2 countrys instead of 3, and more realism on choosing planes

[wobbel]

Hi guys, this is just a question I come up with after seeing some discussion on why the knits are so many etc.

1- Why don't we just have to Country?
So its more chance for the both country to bee equal.

2- Why cant we split the choose off planes in Alliesplane of the one country and Jap.Germen planes off the other?
So we get more historical/realism out of the game.

Is this a good idea????????


GA  

[AKSeaWulfe]

Point #1: Replacing 3 countries with 2 only means one thing. You'll only have 2 countries instead of 3. It's not going to become any more even.

Point #2: Scenarios.
-SW

[wobbel]

Point 2: I mean in the MA  


GA

[Virage]

"Point #1: Replacing 3 countries with 2 only means one thing. You'll only have 2 countries instead of 3. It's not going to become any more even."

I disagree.  With 3 teams players have 3 choices when playing to match their style: Topdog, UnderDog, or Sadomasochist. With everyone attacking the Sados.  The current MA is a perfect example of how groups respond to these choices.

With 2 teams you effectively combine the Underdogs and the Sadomasochists to create a more closely balanced room.  And more importantly, you eliminate the option to prey on the weak team.

The 3 team concept only balances itself if the 2 underdogs gang up on the topdog.  But in practice the 2 bigger dogs go for the smallest.

[SwampRat]

Some one clue me in.  Now, I've only been a full time AH'er since December but in that time I really do remember seeing the BISH vastly outnumber the Rooks and or Knits much more regularly than vice versa, and I don't remember seeing to many gripes about it.  So...just a short trend or what?

SwampRat

[Dago]

I disagree that 2 countrys will work better than 3.  If there is an unbalance, there will be no recourse, no other country fighting your advisary on a second front.  

Despite what some short sided players think, each country is always fighting 2 countrys.  It is not a situation of 2 ganging up on one, it just seems that way.  I have flown for each country, and in every case, we were always fighting two other countrys.

Limiting to two countrys would end up in a disaster of unbalance.  My opinion anyway.

Dago

[bowser]

Will one of you "math wizards" who say 2 sides would be better then 3 please explain how to me?  Perhaps put it in an equation?

Type slowly, I'm not very good at your new math.  

bowser

[Brazos]

2 sides will increase uneven sides,

Not reduce them. With the classic 3/4 country main arena set-up, no more than 30% and usually less than 10% of players online will be stuck in a hole. If you change to two countries, one entire side will be squeaking when it becomes uneven. This has been proven many times, take the latest example, WB's WWII arena. Axis vs Allies in a historical arena, sounds great doesn't it?

It's a mess. Constant squeaking. Allies have the best planes, and so most of the players. Scenarios are the only way to limit sides. Main arenas need at least three countries, and I believe 6 would be even better. Switch sides if dweebs won't finish ya off, and do it yourselves! Be proactive, because whining about numbers always looks bad, imo.

Cya up...Braz

[AKSeaWulfe]

 

Originally posted by Virage:
"Point #1: Replacing 3 countries with 2 only means one thing. You'll only have 2 countries instead of 3. It's not going to become any more even."

I disagree.  With 3 teams players have 3 choices when playing to match their style: Topdog, UnderDog, or Sadomasochist. With everyone attacking the Sados.  The current MA is a perfect example of how groups respond to these choices.

With 2 teams you effectively combine the Underdogs and the Sadomasochists to create a more closely balanced room.  And more importantly, you eliminate the option to prey on the weak team.

The 3 team concept only balances itself if the 2 underdogs gang up on the topdog.  But in practice the 2 bigger dogs go for the smallest.

Be nice and lovely if it worked that way.

But it don't.

One side will have more numbers than the other. The side with numbers will therefore gangbang the otherside.

You can disagree, but I've seen it in action in Flying Circus.

It do no workie.
-SW

[Wardog]

Guys...

Im sure that HT will get an HA arena going fairly soon. The MA will not work with 2 Countries. Just check out the whining on AGW board about WBs HA arena. The numbers are way more lopsided in there HA. 150 guys flyin allied and 50 flying axis.

I dont expect to see an HA arena here till the boys start pumpin out some early war A/C.

Just wait, it will come.

Dog out..............

[AKSeaWulfe]

Dog, a good HA setup is...
Axis: Ju88, Bf-109F4.
Allied: SpitV, SpitIX and Lancaster.

WB had an HA setup like that back when everything was still 2D (1.09? 1.11?) and it was a blast. Reduced icons too. I think you could only see icons within 1000yds. It was awesome.
-SW

[Virage]

I would be interested to see how the MA experience would be if for 1 tour (or even 1 week) there was only 2 teams to choose from. ** SAME PLANE SET FOR BOTH TEAMS **.

My guess is that instead of having 1 team ALWAYS in the bucket, the forces would be relatively balanced until 1 side is about to lose.

[This message has been edited by Virage (edited 03-12-2001).]

[bowser]

"...The MA will not work with 2 Countries. Just check out the whining on AGW board about WBs HA arena...".

It applies to their "main" WWII arena also.  Here is a typical AGW thread started today on this very subject:

"Yesterday when the odds were 102 Allied to 58 Axis 15 of us protested by leaving the arena for 5 minutes. I know that doesn't seem like much but perhaps it's the start of something." http://agw.dogfighter.com/agw//Forum3/HTML/018829.html

Now please...no more recommending two sides!  

bowser

[Hooligan]

Wobble:

They did this in WB and it totally sucked.

Hooligan

[Mox]

Some very simple questions for you guys against trying a 2 sided war...

What are you afraid of?  Why would you not even try it for a week?  Concerned about losing your advantage in numbers?

Tired of the same old toejam "it sucked we had it that way in XXXX game 9 years ago when I had to walk to school uphill bare footed in the snow"

And for the people that don't understand math.. 100vs100 is much better than what we have now and if the country jumping is restricted (in some way) then there would be little chance of the massive gang bangs that happen now.

Gotta love you guys that gang then come here and beg that your numbers not be messed with.

Mox