Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: gldnbb on June 10, 2020, 12:37:53 AM
-
For over a year or more, the formula of a 3 country war has failed.
Knits and Rooks continually take Bish country, rarely do they take each other front lines (Hence no fight between Knits and Rooks).
The 3 country experiment has failed. Rooks and knits leave each other alone for over a year.
This concept has failed. The two countries of rook and knits have banded together in agreement to first hit the bishops.. Then whatever is leftover, those participants either switch sides to affectuate map change, or they duke it out for the change. Either they look upon who to choose to win the map, the outcome is almost always the same. START WITH THE BISHOPS.
Despite many players online that will want to pounce on this, its based on actual proof. Over the recent years, the knights and rooks always pounce on the bishops, the 3 country war is dead.
Please eliminate the 3 country war.. Institute a 2 country war with side balancing planesets...
Thank you HITECH.
Your 3 country war fails under DALE Addink Warbirds, after you split from Warbirds you founded ACESHIGH (I was there for both) but this concept fails on the same premise. 3 countries don't win. Two countries gang up on the last country. It doesnt work.
-
The 3 country war does not exist. The remaining country (bish) are often subjected to planeset limitations due to side balancing algorithms, all the while we experience ENY, the cons (aka Knits and Rooks) shift sides to affectuate change easily.
Either they are online in Prime time, or in Late night, or alternating maps where by the knits or rooks occupy the same territory upon map reset they follow the same degree of base takes. AKA, they sharing the same knowledge or side switchers on how to best take bases. Yep.
Opportunists taking what is at hand, side switching when necessary, and sharing between countries.
Here has it boils down between a new map over the past 2 years:
1) Take bish bases
2) Upon who takes the most.. Keep presssing
3) If country gets pushed back, switch countries and the next country pushes
4) Take the map.
Its that easy. its beeen happening for over 2 years.
Not rocket science.
3 country war has to end. There is no 3 country war, just an agreement between the knits and the rooks.
Your 3 country war fails under DALE Addink Warbirds, after you split from Warbirds you founded ACESHIGH (I was there for both) but this concept fails on the same premise. 3 countries don't win. Two countries gang up on the last country. It doesnt work.
Modify message
-
Please sign onto this thread to petition the end of a 3 country war. It's utter bull. It doesn't work. IT doesn't balance the sides out. It unfairly targets one country ENY values against two other countries who continually bash a specific country (bish).
Your 3 country war fails under DALE Addink Warbirds, after you split from Warbirds you founded ACESHIGH (I was there for both) but this concept fails on the same premise. 3 countries don't win. Two countries gang up on the last country. It doesnt work.
Modify message
-
I disagree.
Got any stats on how often each country wins the war?
-
All depends on the map, whose got what portion, what tine and what day. I’ve seen this situation with all sides. When you switch sides you notice it happens to everyone.
Edit: If Rook and Knights have an agreement do you really want to give them the chance to merge? Rights or Knooks might work.
-
See rule #4
-
My experience is that the side balance changes over the course of the day. In the morning (US) Bish often have more players than the other two sides combined, and dominate the map (as Knit and Rook continue to attack each other). Later in the evening, Knit or Rook may have the numbers advantage. It seems that each side gets its turn as the target of the day.
-
I always laugh at folks with no facts stating their feelings as fact.
-
I always laugh at folks with no facts stating their feelings as fact.
Is that a fact or feeling?
-
Is that a fact or feeling?
Fact.... I really do.
Even more silly is he called it an "experiment. ROTFLMAO
-
What I really get a kick out of is depending on what time of day you log in, you can hear:
"Oh, as usual the Bish-Nit alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Rooks are being oppressed!"
"Oh, as usual the Rook-Nit alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Bish are being oppressed!"
"Oh, as usual the Bish-Rook alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Nits are being oppressed!"
from the duly appointed representative of the country that happens to have fights on 2 fronts at the moment.
But if people tend to log in at or around the same times of day, they see the situation they find distressing more than they would if they were on at other times of day. Hence that becomes their reality, like the OP.
What I find really amusing is generally speaking on Nits, not many people complain if it happens and most of us are praying for a 2 front war. That means there are targets available. Long as it's not too GV-centric, it seems most of us are happy.
Wiley.
-
Every 3 hours or so it seems to swap around who is the anvil and who are the hammers.
-
What I really get a kick out of is depending on what time of day you log in, you can hear:
"Oh, as usual the Bish-Nit alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Rooks are being oppressed!"
"Oh, as usual the Rook-Nit alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Bish are being oppressed!"
"Oh, as usual the Bish-Rook alliance is in full effect! It's not fair! Help! Nits are being oppressed!"
from the duly appointed representative of the country that happens to have fights on 2 fronts at the moment.
But if people tend to log in at or around the same times of day, they see the situation they find distressing more than they would if they were on at other times of day. Hence that becomes their reality, like the OP.
What I find really amusing is generally speaking on Nits, not many people complain if it happens and most of us are praying for a 2 front war. That means there are targets available. Long as it's not too GV-centric, it seems most of us are happy.
Wiley.
BINGO!!!!
-
I disagree.
Got any stats on how often each country wins the war?
+1
-
oh my.. when you went bish, you left something a few tours behind....................
-
Two sided would fail more...
If current side switching was available the egostatists would always look to be on the high numbered easy game play ways side causing a huge unbalance...This would then see a huge amount of complaints about, well... why don't you have three sides...it worked before why did you change it, for a start....At the times I mainly get to play I reckon you could almost see one side with zero people on it and the other just rolling..especially if there is a map people hate up...
To alleviate this there would need to be no option to change... you would need to pick a side to fight on for the rest of your time in AH ( that is for us already signed up...new people would be assigned)... that would alienate many peoples fun of sharing the love with all people in game. and not allow for any chance of an even match up of numbers
This still wouldn't really help, there is always an ebb and flo of people ... numbers mismatch regularly changing from one team to another as people log on and off... this would not change...
Three sides allows some form of evenness more than a two sided would...allowing freedoms of change helps... draconian this is your team forever would destroy the openness of this game.
You may try and talk about other games that are two sided and work...but you will find most of these are not as open world as AH... they are short term play and a new server, match gives you options to choose if you would like to continue with the side you have or change...
-
Did it fail in Air Warrior too? :old:
-
Did it fail in Air Warrior too? :old:
EA killed AW before anything else got the chance.
Sent from my Moto Z (2) using Tapatalk
-
Decades, the "win the War" crowd has complained about this. Air Warrior in 1998, where people were paying BY THE HOUR.....had the very same complaints of secret alliances.
In the end, it's utterly satisfying, these salty tears.
Literally there is only one thing you should care about. Red contacts and where you can see them up close. It makes it easier when they come to you, BTW. It will make your flying that much more rewarding.
Cheers!
-
Crying about the numbers tonight?
-
oops...wrong thread
-
Your 3 country war fails under DALE Addink Warbirds, after you split from Warbirds
Warbirds did not have 3 countries.
HiTech
-
Warbirds did not have 3 countries.
HiTech
With all due respect neither does AH. AH has 2 countries and a spectator. Who the spectator is depends on when you log on. :bolt: :noid
-
-1
It could really get lopsided with two countries, especially when Squads rotate countries.
:salute
-
I go where the fight is. I never know who Im fighting nor does it matter.They both shoot me down.
-
With all due respect neither does AH. AH has 2 countries and a spectator. Who the spectator is depends on when you log on. :bolt: :noid
Yup, either two countries gang up on one ( as the OP drunkenly posted :devil ), or two countries go head to head and totally ignore the third country.
What is needed is something to force the countries to fight more than one country. Set it up so that if Bish capture two Knight fields they MUST capture a Rook field before they can capture any more Knight fields and vis versa for each country. This way the fronts stay active along both fronts. Cuts back on the ganging and help bring the fight to to lone country that is left to milk run unopposed bases.
-
What this whine came from was the inability for bish to reset Buzzsaw in under 6 hours. They’ve rolled the maps twice today before noon, they got quite.
-
war is not fare... so why should this game be any different.. maybe just play and get into the action and forget about winning. ..so much is not right here, but it works.. take the eny thing.. it contradicts the perk points and perked weapons.. so what..
-
Fare? :headscratch:
-
Fare? :headscratch:
Yeah war is costly :D
-
Yup, either two countries gang up on one ( as the OP drunkenly posted :devil ), or two countries go head to head and totally ignore the third country.
What is needed is something to force the countries to fight more than one country. Set it up so that if Bish capture two Knight fields they MUST capture a Rook field before they can capture any more Knight fields and vis versa for each country. This way the fronts stay active along both fronts. Cuts back on the ganging and help bring the fight to to lone country that is left to milk run unopposed bases.
Ya know Fugi I absolutely love that idea. I've been home sick for the last two weeks and have been logging a fair share of time in the MA and every morning the Bish have around 20 to 30 players and Rooks and Knights are usually around 10 or 12. Then in the evening it's the other way though with more #'s total but bish have usually been out numbered in the evening with a few folks on 200 screaming about how they were going to make the Bish hurt lol.
The only problem I see with said idea is with the #'s so lop sided like I've been seeing in the morning the high # side will just roll a couple bases one way and roll a couple the other... Hmmmm ENY obviously isn't enough of a deterrent for this kind of behavior. I always kind of shake my head and chuckle when I log on and hear fellow Bish Yowling on local about how Hitech should just get rid of ENY when we have triple the #'s of either of the other sides. Fortunately I've always preferred the older stuff so it really doesn't hit me much.
So now that I've been staring at the screen thinking I had a thought...
Hitech would it be possible to maybe link building hardness to the ENY values.. Just thinking that maybe making the low #'s side's buildings harder so it would take more effort on the high #'s sides part to flatten things and roll along... Say the low #'s side see's the end coming and has dug in and fortified their buildings or what have you :) Might take a bit of tweaking to get the ratio right but maybe a possible solution.?
In summery
1. We have the ENY plane set limit to try to help lower the uberness of the hoard and give defenders a chance at defending.
2. We could have Fugies idea to help stop the one way roll and keep all fronts of the war more active.
3. Possible linking of building hardness to ENY to require the high #'s side to have to expend more ord or simple #'s of strafing aircraft and GV's (work harder) in order to flatten base structures, towns and factories..
With the seesaw base capture plan and the hardness modifier nothing is really taken away from the players other than super easy base captures and porking ect. it just takes more effort to roll over the guys that are massively out numbered.
Anyway just a thought so don't go yelling and screaming but polite discussion is always appreciated. Thanks <S>
-
Ya know Fugi I absolutely love that idea. I've been home sick for the last two weeks and have been logging a fair share of time in the MA and every morning the Bish have around 20 to 30 players and Rooks and Knights are usually around 10 or 12. Then in the evening it's the other way though with more #'s total but bish have usually been out numbered in the evening with a few folks on 200 screaming about how they were going to make the Bish hurt lol.
The only problem I see with said idea is with the #'s so lop sided like I've been seeing in the morning the high # side will just roll a couple bases one way and roll a couple the other... Hmmmm ENY obviously isn't enough of a deterrent for this kind of behavior. I always kind of shake my head and chuckle when I log on and hear fellow Bish Yowling on local about how Hitech should just get rid of ENY when we have triple the #'s of either of the other sides. Fortunately I've always preferred the older stuff so it really doesn't hit me much.
So now that I've been staring at the screen thinking I had a thought...
Hitech would it be possible to maybe link building hardness to the ENY values.. Just thinking that maybe making the low #'s side's buildings harder so it would take more effort on the high #'s sides part to flatten things and roll along... Say the low #'s side see's the end coming and has dug in and fortified their buildings or what have you :) Might take a bit of tweaking to get the ratio right but maybe a possible solution.?
In summery
1. We have the ENY plane set limit to try to help lower the uberness of the hoard and give defenders a chance at defending.
2. We could have Fugies idea to help stop the one way roll and keep all fronts of the war more active.
3. Possible linking of building hardness to ENY to require the high #'s side to have to expend more ord or simple #'s of strafing aircraft and GV's (work harder) in order to flatten base structures, towns and factories..
With the seesaw base capture plan and the hardness modifier nothing is really taken away from the players other than super easy base captures and porking ect. it just takes more effort to roll over the guys that are massively out numbered.
Anyway just a thought so don't go yelling and screaming but polite discussion is always appreciated. Thanks <S>
:aok I like it! A three pronged attack to combat uneven numbers, ganging and ignoring a whole team.
-
Another possibility is to modify downtimes according to the number of players on a side:
Bish 25, Knit 15, Rook 10
Bish kills Knit auto ack: Normal downtime 30 minutes. Modified downtime: 30 * ( 15/25 ) = 18 minutes.
Bish kills Rook auto ack: Modified downtime: 30 * ( 10 / 25 ) = 12 minutes.
Knit kills Rook auto ack: Modified downtime: 30 * ( 10 / 15 ) = 20 minutes.
Knit kills Bish auto ack: Downtime = standard time = 30 minutes. (No increase beyond the standard time.)
This would give low number sides an incentive to attack the high number side, and would mitigate the high number's advantage. It is also transparent since downtimes can be easily checked. It could augment ENY or replace ENY.
Side numbers could be base on rolling averages to prevent gaming the system.
-
Two countries pounding the 3rd country is a two country war and yet that is what the OP is complaining about and asking for.
:headscratch:
-
Two countries pounding the 3rd country is a two country war and yet that is what the OP is complaining about and asking for.
Valid point.
- oldman
-
Two countries pounding the 3rd country is a two country war and yet that is what the OP is complaining about and asking for.
:headscratch:
Its also 60 players vs 30 (example).
There is no balance to it. The problem with three countries is how is disperses the smaller current population of this game across what normally is a map too large, or poorly laid out.
-
A 3 way war works best. Proven fact of gaming in this environment.
The issue AcesHigh currently has is the base defence via M3 zerg-suppling towns and players sitting in man-able ack.
-
Do away with squads and have the game spawn the player into the lowest numbered country.
You want fair, there it is.
Coogan
-
Do away with squads and have the game spawn the player into the lowest numbered country.
You want fair, there it is.
Coogan
Obviously getting rid of squad and country loyalty would be a no go as it really hurts the team aspect of the game which is key for drawing in and keeping new guys. If it's just a giant free for all they would quit even faster.
Lazer hit the nail on the head that map design/size is key to keeping the fight from getting too lopsided.
Maybe any future maps should make taking fields progressively more difficult as you approach the strats or the further you get into their territory. Could put smaller fields at the frontline and progressively have larger/higher fields. Could make vehicle spawns progressively further as well as you get closer to strats. And getting that final 20% of the fields should require a goon. Also make it easier to retake fields from the defending country the closer they are to their homeland.
Just an opinion from someone who has never made a map... (so that bustr doesnt give me crap about it)
-
ROTFLMAO
-
Just an opinion from someone who has never made a map... (so that bustr doesnt give me crap about it)
Don't worry, he still will in 10,000 words. :)
-
Two countries pounding the 3rd country is a two country war[...]
So isn't that just admitting that 3-sides offers no play-balance advantage over two sides?
:headscratch:
[Edit: But it doesn't matter in the end. I can understand the assumption is too baked into the current code to risk modifying. ]
-
So isn't that just admitting that 3-sides offers no play-balance advantage over two sides?
:headscratch:
[Edit: But it doesn't matter in the end. I can understand the assumption is too baked into the current code to risk modifying. ]
I'd say it's more pointing out that people will gang given the opportunity, and given the existence of chesspiece underoos 2 sides won't change that aspect much.
Wiley.
-
I'd say it's more pointing out that people will gang given the opportunity, and given the existence of chesspiece underoos 2 sides won't change that aspect much.
Wiley.
But that isn't what they are saying.
They are saying two sides would create horrible ganging problems and then use an example of the same thing happening in 3-sides to support their point. :headscratch:
And that isn't even the advantage Hitech claims, but people keep trotting out this claim that doesn't make much sense.
But again, it doesn't matter at this point.
-
But that isn't what they are saying.
They are saying two sides would create horrible ganging problems and then use an example of the same thing happening in 3-sides to support their point. :headscratch:
And that isn't even the advantage Hitech claims, but people keep trotting out this claim that doesn't make much sense.
But again, it doesn't matter at this point.
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.
-
Do away with squads and have the game spawn the player into the lowest numbered country.
You want fair, there it is.
Coogan
-1
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Humans are the issue..... not 3 sides. Your ideology means nothing to someone who would burn a building.... just to burn it.
-
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. :t
But yeah, maybe the next game. :rofl
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
(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.
-
"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.
Nfl and nba have even sides by rule. They are not open like AH. Not even close.
-
Fly nit. There are plenty of generals with all kinds of ideas what people should be doing at all times. :)
Wiley.
And I listen to exactly zero of them. :devil
I don't care one bit for the war. I play to fly a fighter and shoot down other airplanes. Whatever system gives me the best chance of finding decently balanced air battle is the one I want.
Seems like a 3-sided war offers the best chance - if only we could encourage players to fly planes and defend bases instead of taking GV's for spawn camps, sneak captures, and resupplying bases.
-
This has been discussed on these boards for years. Give it a rest. Log on at different times of the day. You will see in differing time zones that also reflects who has numbers.
Just play or switch sides.
-
This has been discussed on these boards for years. Give it a rest. Log on at different times of the day. You will see in differing time zones that also reflects who has numbers.
Just play or switch sides.
It does get comical at times seeing these repeated.discussions for over 30+ years! LMAO.....
-
It does get comical at times seeing these repeated.discussions for over 30+ years! LMAO.....
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these repeated discussions keep coming up that there may be a nugget of truth in the issue?
-
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these repeated discussions keep coming up that there may be a nugget of truth in the issue?
Possibly in the minds of the people asking for a 2 sides instead of the open 3 sided sandbox that was proven to be the best option back in the beginnings...
Even seen 4 sides tried in 2 different flight sim mmog's....it keeps falling back to 3 sides is the best way for the way the game is designed and the other 2 to 3 games that came before it....
What people are overlooking is they are asking for something to fit what they will think will improve their "own" gameplay and are not considering the effects it will have on everyone else....
To where HTC/ Dale looks at it from a different perspective as they did in AW and WB, etc.... It is about what works best for all players as a whole verses what some individuals thinks will work for them personally....
Fess you know this because you have been around as long as I have if not longer, just like Wayne (Hajo) has....
This dead horse carcus has been beaten a million times over going back to 1989, maybe even 1988?....
It all has been tested an proven....
Hope life is going good for you...
Cheers
TC
-
Do you think that maybe, just maybe, the fact that these repeated discussions keep coming up that there may be a nugget of truth in the issue?
No
-
Is this horse dead yet?
-
Is this horse dead yet?
It's been dead for ages, it just keeps twitching everytime they hit it.
-
:rofl
-
Who ever said the goal of 3 sides has anything to do with balance?
HiTech
-
Who ever said the goal of 3 sides has anything to do with balance?
HiTech
Exactly.
But that isn't what they are saying.
They are saying two sides would create horrible ganging problems and then use an example of the same thing happening in 3-sides to support their point. :headscratch:
And that isn't even the advantage Hitech claims, but people keep trotting out this claim that doesn't make much sense.
But again, it doesn't matter at this point.
-
Who ever said the goal of 3 sides has anything to do with balance?
HiTech
3 sides appears to add a little more strategy to the game and even if balance is not the goal, forcing a country to own 20% of each others countries does provide a bit of checks and balance to it.
I am curious though, from a design perspective what is the goal of 3 sides vs 2?
-
This has been discussed on these boards for years. Give it a rest. Log on at different times of the day. You will see in differing time zones that also reflects who has numbers.
Just play or switch sides.
:aok
-
It is way more fun to hate two countries than just one. :rofl :rofl :rofl
:banana:
-
I am curious though, from a design perspective what is the goal of 3 sides vs 2?
One it provides a lot more targets and 2nd it provides a bigger variety to gameplay.
HiTech
-
One it provides a lot more targets and 2nd it provides a bigger variety to gameplay.
HiTech
:aok
The times you can crash a 2 country furball as a 3rd party can definitely make for good times.
-
:aok
The times you can crash a 2 country furball as a 3rd party can definitely make for good times.
I guess this comes down to maps and how they are laid out. When its available, its the best action this game has. Its rare however.
I always thought having the three countries intertwined within eachother would be a good substitute for having two sides. Is it allowed in terrain creation rules?
But I dont have the time or skills needed to make a map.
-
Bottlenecks can force big fights. If all the bases were mixed up, fights would be thinned out all over the place. There would be far more base sneaking.
-
One it provides a lot more targets and 2nd it provides a bigger variety to gameplay.
HiTech
Almost 1 year later, adn this does not provide a bigger variety.
It still has knits hitting bish, and rooks hitting bish. Although side balancing now enabled, it rarely has rooks and knits hitting each other unless they already own most of the bishop sides.
Someone posted that I post proof? Log online each night between prime time 3pm EST - 8pm EST and beyond. The only time the bish can combat the double gang is by logging online in the wee hours of the morning of 5am EST.
And nothing has changed since.
Bring a 2 color war and 2 - 1 odds won't exist
-
Even though the Bish are fighting such unfair odds, if they keep trying they may someday win the map. :D
-
Almost 1 year later, adn this does not provide a bigger variety.
It still has knits hitting bish, and rooks hitting bish. Although side balancing now enabled, it rarely has rooks and knits hitting each other unless they already own most of the bishop sides.
Someone posted that I post proof? Log online each night between prime time 3pm EST - 8pm EST and beyond. The only time the bish can combat the double gang is by logging online in the wee hours of the morning of 5am EST.
And nothing has changed since.
Bring a 2 color war and 2 - 1 odds won't exist
I call BS.
I logged on a 7 PM est, side were even and the bish had only one fight. DR7 and a few of his buddies were one side of a GV battle. All the rest of the rooks and knights where fighting in the NE. By 8-9 the Bish got together (mostly due to the Sick Puppies) to start grabbing base back from the Rooks. By 11PM the Rooks noticed that they had lost a bunch of bases, from 23% of bish bases down to 15% of bish bases and they came hard to defend A7. The battle was hard fought but but the Bish won. What this did was pull the Rooks off the Knit front so of course they are going to look for someone to fight and came against the Bish as well, seeing the Rooks no longer wanted to play with them.
By 1130 when I logged the Bish had ENY having 40+ players of the just over 100 players in the arena. I think an ME-262 was going for about 380 at the time :eek:
Sure the Bish finally did get ALL the other players attacking them but when I logged it was around 1.5 vs 1. Any player complaining about being hit with such alopside set of numbers as that is a player who prefers to hide in the horde, not one that likes to fight and play the game. Just my opinion of course.
-
I call BS.
I logged on a 7 PM est, side were even and the bish had only one fight. DR7 and a few of his buddies were one side of a GV battle. All the rest of the rooks and knights where fighting in the NE. By 8-9 the Bish got together (mostly due to the Sick Puppies) to start grabbing base back from the Rooks. By 11PM the Rooks noticed that they had lost a bunch of bases, from 23% of bish bases down to 15% of bish bases and they came hard to defend A7. The battle was hard fought but but the Bish won. What this did was pull the Rooks off the Knit front so of course they are going to look for someone to fight and came against the Bish as well, seeing the Rooks no longer wanted to play with them.
By 1130 when I logged the Bish had ENY having 40+ players of the just over 100 players in the arena. I think an ME-262 was going for about 380 at the time :eek:
Sure the Bish finally did get ALL the other players attacking them but when I logged it was around 1.5 vs 1. Any player complaining about being hit with such alopside set of numbers as that is a player who prefers to hide in the horde, not one that likes to fight and play the game. Just my opinion of course.
This!
-
-1, 2 sided wont fix anything. Leave it just the way it is. Do I like getting doulbe teamed? No. But we do the same thing (Bishop). There is NEVER a reason to take more than 25% of a countries bases, anything more than that is just harassing the opponent. :bhead
-
-1, 2 sided wont fix anything. Leave it just the way it is. Do I like getting doulbe teamed? No. But we do the same thing (Bishop). There is NEVER a reason to take more than 25% of a countries bases, anything more than that is just harassing the opponent. :bhead
Well you need a buffer. On a small map 25% may only be 1 or 2 fields more than necessary and easily reversed when you start focusing on the other country.
-
Well you need a buffer. On a small map 25% may only be 1 or 2 fields more than necessary and easily reversed when you start focusing on the other country.
Okay I'll give you that but you shouldn't need 4 or 5 bases, which to often is the case. You know what I mean Atlau, lol. I have gotten my squadies upset with me cause I was badgering them about overkill on knits/rooks.
-
Okay I'll give you that but you shouldn't need 4 or 5 bases, which to often is the case. You know what I mean Atlau, lol. I have gotten my squadies upset with me cause I was badgering them about overkill on knits/rooks.
Well in all fairness ill go out of my to deliver your presents when in that pesky t34
-
Well in all fairness ill go out of my to deliver your presents when in that pesky t34
:rofl I know!!! I am so blessed. But I do try to make you work for it, I usually don't get hit with the first bomb. :D
-
I completely understand Gldbbs point about rooks and knights only hitting bish. A few times during the snow days I off I was able to sneak In a few hours during the day. It was mind boggling and hilarious watching both teams completely attacking Bish. I called it out a couple of times on knights. I couldn't switch to the low # side cuz they were dominating bish while avoiding the other team. It happened multiple days. Atleast 2 -3 days. Finally about 5-6pm, the knights attacked rooks.
People that play the game like me have a hard time flying to a un occupied base by themselves in a fighter just to see if maybe a plane will roll. I normally only have about an hour to play when I can. I can go jabo a base, but that leaves me dead or crippled after 2 passes on a base trying to kill ack guns or what ever. Fighting with the ack and 88s in this game is my worst enemy and pisses me off the most. So this style of AH ain't for me.
I might switch to bish to help out, but generally they have more #s for the same reason. If they are getting severely hoarded, it can be tough for a player to be successful in that either, most of the time back fields are too damn far and it doesn't seem worth it to roll. Thats another problem I have.
I blame the 4am bish squad that comes in and wrecks maps early in the AM for a quick win while no one is on. They push both knights and bish back for the win, while the other 2 teams ain't doing nothing. Then when 8 am hits, if they haven't won, more players start logging in and fighting back. Naturally, both sides will fight back their bases from the bish. This creates "the ganging of the bish" effect.
I'm not sure what can fix this. But it's hilarious to watch 2 teams decimate the other while completely ignoring the other because of what one squad does early in the AM.
We need more maps. We need to get rid of big maps. Its terrible for off hours and kills the fights earlier in the night.
It doesn't matter how fast a map gets rolled. More maps is fun. Keeping those bases at 15 miles max is a big help.
2 teams is not the answer. Maps are.
-
I blame the 4am bish squad that comes in and wrecks maps early in the AM for a quick win while no one is on. They push both knights and bish back for the win, while the other 2 teams ain't doing nothing. Then when 8 am hits, if they haven't won, more players start logging in and fighting back. Naturally, both sides will fight back their bases from the bish. This creates "the ganging of the bish" effect.
Right here is where the issue is. The early morning Bishop crew comes on and they have fun rolling bases. Then when the other teams get their numbers up they naturally want to get their bases back. Once the momentum gets going, it's keeps going and going and going, and it becomes hard to stop. You really can't blame either party.
We have this wonderful playground, and we get to decide if we want to play tag or capture the flag or something else. Most of the suggestions involve either changing Aces High into a different game, or forcing players to play the way someone else wants them to play. Neither is a good solution.
My suggestion is for the squad leaders to guide their squads to a different course. Once you have your bases won, squad leaders lead their squads to the other front, and spread the joy around. Riftval used to come on the BBS and say, "Hey guys, we are doing a big bomber mission tonight. Come and get us." Stuff like this would be far more effective than trying to force players to play the way you want them to.
-
Don't know what arena the OP is refereing to.
Log in late morning: Bish 28/Rook 11/Knight 9
Log in prime time: Bish 61/Rook 25/Knight 28
Prime time varies, but consistently bish have had high 40s to mid 50s %. Don't blame the other 2 countries for ganging, blame your own country mates for wanting to fight in a horde and not defend. Country system worked well for that weekend but now we are only seeing 5 or 6 using it. Downside of autoswitch means maps will take much longer to reset so we have to pick our battles.
-
Right here is where the issue is. The early morning Bishop crew comes on and they have fun rolling bases. Then when the other teams get their numbers up they naturally want to get their bases back. Once the momentum gets going, it's keeps going and going and going, and it becomes hard to stop. You really can't blame either party.
Basically Bishop in 2021 are Rooks in 2008 :D