to happen.   

[RELIC]

Everyone will switch sides at map end for the win. Not everyone but it will be enough. That would for sure make the six hours even more relevant.

The decline would go from steady to suddenly sinking. Two sides would get old really fast.

In a two country system, population imbalance becomes much harder to offset and can create prolonged hoarding much easier than now.

The coding work is massive and the juice is not anywhere near worth the squeeze. There is no way the time and resources needed to make that happen would be wroth the trouble.

Some people have been flying the same country and squads for decades and maybe to some that’s not important but to others it’s very important. I would think number one on HTC’s list is making sure not to alienate the long time veteran members of this project. We’ve reached a point where that will always be more important than new players. Maintaining who is here now and perhaps attracting who used to be here will always be much more beneficial than trying to create a new player base.

Even if Dale had the money to spend on this and the people to do it, I would be willing to bet big money that two countries would not even crest the top 10 projects on their list.

If we are looking to speed up the beginning of the end or reach the middle of it sooner… then two countries would be the way to go.

Agreed.

[Animl-AW]

No offense
But like I said, it’s not been proven there is even a problem to solve.
It’s much easier to prove there is no true problem.

Everyone here lands kill every time they log in. Many land between 3-13 kills. That’s not even possible if no fights can be found

It’s merely a battle cry for repeat whiners.

Same as calling everyone a cheater having never proven anything.

It’s a mindset, not a fact

<runs away very fast>