Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Xjazz on September 21, 2007, 05:57:21 PM
-
Hi HTC
Seriously
With two side maps those annoying gutless milkers can't hide that easy.
Please, support the people who are paying for the fighting instead of the gutless milking & rank padding.
-
With as few people that go there, 2 sides would be better. Never thought about it, but I like your idea.
-
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
With as few people that go there, 2 sides would be better. Never thought about it, but I like your idea.
Result: Country A 18 players - Country B 2
Country A happily resetting map after map.
Not much of a change ;)
-
Why not just make all the MA 2 sided, it would nullify ganging, the need for uncapturable bases and maybe even ENY could go the way of the dodo.
-
Originally posted by AAolds
Why not just make all the MA 2 sided, it would nullify ganging, the need for uncapturable bases and maybe even ENY could go the way of the dodo.
And how exactly would a two-sided MA nullify ganging and making balancing tools like ENY unneccesary? What would be improved?
-
Cant gang if only 2 sides since there is only 1 enemy side to be dealt with. I said ENY might be able to go away, since I suspect if the game was two sided that both sides would end up rather even in #s.
At the time of this post the Rooks in both Blue and Orange are being ganged and are backed into a corner. This is becoming more common and annoying. I just log now when it is happening, not much fun being outnumbered regurlarly and nowhere to go to find a decent fight without a GD horde showing up.
-
Originally posted by AAolds
Cant gang if only 2 sides since there is only 1 enemy side to be dealt with. I said ENY might be able to go away, since I suspect if the game was two sided that both sides would end up rather even in #s.
Numbers wouldn't end up even just like they don't do now. People would join the "stronger" team just like they do now. Of course there would not be ganging of two teams vs one - but the numerical disparity would be at least as great.
There is no reason players would change their behavior. Results would probably be much mroe worse than with one three countries.
Originally posted by AAolds
At the time of this post the Rooks in both Blue and Orange are being ganged and are backed into a corner
That happens to every country now and then. If you switch countries from time to time, you can read the same on every country channel once in a while.
Knits believe they are more often ganged by Rook/Bish ("They almost never fight each other!"), Rook believe Bish and Knits always join their forces and of course the Bish are convinced they are mostly the victim of an evil Knit/Rook alliance...
Many players do note disadvantages in number or circumstances only when they are being hurt by them.
-
Originally posted by AAolds
Cant gang if only 2 sides since there is only 1 enemy side to be dealt with. I said ENY might be able to go away, since I suspect if the game was two sided that both sides would end up rather even in #s.
What on earth makes you think there wouldn't be ganging or a need for ENY with only 2 sides? Previous experience says you are incorrect in your assumption. Just curious, if there were 300 people in this arena, what makes you believe that the odds wouldn't be something like 200 vs 100?
Originally posted by AAolds
At the time of this post the Rooks in both Blue and Orange are being ganged and are backed into a corner. This is becoming more common and annoying. I just log now when it is happening, not much fun being outnumbered regurlarly and nowhere to go to find a decent fight without a GD horde showing up.
...and the Rooks "ruled the roost" all afternoon with near even odds on the Bish and Knits combined. Just wanted to make sure no one was feeling sorry for the poor Rooks. :D
-
Only time I switch sides is when my squaddies go with or they are not on to fly with. Otherwise, I'm staying rook.
I was on this afternoon and the Rooks then too were being ganged and backed into corner in Orange at least, (did not make it to blue arena this afternoon)
As for the 2 sides and people switching to be on winning team, HT could just implement code so that if you switch sides, you dont get benifit of that side resetting a map until being on that side fr at least 24 hours. Maybe even charge perks to switch sides.
I'm just venting, I really dont expect a GD F'in thing to change, more likely get worse as has been the trend to date.
-
Originally posted by AAolds
As for the 2 sides and people switching to be on winning team, HT could just implement code so that if you switch sides, you dont get benifit of that side resetting a map until being on that side fr at least 24 hours. Maybe even charge perks to switch sides.
There is already such a code in place. You don't get reset perks if you switched teams in last 12 hours. 24 wouldn't change much.
-
Last I saw it was only 1 hour for perks if reset occurs, unless recently changed.
-
Originally posted by AAolds
Last I saw it was only 1 hour for perks if reset occurs, unless recently changed.
You are confusing two different things.
1 hour is the minimum time between two side switches - you gotta stay on a team for that time at least.
The time you have to be on a team to be qualified for war winning perks hasn't changed and is still 12h.
-
Recently (within last 2 months), I had gotten perks for a reset and I had only been on that team for maybe 2 hours, so I was askin if the rule had changed recently?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Result: Country A 18 players - Country B 2
Country A happily resetting map after map.
Not much of a change ;)
And you know this as fact how? In the MA i wouldn't want 2 sides. but the other 2 arenas being so small in numbers I think people would even up sides more. Just like they do in AvA. But we will never know what would happen, since HT will never try it anyway.
AAolds, I think your right, I have heard others say they got perkies after jumpimg sides and only being there a couple hours
-
Originally posted by AAolds
Recently (within last 2 months), I had gotten perks for a reset and I had only been on that team for maybe 2 hours, so I was askin if the rule had changed recently?
Well, Im jumping teams quite a lot in EW & MW, and even if I find myself on the winning side, I never get any perks for it...
Also you may take a look at http://www.hitechcreations.com/ahhelp/map.html#win
-
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
And you know this as fact how? In the MA i wouldn't want 2 sides. but the other 2 arenas being so small in numbers I think people would even up sides more. Just like they do in AvA.
Because it's the same people. Very few people do jump to even up the numbers now in EW & MW.
If some squads playing EW do not even up sides now, but but enjoy constantly resetting the map without any serious resistance - why should they change their behavior when it's only 2 sides?
-
Ohh, so your saying the AvA is this way?
-
The AvA is dead, sadly, great maps and 2 sided set up, but since there isn't cross over to the MA regarding your kills and such, few people play in it, myself included.
-
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
Ohh, so your saying the AvA is this way?
No.
Im talking about EW & MW.
AvA is different because it caters different players with a completely different gameplay.
-
Originally posted by SFCHONDO
Ohh, so your saying the AvA is this way?
The AvA in its current incarnation is basically a furball arena. There are no perks. Scores there do nothing for your MA rank. Ergo, this type of behavior (milkrunning and ganging) generally does not exist there because it is simply an entirely different animal.
If AvA statistics were rolled in to the MA statistics, you can bet your rear end this kind of behavior would exist there.
-
Switching sides to get 25 perks is idiotic. Get a high ENY plane on the underpopulated side, vulch two spit 16s and run home. With the ENY ratios and multiplier bonus, here is your 25 stupid perks in less than 10 minutes.
Now, what exactly will you spend them on?
-
I spent a few hours in Mid War today and found that it was nice for a change not to be chased by the hordes. Even with the sides being lop sided from time to time, it wasn't that difficult to find a good fight. (by the way,
Jeff62!)
I really don't think that by changing the teams to just two sides will we ever get rid of the uneven sides. Like Lusche said, people rarely switch sides. No matter what team I'm flying for, I take the good with the bad. Some days are better than others.
Just my .02 cents.
Obie
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
Hi HTC
Seriously
With two side maps those annoying gutless milkers can't hide that easy.
Please, support the people who are paying for the fighting instead of the gutless milking & rank padding.
They pay they do as they like as do you what is the problem.
-
Originally posted by lyric1
They pay they do as they like as do you what is the problem.
You are right.
I pay for the fighting against human opponent. Lose or win, perks & ranks means nothing.
It's just so tiresome to seek a good old fashion air-combat and switching the side to find out how milkers escaped to other front as far as possible...
Great! Milkers are now protected by system, because I can't change a side for next 60min. The country changing time limit is needed but now it has unexpected effect.
The 2-side setup prevent this and milkers can just run but not hide.
Do I sound like that Storch guy?:)
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
Do I sound like that Storch guy?:)
No. Too reasoned and not enough vitriol. Plus, you haven't bashed the BoPs even once yet in this thread.
You have much to learn, grasshopper.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Numbers wouldn't end up even just like they don't do now. People would join the "stronger" team just like they do now.
Actually, I've just recently started switching sides and always switch to the team with the least players online. I still consider the knights "my team", but now when I log in I first check the roster and I join whatever team has the least players.
If it's pretty close, say 8-9-9 I stay with the knights. If the bishops have 5 players and rooks and knights have 9 and 10, I go with the bishops.
That does a couple things: Helps even up the odds and I don't have to deal with eny at all- probably reason enough in itself to go to the low numbered side. Also, being outnumbered makes for plenty of targets to shoot at. My side has certainly been overwhelmed at times, but I've still had some real fun fights.
-
Originally posted by Xjazz
It's just so tiresome to seek a good old fashion air-combat and switching the side to find out how milkers escaped to other front as far as possible...
Great! Milkers are now protected by system, because I can't change a side for next 60min. The country changing time limit is needed but now it has unexpected effect.
The 2-side setup prevent this and milkers can just run but not hide.
So, what you are saying is if we can't have instant country change, so that you can "spy out" milk maids, we need a 2 sided game so they can't hide from you. Well, it could be taken a bit farther...2 sides with 2 fields. In the end, milk maids are a fact of virtual life. Learn to enjoy the sexy outfits they wear and hunt them down with out mercy....it works for me. :D
BTW, I do switch in EW/MW. In those arenas, one person can make a difference (and because I believe live competition is what makes the game work). I don't bother in LW because one person can't make a difference.
-
Personally I can see combining the EW and the MW. Especially if we had a custom map, so Early war was on one side, Midwar on the other with 30+ k mountains separating them.
As to 2 sides, which are you going to leave out?
If I log out of late war because knights are down to 7 fields, I really am not going to want to switch countrys. If I wanted to do that I'd stay in late war.
Changing from 3 sides to 2 is still going to leave one side outnumbered.
While a little bit of milk running strats to improve rank is one thing.Continuous landgrabbing of undefended fields always seemed a bit like masturbation to me. I mean really, whats the point?
On those rare occasions when Mid war does get up to 50 + people on the fights can be very very good.
I'd be much more in favor of doing a series of trial arena's. Set them up for a couple of months and see what happens. Short term any or all of the below ideas will see action. However just as EW & MW tapered off after 3 weeks as the new wore off. These would have to be enabled for a minimum of a couple of months to see if they'd be used consistently, or which would be more popular.
A Bomber heaven.
High alt bases where only bombers are enabled, loads of strat objects to hit.
Towns and city's to level, etc. Limited fighters available only from sea level bases.
B GV wars
No planes enabled anywhere on the map, strictly war designed for the GV fans.
C Dogfight central
A 9 - 12 low level bases around a low central plain or lake. No bombers, ground vehicles, ord, or field capture enabled. You could also setup some canyon fights on the sides. Focus would be pure and simple dogfighting.
With a bit of terrain work you could even have 4 such centers on a larger map. With different plane sets enabled at each one.
The potential is there to do so much with what we already have.
Would just take a bit of terrain building and setup time.