Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: Lazerr on October 08, 2016, 11:19:03 PM
-
Can we please try this for awhile?
I think between ENY and perks, two teams would be great, and help steamline action.
I've read here you have tried this before, but this is not then. different game.
Two weeks, two teams, small maps.
Let me know what type of bottle you want to give it a try.
-
Can we please try this for awhile?
I think between ENY and perks, two teams would be great, and help steamline action.
I've read here you have tried this before, but this is not then. different game.
Two weeks, two teams, small maps.
Let me know what type of bottle you want to give it a try. :cheers:
-
I know where you can get the perfect bottle of whiskey for just $30,000. :devil
-
make a map with 2 teams then propose again. all other maps have 3 teams
semp
-
Given the numbers in total in the arena, I am taking lazzer side.
-
make a map with 2 teams then propose again. all other maps have 3 teams
semp
you have really great answers to everything.. they make sense to.. well... not me....
you can split the current maps into 2, ever cut a pizza?
-
my point is to get fights going.... i'm trying to think of whatever i can.
I dont have spare time to come here and squeak, that sounds like your think semp.
-
just disable one of the three sides or use a ava amp.
-
Lazerr its called the AVA arena. bring your friends.
-
I suspect it would take a lot more than a map to change the game that much.
-
I think between 1 am and 12 pm the map should change to a two front smog 8 or small map, so that people can easily find action and participate in the action.
-
Lazerr its called the AVA arena. bring your friends.
Hard to populate two arenas, yet two
-
Can we please try this for awhile?
I think between ENY and perks, two teams would be great, and help steamline action.
I've read here you have tried this before, but this is not then. different game.
Two weeks, two teams, small maps.
Let me know what type of bottle you want to give it a try. :cheers:
+1
-
When two sides go to war, a point is all that you can score........ :rock
-
BrINg back Orange & Blue!
-
You must really want this badly if you made two identical parts less then 10 minutes apart.
-
Dang you've been whipping this horse for 3 years, its dead, leave it alone. :rolleyes:
-
You must really want this badly if you made two identical parts less then 10 minutes apart.
:D
-
Dang you've been whipping this horse for 3 years, its dead, leave it alone. :rolleyes:
The foal has only just been born.
-
Can we please try this for awhile?
No.
HiTech
-
I hope someday HTC develops a program to auto weather-in the map including the strats based on number of players in each country.
-
In a nutshell you can see what has made AH what it is today.
The huge maps and lack of encounters is slowly but surely killing the game. It has to. If you fly you can see it day by day, week by week. This is a game that RELIES on encounters between individuals to drive it but we will make encounters less likely by giving each and every person 110,000 sq. miles (no joke on one map) to fly and hide in. Anyone would have a hard time finding NYC in 110,000 sq. miles much less a single plane! You fly for hours and don't see anyone unless you are in prime US time.
If you are one person and fly where there are lots of enemies you become the object of attention for 5 to 10 people. Why? From their point of view you are the ONLY game in town! If they are seeking to shoot something, YOU ARE IT! So your battles are being on a horde or flying against a horde. If you can find a "normal" fight you feel lucky and you might play for a while and believe the game will continue. When you can't find anyone, you wonder why you aren't spending your time in a better way that flying a less than optimal flight simulator flying over unreal landscape with flat water. Or you become a ground attack guy because, well there are always enemy bases, even if no one is defending there is auto ack to make it interesting. Or spawn camp a place you hope the enemy will show. You have the target space zeroed in and you just need a handful of people to try and spawn to make it worthwhile.
Over time we have fewer and fewer people playing because the reason they up, whether they know it or not, is to ENCOUNTER an enemy. This makes the game exciting. This is a FACT!!! It is a perfect world that has no one else in it but its boring. It is the same has having a conversation in an empty room. If you believe otherwise you need to give everyone what you are smoking.
The absolute best suggestion is smaller maps. It increases the odds of an encounter. It is ludicrously simple to see. The logic is inescapable. We HAVE tried big maps, that got us HERE! Here, is fewer people playing than ever. Two teams does the same because everyone is an enemy or a friend and it concentrates the action. Again MORE encounters.
Everything is here to make a test, all of the code exists. It may not be perfect but its an attempt to get SOMETHING going. It is far, far easier to swat someone down for making a suggestion than it is to TRY something. Trying takes work. Swatting? Almost none.
But we can't change. Either this format and ONLY this format succeeds or there is no game.
Why?
Because.
End of story.
-
What was missing from the wish was the reason why there are 3 countries now. Hitech believes 3 countries are better based on experience. Nobody explained how human nature had changed to allow 2 countries to be a better choice. Trying something to see what happens is not sound policy.
-
Two countries will not work, because everyone would join one country and sweep the map to reset. That really would be the end.
What we have now is simply the best game there is based on WWII aircraft and vehicles. We users have to do our part if we want the game to grow into larger user numbers. The toxic attitudes need to stop, and we need to demonstrate the greater aspects of this game, like the FSO events, the intensity of a hard fought reset, and all of that to where people can experience it just as you do. If that doesn't work then they weren't coming here anyway.
-
No.
HiTech
As "Midway" would say, "Nuff said". :x
-
Two countries will not work, because everyone would join one country and sweep the map to reset. That really would be the end.
What's keeping everyone from joining one of three countries and sweeping the map? Not that I am saying two countries is the answer.
-
No.but
HiTech
Hitech doesn't have the server power to support that many players in one area during peak times would be very hard on their servers as most teams gang up on one field at a time.
A solution to this would be a sort of field bottleneck, ie A field can only up a certain number of planes in a span of time, this would spread people out.
some games can manage large amounts of players well (planetside 2), but they have huge dedicated teams that specialize in single fields, Hitech and his team are jack of all trades.
-
Hitech doesn't have the server power to support that many players in one area during peak times would be very hard on their servers as most teams gang up on one field at a time.
Umm, what? Pretty sure their servers are more than capable of handling a populated server.
-
HiTech has stated that the servers will run a 1000 players per arena with ease. I have seen the main arena with over 600 on and we had no trouble.
What's keeping everyone from joining one of three countries and sweeping the map? Not that I am saying two countries is the answer.
You do see this a bit when a map is close to being won. Players who do not know that you need to be on the winning team for at least 12 hours to receive the win perks jump ship hoping get the perks.
-
Hitech doesn't have the server power to support that many players in one area during peak times would be very hard on their servers as most teams gang up on one field at a time.
A solution to this would be a sort of field bottleneck, ie A field can only up a certain number of planes in a span of time, this would spread people out.
some games can manage large amounts of players well (planetside 2), but they have huge dedicated teams that specialize in single fields, Hitech and his team are jack of all trades.
You know nothing of what you speak.
HiTech
-
I believe that a short 'campaign' period of 2 teams would be beneficial until 1) more bugs have been hammered out and 2) advertising kicks off hardcore and we start seeing a noticeable amount of new players.
I also believe that this game advertised the right way on Steam would bring in a large amount of players, although I'm sure many Steam player reviews wouldn't be too positive (kids these days.)
I'm sure that Hitech & crew have a master plan of attack, but time will tell.
-
Hitech doesn't have the server power to support that many players in one area during peak times would be very hard on their servers as most teams gang up on one field at a time.
A solution to this would be a sort of field bottleneck, ie A field can only up a certain number of planes in a span of time, this would spread people out.
some games can manage large amounts of players well (planetside 2), but they have huge dedicated teams that specialize in single fields, Hitech and his team are jack of all trades.
This is just baseless nonsense.
-
"Two Side Tuesdays" would be an option I would like to see given a chance.
-
I made this suggestion a year or so back but after thinking about the problems, it is fairly clear to me three countries is better than two. Not perfect, but better.
On map size. The secret to successful maps is not size as much as it is design to generate action. Just about every map has a hot spot. The Crater map in AH2 was a huge success for GVs but in AH3, the redesigned map, at least so far, has yet to have a major tank battle. The best hot spots have both Air and GV attacks with carriers thrown in.
-
I vote yes
Boo
-
It's funny how some players think they know better than the developer. It has been shown (not only in this game) that two sides just doesn't work. It was a conclusion Kesmai came to when AW was still around. HiTech found out through WB that 4 sides doesn't work either and researched more and (like Kesmai) found that a 3 country system worked best. He has even posted that and in this thread said "No". That really should be the end of it but those that seem to think they know better continue on declaring a 2 country system is the best but yet have nothing to show to back up their claims, while those that have been developing this game have ample evidence that a 2 country system doesn't work best.
-
I guess three doesnt either.
-
No.
HiTech
Pffft.
-
It's funny how some players think they know better than the developer. It has been shown (not only in this game) that two sides just doesn't work. It was a conclusion Kesmai came to when AW was still around. HiTech found out through WB that 4 sides doesn't work either and researched more and (like Kesmai) found that a 3 country system worked best. He has even posted that and in this thread said "No". That really should be the end of it but those that seem to think they know better continue on declaring a 2 country system is the best but yet have nothing to show to back up their claims, while those that have been developing this game have ample evidence that a 2 country system doesn't work best.
I don't think anybody is seriously asking for it to be permanently switched. I think most agree that 3 sides is certainly the best way to go about business, when higher numbers are present. When there are 500 players on, it works much better than when only 100 are on.
Yeah, AvA has one side vs one side, but it's a niche environment within an already niche game. People won't go there unless the numbers are there, which is sad but people want that MMO combat experience, not the side vs side recreation one. (No offense AvA crew, I always loved the arena but was always disappointed that there weren't enough interested players.)
-
What's keeping everyone from joining one of three countries and sweeping the map? Not that I am saying two countries is the answer.
The "Alliance Whine," which is basically what started this whole thread.
-
The "Alliance Whine," which is basically what started this whole thread.
What started this thread, was the discussion of two teams, to help funnel action, rather than have 60 players spread out over hundreds and hundreds of square miles.
I don't play this to win wars, and many of the 2/3rd's of the lost player base didn't either. I will push a base take now and then to try and kick a nest and get a fight going, but the response is a field full of manned guns, or a m3 driving into town in 3 minutes undoing 3 sorties of my work. Do I want to bomb strats? No. Can i ask for the help of fellow players when there is 20 people on my team, and half are AFK? No?
The fight is rather difficult to find lately I find. I dont need any tips from anyone on how to do it either, ive been here long enough to know the game quite well.
I understand sometimes there are enough players to have a decent time in here. More often then not, there isnt, unless shooting static objects is your thing.
This wasnt meant to turn into a pissing match, which you seem good at doing on here. This was for discussion.
You guys mention two teams doesnt work, which must have been tried before my time here starting in 2000. Wouldnt this be before ENY, troops supplying town? All these new aspects that make this a totally different game than before?
I guess a decent answer would be nice, rather than the garbage ive read in here so far.
-
:cheers:
-
If it went to 2 sides, what would keep one side from rolling map after map?
-
While I think 2 sides is the wrong way to address the issue, the lack of aerial fights outside the AAA is a big negative for me, a recent returnee.
I am looking for an aerial fight outside of the range of manned ack and flakwagons.
I know there are more dollars in ground vehicles since you only need minimal brain activity to be successful but its not what I am looking for.
Luckily FSO is still a guaranteed aerial fight or I would seriously consider unsubscribing.
-
Seems like this a player-driven game. If "most" players wanted air-air fights, that's what we would have. Players would gravitate to two near-by bases, would switch countries to have two even sides, wouldn't try to capture, wouldn't vultch, wouldn't kill radar, etc., etc..., and there would be a nice continuous furball for all to enjoy.
However, since that isn't what is happening it seems reasonable to assume that "most" players don't want it to happen. So, having only two sides wouldn't necessarily create gameplay that is already possible but for whatever reason doesn't happen.
-
The ONLY reason for two countries, is there are not enough players for three countries. However, I see no advantage to it. The players of the country you delete may not want to join one of the other countries. Just saying.
You get more with a kind word and a gun, than you do with just a kind word.
-
. . .I know there are more dollars in ground vehicles since you only need minimal brain activity to be successful but its not what I am looking for. . . .
Are you ever wrong on that one. You have to develop cunning and guile to be really good in tanks. I would wager a cool drink of water that if you were in a tigerII that pretty muck kills everything with one shot and a really good tank player was in something like an easy to kill M4, you would lose 3 out of 4 times.
Some players have developed good tank killing skills in the M8. For them it is a cat and mouse game.
-
Like Dunbar's number where a person can only maintain relationships or a feeling of community with up to 80-200 people, I wonder if the OP is trying to describe something similar. Is it possible where games are concerned that there is a number threshold where 2 sides work better than 3 sides. 3 sides seems to work fine from about 80 and up with the fun factor increasing proportionally. Below that, things can get boring due to the availability of dispersion avenues that help larger numbers act slightly strategic and fight each other.
2 sides has the problem that there is no where to go if you don't like the matchup or, you are familiar with the player names on the opposing side who will be a none stop tower ticket any time you up. So your choices, log off or help create a side imbalance. The average person quickly looses interest in being the guy in the barrel. And quicker side switching only starts a whack a mole game of who doesn't want to be out numbered or face being in the barrel at the hands of some bored vet.
The problem with most analysis of this situation is the OPs always want a tiny number of average players to be forced to fight them. While projecting that those nameless players who will be in that arena will play nice by those OPs slewed projections about human nature to sell the idea. Those average nameless players will understand, it's for the good of AH3 and it's future that they allow themselves to be clubbed continuously at will until the OPs go to bed.
-
The ONLY reason for two countries, is there are not enough players for three countries. However, I see no advantage to it. The players of the country you delete may not want to join one of the other countries. Just saying.
You only need 3 players for 3 countries but I agree that more is better.
-
Seems like this a player-driven game. If "most" players wanted air-air fights, that's what we would have. Players would gravitate to two near-by bases, would switch countries to have two even sides, wouldn't try to capture, wouldn't vultch, wouldn't kill radar, etc., etc..., and there would be a nice continuous furball for all to enjoy.
However, since that isn't what is happening it seems reasonable to assume that "most" players don't want it to happen. So, having only two sides wouldn't necessarily create gameplay that is already possible but for whatever reason doesn't happen.
Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.
GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.
GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.
-
GV's are historical targets for attack aircraft.
If you fly low and heavy you're likely to be attacked by other aircraft.
-
You only need 3 players for 3 countries but I agree that more is better.
Sure, but unless there is somewhere for those 3 players from 3 countries to quickly meet up and have a 1v1v1 fight, they might as well be flying in circles offline.
-
Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.
GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.
GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.
This game is done. We saw this death march at brand x. The irony is that the cause is the same.
-
Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.
GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.
GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.
Kong didn't say anything about GVs. Yes the new update does lend it self to GV eye candy and I certainly hope they draw some players from "that other tank game". I am pretty good at bombing tanks :)
The point Kong was trying to make, i believe, was the style of game play has changed over the years. Back in the early years, Im talking tour 30-40ish. the game was all about air combat. Of course we didn't have a heck of a lot of GVs. But soon it became about squads, ans then base captures, and win the war, but through it all is was the FIGHT for those goals.
The goals now is to see which team can reset the map the quickest. Fighting slows down that process and so it is avoided with NOEs, or moving to undefended sides of the map only to move again as soon as a defender does show up.
Changing the maps, or the number of teams isn't going to bring back the glory days or air combat. Whats going to need to happen is players are going to have to change and WANT to fight. I think there are "carrots" HTC could use to entice players to fight more but can the code be re-written , do they even want to?
Personally, Im with Lazer and want to see more fights, however I know many players who just dont want to fight. They are more than happy to fly 3 hours to drop strats, or drive an hour to take out some factory with a GV, or sit for hours waiting for some poor sap to spawn into the spawn they have camped.
Its like handing a guy a golf club and telling him he can't play baseball any more, he has to play golf. For some guys this is OK, they like golf too. For others they may tell you were can put that golf club and walk away. Its a fine line HTC has to walk.
-
Sure, but unless there is somewhere for those 3 players from 3 countries to quickly meet up and have a 1v1v1 fight, they might as well be flying in circles offline.
Not only is there a place to meet up there is radio and text communication to make it easier.
-
What disappoints me is when I log on, check the roster for players in the arena, and find few if any aircraft up and the battle is in GVs. This is around 12PM EST.
Logged on again later with well over 100 players on line and again the number of players in GVs greatly out numbered the players in the air.
I upped once. Then logged. I was so bored I dove on the six of some bombers for something to do and got wasted. I refuse to tell someone how they should play. I'm not paying their subscription for the game.
It's fun when the gv'ers and flyers are at equal number. Then it is fun for both air a ground game play working together. When it's not, I'll log and comeback the next day.
-
I must be playing a very different game than some of you. I get on from various times between 12PM and 12AM and I never had any difficulty finding contacts. Most of the time in fact, there are so many contact its a bit overwhelming. For the past week or so I have seen many of the characters of this thread complain on the 200 that they cant find "fights" when there are relatively large multi-full-dar bar engagements going on. These game characters are involved in said fights, because I shoot them down in said fights. And vice versa. So I have no idea what the complaint is here.
-
I must be playing a very different game than some of you. I get on from various times between 12PM and 12AM and I never had any difficulty finding contacts. Most of the time in fact, there are so many contact its a bit overwhelming. For the past week or so I have seen many of the characters of this thread complain on the 200 that they cant find "fights" when there are relatively large multi-full-dar bar engagements going on. These game characters are involved in said fights, because I shoot them down in said fights. And vice versa. So I have no idea what the complaint is here.
I don't know who you are in game, I don't think I care either. I will refer to you as "character".
After a switch in job shifts, I play weekdays, normally after 12am CST.
There was 17 bishops, 7 knights, and 6 rooks online. Its not even ENY I am complaining about, because most of my time is in early/midwar rides, its the lack of something to shoot.
I have a feeling you and I might consider a fight something totally different too.
-
it's ok if you run into 6 bish taking a field from a CV with no defenders.
Makes it very lively for a poor hurricane trying to get some air. :D
As I mainly play these hours you have to take the rough with the smooth. Problem is those 6 guys then dissipate and go for the next soft target and your left trying to work out where they will go next. I don't enjoy killing GV's. Ahh thats a lie I do! but would rather dogfight.
The solution seems to be to just log off which only compounds the problem for everyone else. Hate to say it but off hours is dead until America wakes up. Then lets also mention the switch time, Bish always have the lead and there are wild swings between knights and rooks. I end up fighting Bish 80% of the time because they are usually 20+ ENY. I would pay 100 perks just to switch to the low numbered team when in reality I should be paid those 100 perks for balancing the teams! and helping alleviate Bish from ENY prison.
I dont think having two teams will help as they will just keep going where the enemy is not. The ONLY solution is a SMALL map with free switching to low numbered team.
-
I don't know who you are in game, I don't think I care either. I will refer to you as "character".
After a switch in job shifts, I play weekdays, normally after 12am CST.
There was 17 bishops, 7 knights, and 6 rooks online. Its not even ENY I am complaining about, because most of my time is in early/midwar rides, its the lack of something to shoot.
I have a feeling you and I might consider a fight something totally different too.
Well all I know is this.
The typical in game count appears to be about 140-190 players with the low end at around 2pm and the high end at around 7-12pm. EST. I see this all the time. Every day. The only times I see very low player counts is when extremely late at night or early in the morning.
What makes more more confused by this complaint is the times I see this happening. You and several others, violator for example, were having a rather lively conversation that was literally the subject of this thread just a few days ago. All these people were cramming the 200 with exclamations of how they was never any action, and they couldn't find a fight. These people were referencing the then in game time. There were almost 200 people on. And there was a rather large fight going on in the vicinity that the persons talking were flying at. By large, I mean several full dar bars. I mean 10-20+ airplanes within a grid of each other, if not within icon range even, at any given point. I was not having a problem finding "fights" and was rather perplexed by everyone complaining about it.
There are lull periods in game, to be sure. But I generally dont see an issue in finding a decent amount of action.
Regarding what pacing issues there may be, I think a better solution is redesigned maps. Not smaller per-se, but made to accommodate smaller player counts.
-
Aerial fight doesn't mean nothing but furballs but you know that.
GV's provide a place for folks, who would otherwise have to fly to attack or defend, a place to hide and do the same thing. They will be the eventual downfall of every MMO flying game.
GV's are good business in the short term but unless your long term goal is GV game, they cause a steady decline in the number of players. Of course, HT may be close enough to retirement that it doesn't matter.
Two night ago I side switched and between the Nits and Rooks I counted 16 tanks just sitting there spawn camping, not even firing a shot. Certainly not when I was up flying, and I took a plane up everywhere I saw a tank. They were all just sitting there, waiting for some poor schlub to spawn in and drive towards them. So add in at least 8 Bish doing the same, then add up the equal number of players doing nothing and your at about 50, 1/3 your players.
So whats left? Even if the other 100 are in airplanes wanting to fight, which they arent, thats about 30 a side on a huge map and were right back where were started. And Im right back where I ended which is a few sorties then signing off and doing something else.
I love the update but I dont think AH can sustain both a GV and a flight game anymore. It hasnt been able to for years. I give the Bish credit, they at least run big GV missions and dont just sit at spawn camps like the old men we are. Maybe its time I played Bish exclusively.
-
I guess I just don't see this lack of play thing. It does happen in the air, GVs and CV work. Yet you can create your own action anytime you want by trying to capture a base. Sooner or latter they up to stop you.
I use to just do the flying part of the game then squeak when no fights were available but now I move around quite a bit and I have a blast.
Watch your bases because if i can't find an air fight I will snatch your base right out from under your plane noses.
-
I guess I just don't see this lack of play thing. It does happen in the air, GVs and CV work. Yet you can create your own action anytime you want by trying to capture a base. Sooner or latter they up to stop you.
I use to just do the flying part of the game then squeak when no fights were available but now I move around quite a bit and I have a blast.
Watch your bases because if i can't find an air fight I will snatch your base right out from under your plane noses.
Begging and hoping for a fight while shooting buildings isnt going to get us numbers.
Typically the response to this action i a manned gun or resupply m3. That also wont help the population.
I wont say two teams isnt the answer, but smaller maps may be a good spot to start.
-
2) Field Locations
There should be no more than one airfield per sector. No more than 25 miles apart. No closer than 3/4 of a sector.
A GV base or port, and an airfield may occupy the same sector.
----------------------------------------------------------------
How much would making the largest number of airfields on a terrain 3/4 of a sector from each other effect game play? We already know close GV bases end up being an all night affair with multiple players trying to bomb a single player with nothing better to do then spawn to an airfield for 2 hours. Lately not many seem inclined to astro turf his GV base with lancs to put an end to his spawn marathon.
I also noticed on the new buzzsaw map that placing the strats close in with all of a country's bases, versus the old way of hiding them in the back field generates ongoing gatherings of planes and vehicles during prime time. The damage to those strats doesn't appear to have any effect on the prime time enthusiasm. Mostly it enhances the ability to find red guys to shoot at.
-
You know nothing of what you speak.
HiTech
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/018/774/c54650b7278f88a3eeaa7aa7d5fce4f7.jpg)
-
I must be playing a very different game than some of you. I get on from various times between 12PM and 12AM and I never had any difficulty finding contacts. Most of the time in fact, there are so many contact its a bit overwhelming. For the past week or so I have seen many of the characters of this thread complain on the 200 that they cant find "fights" when there are relatively large multi-full-dar bar engagements going on. These game characters are involved in said fights, because I shoot them down in said fights. And vice versa. So I have no idea what the complaint is here.
:rofl :aok
-
This is just baseless nonsense.
Are we including times in which Skuzzy trips over a power cord in a drunken stupor?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Are we including times in which Skuzzy trips over a power cord in a drunken stupor?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
That never happened. I was completely sober when I did that. :)
-
One of the things that immediately escapes players is that it is only natural that a defense be mounted against the stronger assault. I usually hear the complaint that the opposing teams are not fighting each other "as usual." Well, when you are outnumbered you will have to either show up to defend, attack, or you will get rolled. So once again the enemy 'truce' is a myth for the most part.
Then there is the 'ENY whine.' This complainer is a knight.
(http://i447.photobucket.com/albums/qq197/Chalenge08/ENY-whine_zpsnorn6kja.jpg)
It's human nature to complain when you are unhappy, but a little fact checking might save you some anguish and perhaps help to keep customer satisfaction higher.
I see this on Steam all the time. Train Simulator, for instance, has been updated annually without any additional cost to the customer. Yet, every year the customers will mount a complaint campaign claiming that the new update is the same old game (despite all the fixes). IT'S FREE!
Here the users are complaining about their inability to find a fight, while they are fighting, and yet the idea is for fewer teams? Think about that and you will see that two teams will create a situation in where the fights really will dry up.