Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TonyJoey on August 18, 2011, 04:11:20 PM
-
I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be benficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:
*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for their to be a fight on every front.
*A greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. i.e. 8 total fights on the map, simple math shows us that 8/2>8/3
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were say 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed
*The HQ's and factories would become more important as there is only 1 enemy, and knocking them out provides a bigger advantage in the overall war than if you had two enemies.
Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.
/Discuss
-
Forget it.
2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.
EDIT: Doesn't matter if we USE all 3 sides to their full potential, the principle of the setup outweighs 2 sides.
-
Forget it.
2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.
With such a large front and so many more targets base wise, I find a stalemate difficult to reach.
-
Forget it.
2 sides means no stability or possibly total stalemate. 3 sides leaves the possibility of checks and balances.
EDIT: Doesn't matter if we USE all 3 sides to their full potential, the principle of the setup outweighs 2 sides.
unfortunately, krusty is correct...2 sides wonderland is just a pipe dream for people who are used to first person shooters. 400 person team death match with no timer.
-
unfortunately, krusty is correct...2 sides wonderland is just a pipe dream for people who are used to first person shooters. 400 person team death match with no timer.
How is that any different than the 3 way "team deathmatch" we have now? And in what way would that have anything at all to do with first person shooters? Timer? If you're going to post your opinion at least make it logical.
-
If HTC wanted to test that theory, they could shut down the all three main servers for "maintenance" and just see how the AvA server goes. ;) Yes, the plane set would be MUCH more restrictive, but they could open it up and let loose the dogs of war and allow any and all aircraft for both sides. And then.... BAM! We know it works or doesnt. :aok
-
* A plethora of historical and new player made maps. :aok
Interesting idea but, I here the loyal whines of "Where did chess piece <insert> go waaaaaaa?" :cry :D
-
We could maybe rid ourselves of the whole chess piece thing entirely, and just go with Coke vs Pepsi. :)
-
How is that any different than the 3 way "team deathmatch" we have now? And in what way would that have anything at all to do with first person shooters? Timer? If you're going to post your opinion at least make it logical.
you've never played team death match have you? yes, timer...tdm's have rounds, and each round has a timer to end the round then tally the scores for each person. 2 sided match ups in the main arenas would end up being much more endless repetitive brawls than what happens now, without goals and little possibility of any victory. you think the hordes are bad now, 2 sided would be worse than furball lake. with 3 sides there are 2 fronts to fight on and 2 enemy populations to deal with.
that enough logic for you cupcake?
-
that enough logic for you cupcake?
:rofl :rofl :rofl You called him "cupcake" :rofl :rofl :rofl
-
I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be benficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:
*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for their to be a fight on every front.
*A greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. i.e. 8 total fights on the map, simple math shows us that 8/2>8/3
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were say 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed
*The HQ's and factories would become more important as there is only 1 enemy, and knocking them out provides a bigger advantage in the overall war than if you had two enemies.
Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.
/Discuss
no. the way we have it is fine right now.
-
no. the way we have it is fine right now.
Thanks, but saying no isn't really a very good reason. On the other hand, I can definately see Krusty's point about checks and balances. I won't try to to argue with you about the current state of the game, as that would completely derail the whole point of the thread. If you want to discuss the idea, post any and all flaws you find in it, be my guest, but don't just brush it off.
-
Thanks, but saying no isn't really a very good reason. On the other hand, I can definately see Krusty's point about checks and balances. I won't try to to argue with you about the current state of the game, as that would completely derail the whole point of the thread. If you want to discuss the idea, post any and all flaws you find in it, be my guest, but don't just brush it off.
"NO. THE WAY WE HAVE IT IS FINE" what part didnt you understand? thats my reasoning. id prefer not to have 2 sides because it could horribly alter the balance in the game. say if we take out knits, and lets say a good chunk of the knits go rooks. see the problem? also, squads could be divided because of this.
that good enough for you?
-
HiTech has run games with two, three and four sides. He says three is best.
-
"NO. THE WAY WE HAVE IT IS FINE" what part didnt you understand? thats my reasoning. id prefer not to have 2 sides because it could horribly alter the balance in the game. say if we take out knits, and lets say a good chunk of the knits go rooks. see the problem? also, squads could be divided because of this.
that good enough for you?
The first post you made didn't get the answer TJ expected. You said no. That doesnt tell him why. Then you come back with a smart remark. Very childish sir.
-
The first post you made didn't get the answer TJ expected. You said no. That doesnt tell him why. Then you come back with a smart remark. Very childish sir.
I don't agree with scorpion, but I believe he is a child, I think I read somewhere that he stated he was entering 9th grade.
-
Omg you just sided with me kinda. :salute
-
If HTC wanted to test that theory, they could shut down the all three main servers for "maintenance" and just see how the AvA server goes. ;) Yes, the plane set would be MUCH more restrictive, but they could open it up and let loose the dogs of war and allow any and all aircraft for both sides. And then.... BAM! We know it works or doesnt. :aok
Something like this happened a few years ago when all the servers went down except the AVA and one other I think. It was spits and Hurri's vs 109's and 190's. I think everyone there had a heck of a time, and it was actually fun for everyone involved.
-
i think we should just have one country :lol just think of the free for all action :cheers:
-
Omg you just sided with me kinda. :salute
:rofl :rofl I agree with your idea... its true
-
I'm a very blunt person get it blunt :)
-
you've never played team death match have you? yes, timer...tdm's have rounds, and each round has a timer to end the round then tally the scores for each person. 2 sided match ups in the main arenas would end up being much more endless repetitive brawls than what happens now, without goals and little possibility of any victory. you think the hordes are bad now, 2 sided would be worse than furball lake. with 3 sides there are 2 fronts to fight on and 2 enemy populations to deal with.
that enough logic for you cupcake?
Actually, it makes just as little sense as your original post. :aok Your first person shooter analogy is weak since it really has little in common with Aces High; here let me break down what you were essentially stating:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
Saying that having two countries will resort to 'endless repetitive brawls' or that it would be void of goals and possibility of victory is just incorrect and remains to be seen until it can be tested and proven.
-
how on gods green earth could my resoning have been a "smart remark"? if your talking about when i said if that reason was good enough for you, that wasnt a retorical question.
i swear all the adults here think that everything a kid posts is no good.
-
Way to over-react, people.
No. <-- his answer
What we have now is fine. <-- his reason for that answer.
He answered and gave you the why. Don't rip into him for no reason simply because you don't agree. Like TonyJoey said, don't get into the opinions of what's broken and what isn't, just accept his answer and move on.
-
no. the way we have it is fine right now.
-
Actually, it makes just as little sense as your original post. :aok Your first person shooter analogy is weak since it really has little in common with Aces High; here let me break down what you were essentially stating:
(1) A and B are similar.
(2) A has a certain characteristic.
Therefore:
(3) B must have that characteristic too.
Saying that having two countries will resort to 'endless repetitive brawls' or that it would be void of goals and possibility of victory is just incorrect and remains to be seen until it can be tested and proven.
i'm sorry but, how long have you been clueless? i can tell you're not a real thinker, more of a semi-independent drone.
-
He answered and gave you the why. Don't rip into him for no reason simply because you don't agree. Like TonyJoey said, don't get into the opinions of what's broken and what isn't, just accept his answer and move on.
not ankle humping, but thx for clearing that up. if i had posted it, they probably would have shoved it off and thought that i was doing damage control.
-
i'm sorry but, how long have you been clueless? i can tell you're not a real thinker, more of a semi-independent drone.
An Ad Hominem was about what I was expecting your response to be. Keep proving me right :aok
-
TonyJoey.
The presentation of an idea expressed with correct punctuation, grammer, spelling and proper word usage allows for the idea itself to be thought of without the distractions that improper use affords.
Simplified: By the time I had struggled through reading your suggestion I had already decided not to reply about the subject you chose. If you have a great idea that is ignorantly articulated, you may expect people to dismiss your idea because of that alone. People will assume that your idea has diminished value if they think you are ignorant.
Yes, I know this is harsh.
-
Way to over-react, people.
No. <-- his answer
What we have now is fine. <-- his reason for that answer.
He answered and gave you the why. Don't rip into him for no reason simply because you don't agree. Like TonyJoey said, don't get into the opinions of what's broken and what isn't, just accept his answer and move on.
not ankle humping, but thx for clearing that up. if i had posted it, they probably would have shoved it off and thought that i was doing damage control.
obviously both of you missed the obvious...the bolded words were what got their attention
"NO. THE WAY WE HAVE IT IS FINE" what part didnt you understand? thats my reasoning. >snip<
that good enough for you?
that would be construed as "smart alec"...
-
In response to a totally neutral and friendly gang-bang of outcries at him? Right?
I don't see it as smart alecky, no.
-
An Ad Hominem was about what I was expecting your response to be. Keep proving me right :aok
and continuing with that one trick lack of actual intelligence i see. serves you well.
-
In response to a totally neutral and friendly gang-bang of outcries at him? Right?
I don't see it as smart alecky, no.
krusty, you appear to have missed something along the way. there was one response from tony joey before skorpion's "childish" response. the other 2 simply called him on it based on the words he chose to use. hardly a "gang bang" in any view.
-
obviously both of you missed the obvious...the bolded words were what got their attention
that would be construed as "smart alec"...
im pretty sure, most people would have had the common sense to figure out that ripping a country out would divide squads and could possibly give 1 side an extreme numbers advantage to the other.
and the last thing you needed to so dearly bold, was a question, not being a smartass. like i said, all the adults think that what kids post is no good. or pure sarcasm.
-
Guys, look at from this angle...
What is the problem that we are trying to solve?
1) One country gets ignored
2) One country has more players than the other two countries combined
Any others?
Do we agree that these are problems?
-
1) One country gets ignored
it happens, could happen to any of the 3.
2) One country has more players than the other two countries combined
same answer as #1
Do we agree that these are problems?
short answer is no. it's a social issue, people making choices.
during primetime last night, the rooks had 25 more players than knits and around 30 more than bish...there comes a time in the late evening when most of the bish population disappears, like it's bedtime and the parents kick them off the computer. can't be helped. and we all know htc is not going to force people to "even the sides".
-
TonyJoey.
The presentation of an idea expressed with correct punctuation, grammer, spelling and proper word usage allows for the idea itself to be thought of without the distractions that improper use affords.
Simplified: By the time I had struggled through reading your suggestion I had already decided not to reply about the subject you chose. If you have a great idea that is ignorantly articulated, you may expect people to dismiss your idea because of that alone. People will assume that your idea has diminished value if they think you are ignorant.
Yes, I know this is harsh.
I know the bullet point presentation was a little rushed and agree it definately isn't the most effective way of presenting an idea, but I thought my main points got across decently, and my grammar/spelling were up to snuff. :uhoh
-
it happens, could happen to any of the 3.
same answer as #1
short answer is no. it's a social issue, people making choices.
during primetime last night, the rooks had 25 more players than knits and around 30 more than bish...there comes a time in the late evening when most of the bish population disappears, like it's bedtime and the parents kick them off the computer. can't be helped. and we all know htc is not going to force people to "even the sides".
So you don't believe that any game play mechanism can encourage people to change their behavior?
-
So you don't believe that any game play mechanism can encourage people to change their behavior?
well, perhaps if you present an idea where freedom of choice can co-exist with one person's idealism, i might be inclined to agree with it.
as of right now the population in the lw arena stands at 121 bish, 123 knits, 142 rooks...where exactly is the problem?
-
well, perhaps if you present an idea where freedom of choice can co-exist with one person's idealism, i might be inclined to agree with it.
as of right now the population in the lw arena stands at 121 bish, 123 knits, 142 rooks...where exactly is the problem?
Even with that many people on, there are times when one side faces a drought of fights. That, or the fights are too sparse for there to be any good furball. With as many people on as you said, ideally there would be about 190 people on each side. If there is even one fight on the entire map, every single one of those 190 people will have access to it.
no. the way we have it is fine right now.
:rofl Not funny! :furious
-
well, perhaps if you present an idea where freedom of choice can co-exist with one person's idealism, i might be inclined to agree with it.
as of right now the population in the lw arena stands at 121 bish, 123 knits, 142 rooks...where exactly is the problem?
wait till mid-night PST (I'm guessing 2am or 3am for you)... then you will see the problem.
...and how does having 2 countries reduce one's freedom of choice or limit idealism?
-
wait till mid-night PST (I'm guessing 2am or 3am for you)... then you will see the problem.
...and how does having 2 countries reduce one's freedom of choice or limit idealism?
I would argue that if anything, your freedom of choice would only increase. You would have more bases to fly from, while still having the oppurtunity to attack roughly the same number of bases as before, depending on the map layout.
-
The 2 country idea will always fail due uneven numbers issue. There would always be one side clearly dominating the other in numbers as opposed to the two countrys we have dominating the knights in numbers.
-
The 2 country idea will always fail due uneven numbers issue. There would always be one side clearly dominating the other in numbers as opposed to the two countrys we have dominating the knights in numbers.
As I mentioned in my original post, side balancing would occur much faster with only one country for the "switch to low numbers furballers" to go to. They would be the ever shifting part of the population that keeps the two countries relatively balanced.
-
The 2 country idea will always fail due uneven numbers issue. There would always be one side clearly dominating the other in numbers as opposed to the two countrys we have dominating the knights in numbers.
And why do you believe that?
Is the issue that people only want to play on the 'winning side'?
If so wouldn't a mechanism to prevent them from switching the numerically advantaged side be advantageous?
Or is the 'freedom' of choosing a side more important than having good game play?
It breaks down into to groups...
1) people who believe everyone but the muppets and a few others would be on one country...
2) people who believe that high eny and clouds of green will encourage people to switch...
And there are two approaches...
1) enable people to freely switch with no penalty.
2) penalize people who switch to encourage stability.
I don't see a way for having 'freedom' and believing in group 1, and with that said it goes back to, is your cartoon "freedom" more important than your desire for good cartoon gameplay?
-
* A plethora of historical and new player made maps. :aok
Interesting idea but, I here the loyal whines of "Where did chess piece <insert> go waaaaaaa?" :cry :D
We can name the two sides "red" and "black" in honor of checkers :rolleyes:
-
Those few good people don't equal the number of twits, tards, and dweebs we have. Aside from a double handfull of people, I've lost my faith in the AH community's ability to self-police and -regulate. I'm starting to lose faith in the AH community on general terms, not just in their ability to do certian things.
Ardy, theres a group of people that will scream, cry, flail their arms, and just generally throw a tantrum if anything changes. As soon as HTC changed the GV transimission system, 200 and country channel was spammed with "GOD THIS TRANNY SUCKS, WTF WERE THOSE MORONS AT HTC THINKING :cry :cry :cry?!?!?!?!?!". Now imagine the screams that would result from removing a country, and being prevented from changing to the high-numbered side. I wouldn't envy Skuzzy, I'll say that.
IMO, if we want to end hording, ganging, and dog-piling, we need to implement a perk 'compensation' given to the losing two sides. Say reduce the winning side's reward to 20 perks in each category, so you can divide that in half and give 10 to the two loosing sides.
This would encourage people to stick with their country since they still get perks at the end of the map, along with their higher perk miltiplyer.
-
Ardy, theres a group of people that will scream, cry, flail their arms, and just generally throw a tantrum if anything changes. As soon as HTC changed the GV transimission system, 200 and country channel was spammed with "GOD THIS TRANNY SUCKS, WTF WERE THOSE MORONS AT HTC THINKING :cry :cry :cry?!?!?!?!?!". Now imagine the screams that would result from removing a country, and being prevented from changing to the high-numbered side. I wouldn't envy Skuzzy, I'll say that.
Tank ace,
I'm trying to keep the conversation rational, I haven't committed to one idea, I see TJ's idea and my previous idea as starting points. you also suggested an option. The point is, I'm trying to illustrate the problem as clearly as possible and encourage people to brain storm solutions.
Caring about the 'whiners' is not something that has stopped HTC in the past, and technically, I'm sure the pro-horde players view TJ and I as whiners with this thread.
-
Relax !!! They are NOT going to remove a country. HTC has stated that they have tested 2 sided, all the way up to 5 sided and they believe that 3 sided works best for all around play. So that is where it will stay.
-
I would argue that if anything, your freedom of choice would only increase. You would have more bases to fly from, while still having the oppurtunity to attack roughly the same number of bases as before, depending on the map layout.
and i would argue that taking away a choice does not in any manner increase or improve ones choices. look at the number of bases available to fly from now, that aren't being used. you know just as well as anyone there are times when everyone on a side is focused on 3 or 4 big battles with another side and the 3rd side is busy taking their bases on the other side of the map. 20 or 30 may try to defend against the 3rd side but, the rest will just keep doing what they're doing.
there would be more bases behind the front lines than there are now. the battle front would not be any more spread out than it is, due to player nature of following the fights. if you were to just sit and watch the arena from the time the population starts building to its average peak, til the time it is at its lowest you would see the fighting shift as the population changes.
you're looking to fix something that truly isn't broken. i have to wonder if it's not just an excuse to see special events maps in the main arenas because you don't like the ones in rotation now. have you ever played any other multi-player online flight sims or first person shooters? there are only 2 sides, and inevitably one side is not as popular as the other so side balancing has to be forced. if you don't mind being forced to be on a different side than your squad mates or flying buddies, fine but the majority of players in ah would scream bloody murder. just look back at all the arena cap whines.
-
Something like this happened a few years ago when all the servers went down except the AVA and one other I think. It was spits and Hurri's vs 109's and 190's. I think everyone there had a heck of a time, and it was actually fun for everyone involved.
The thing to keep in mind is there is no such thing as a two sided server. All are based on the 3 sided setup.
In AvA, we have to manually disable everything like win the war map reset and rotation because it won't allow a new map to reload with a custom 2 sided set up.
This is why it is so difficult to run any sort of dynamic campaign in the AvA.
What the OP is asking for would require extensive changes in the coding, both server and client side.
-
I might like it if you and your squad was assigned to the low population country by the game.
-
and i would argue that taking away a choice does not in any manner increase or improve ones choices.
I don't understand this argument. If one was to believed then this, then the case for having infant countries should be desired as more countries == more 'choice'.
Do you believe that a rook airfield is any different than a knit airfield?
Do you want 100 crayons or do you want 50 crayons and 50 crayons or do you want 33 crayons, 33 crayons and 34 crayons?
-
Problem is you DON'T get 50 crayons and 50 crayons.
You get 65 crayons and 45 crayons
or 45 crayons, 33 crayons, and 32 crayons,
or 30 crayons, 25 crayons, 20 crayons, 13 crayons, and 12 crayons
The community has proven that it won't self-regulate. If it did, there wouldn't be a need for a side-switch timer at all.
The ONLY way you'll end up with 50 crayons on each side is if you buy a box of 100 crayons and divide them up evenly, and HTC seems unwillling to do that.
-
The community has proven that it won't self-regulate.
Ding Ding :aok :aok and that is the basis for why we are proposing these ideas. I proposed a penalty for switching to the side with the most numbers, TJ suggested only having two sides, what are others suggestions?
Tank-Ace, you had made a suggestion too, you should post in in the whish-list and see how people react to it, its burried in this thread.
-
I have always thought the 3 sided war was great for promoting zerg balance - if its 1v1 country wise - then its just a slug fest.
-
I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be benficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:
*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for their to be a fight on every front.
*A greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. i.e. 8 total fights on the map, simple math shows us that 8/2>8/3
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were say 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed
*The HQ's and factories would become more important as there is only 1 enemy, and knocking them out provides a bigger advantage in the overall war than if you had two enemies.
Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.
/Discuss
You already have it! its called the "AVA". feel free to bring in your hordes and take us regulars on! we look forward to the challenge. every week a different map, different setup and different planes. fights are intense and fun. its a good diversion for all.
-
You already have it! its called the "AVA". feel free to bring in your hordes and take us regulars on! we look forward to the challenge. every week a different map, different setup and different planes. fights are intense and fun. its a good diversion for all.
No comment...
-
Hey guys? did you ever think of this? create a two sided LW arena AND keep our original 3 sided LW arena... see what happens in the 2 sided arena and also see which is more popular :aok
-
The two country arena could be tried on an experimental basis by having one night a week (just as Tardtastic Tuesday was) using a 2 front war.
Keeping ENY in place would help balance the numbers somewhat. Another idea would be to allow all players unlimited switches to the low numbered side at any time. While at the same, time blocking all switching to the high numbered side.
If it doesn't work, the idea can be scrapped. No harm in trying it out.
-
No comment...
yeah we wouldn't want to go fight, where someone might give you some competition!
-
I don't understand this argument. If one was to believed then this, then the case for having infant countries should be desired as more countries == more 'choice'.
Do you believe that a rook airfield is any different than a knit airfield?
Do you want 100 crayons or do you want 50 crayons and 50 crayons or do you want 33 crayons, 33 crayons and 34 crayons?
what is not to understand? if you have a set of choices to make every day and someone takes any one of those choices away from you, it doesn't matter whether it was a popular choice or not, you won't like the fact that someone decided you didn't need it. throughout this discussion i've repeatedly stated the population will not regulate itself, most especially with just two sides and/or without being forced. and anyone who was around when there were two lw arenas knows what happens when people are denied a choice or forced to make a choice they do not want to make, i.e. arena caps.
one element that is not being considered in the grand two sided plan is player loyalty to one country. it's country loyalty that for whatever reasons plays a significant part in the overall balance. just looking at the concept of country loyalty alone, with just two sides the imbalance has a greater impact because the largest percentage of the population has developed a sense of loyalty to one side or the other. that sense of loyalty is driven mostly by the people who are on each side rather than a desire for side balance or individual ideas of "good gameplay". it boils down to simple psychology, where there is currently a three sided rivalry that eventually balances itself out, because people have two other choices they can make if they don't like something about their current choice. whereas a two sided rivalry will end up with an imbalance that can't be worked out. think about it. think about the people you really dislike being on the same side with because of their attitudes or behavior. what if you were forced to be on the same side as them because they populate both of only two choices you have? consider all the possibilites and outcomes that could arise from just one aspect of human interaction. if all the "popular" people migrated to on one side and all the "donkeys" migrated to the other, what incentives would there need to be in order for the best percentage of the overall population to voluntarily put aside their personality differences and balance the sides? the small percentage of people who don't fit within either group and readily switch sides to attempt balancing the numbers would not make a difference, because inevitably the differences in populations would be beyond what that small percentage could offset. it's very plain to see that the two sided idea does not consider the role player interactions and personality differences would make in the balance. just look at what happened to the populations in the early and mid war arenas. personality and behavior of certain individuals or groups of people, are always stated as being the primary reasons for the population drop. yet after all the time that has passed, neither of those two arenas has regained their past popularity.
-
TBH, I don't necessarily think two sides wouldn't "work", it very well may, but it's way too risky to even attempt it.
Advantages:
You can't hide from a particular squad by going to other side of map.
It simplifies strategy to where it's easy to understand exactly what is going on.
Roster numbers will be more of what you see is what you get. You won't have the high number side being ganged on both fronts, or the low numbers side only ganging on one front and being ganged on the other.
Disadvantages:
Unbalanced numbers are extremely more damaging to game play. Not only that but it could easily create a domino effect of players migrating to the "winning" side because no one wants to play on a losing team, except the vet heroes.
Redoing every single map for a 2 player game. Would take an incredible amount of time.
You are taking away something and adding nothing of quantifiable value to the game. Bound to piss off a lot of people when something is taken away.
You run the risk of creating much larger concentrations of players into condensed space. You might end up having a mega furball with 100 planes. Sounds cool to me as a vet, but the new player stands no chance. NONE. Neither does the guy with an average computer.
All in all, it's not even close to being worth it.
-
nice post grizz :aok as much as it kills me to admit it...
-
So you want 'freedom of choice' but you don't believe that giving people choice will work...
on i've repeatedly stated the population will not regulate itself, most especially with just two sides and/or without being forced.
If you look at my previous posts, I suggested this too.. Either way, do you have a suggestion to improve the situation?
If so wouldn't a mechanism to prevent them from switching the numerically advantaged side be advantageous?
Or is the 'freedom' of choosing a side more important than having good game play?
It breaks down into to groups...
1) people who believe everyone but the muppets and a few others would be on one country...
2) people who believe that high eny and clouds of green will encourage people to switch...
And there are two approaches...
1) enable people to freely switch with no penalty.
2) penalize people who switch to encourage stability.
-
So you want 'freedom of choice' but you don't believe that giving people choice will work...
If you look at my previous posts, I suggested this too.. Either way, do you have a suggestion to improve the situation?
i don't see an issue that requires an alternative solution. population numbers fluctuate for almost as many reasons as there are players. you few who think there is an issue are trying to change people's behavior and it won't work. you're not giving a choice, just limiting the available choices. may as well try to shut down the lw arena and force people to choose between ew and mw, you will lose a large number of players that don't like either choice.
-
Unbalanced numbers are extremely more damaging to game play. Not only that but it could easily create a domino effect of players migrating to the "winning" side because no one wants to play on a losing team, except the vet heroes.
And I'm sure every single one of those heroes would have a blast shooting down the hoardes of High ENY planes with 100 perk 262s. :airplane:
-
Oh, and one more thing. For the Grammar Nazi:
(http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/bc1ea24a0e7cbda8ec35e683506066398f5fe4546429137e6fa1fa4234d8350c2g.jpg) (http://www.mediafire.com/imageview.php?quickkey=y6ej57drctwcz46&thumb=5)
Yea, you Zoney. :t I looked through my original post and have tried to fix a few errors to make it bearable enough to read. :eek:
I made an allusion to this idea in the "Bish are dead" thread. I think having 2 countries would be beneficial to overall gameplay, and here's why:
*With two countries, pilots would have access to every single furball/GV battle/base attack on the map.
*There would be no situations where numbers are spread too thin for there to be a fight on every front.
*There would also be a greater number of fights in general, as many times there is only a couple decent fights to be had per country. For example, if there were 8 total fights on the map, simple math would show us that 8/2>8/3.
*Side balancing would be much simpler. A 70/50 adv would be balanced out by furballers looking to fly for the lowest number side much faster than if the numbers were 60/30/40, especially with the new 12 hour country switch limit in place.
*The problem of one side being exploited by the other two would be removed.
*The HQ's and factories would become more important. With only one enemy, knocking them out would provide a bigger advantage than if you were facing two countries simaltaneously.
Please post any thoughts, concerns, etc.
/Discuss