Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: nugetx on August 19, 2018, 07:52:23 AM
-
So i'm currently on Arena and there are 50 people, but they are spread all over with 15 one one side 15 on other and 20 on 3rd, even though there are 50 people i'm flying alone.
with 2 sides it would be 25 vs 25 and much better to find a fight.
-
More likely 40 vs 10
-
We are scanning the roster right now! :noid
-
Maybe the opposite direction? 4 sides but smaller maps.
-
More likely 40 vs 10
I think people will balance up.
+1 to OP.
-
I think people will balance up.
+1 to OP.
LOL!!! nope, not with the side switching rule. Remember rule number one, "Go where the most players are playing", that includes the team thats rolling with the most players.
-
LOL!!! nope, not with the side switching rule. Remember rule number one, "Go where the most players are playing", that includes the team thats rolling with the most players.
You have to modify the sideswitch rules for this to work.
We never had this problem in Warbirds. When things got out of balance people switched to fix it. Worked fine.
Frankly I don't care either way. I'd rather be on the outnumbered side of a horde than on the side ignored by the other two teams. The time for two sides has arrived. We are whistling past the graveyard in denying this. When numbers rebound the third side can be re-introduced.
-
You have to modify the sideswitch rules for this to work.
We never had this problem in Warbirds. When things got out of balance people switched to fix it. Worked fine.
Frankly I don't care either way. I'd rather be on the outnumbered side of a horde than on the side ignored by the other two teams. The time for two sides has arrived. We are whistling past the graveyard in denying this. When numbers rebound the third side can be re-introduced.
Ya that just falls under "that was then, this is now" If everything worked like it did "then" we wouldnt be having these issues. :devil
-
Given the prevalence of hordes and 2 countries attacking 1 while ignoring each other, it seems that the current player base has little interest in "balance".
-
Ya that just falls under "that was then, this is now" If everything worked like it did "then" we wouldnt be having these issues. :devil
Exactly. Three sides worked THEN. It doesn't work NOW. :devil
Given the prevalence of hordes and 2 countries attacking 1 while ignoring each other, it seems that the current player base has little interest in "balance".
Nope, so at least I would be able to find a fight instead of being ignored by the purse swingers on the other side of the map.
-
If there will be 200+ people it can always come back to 3 sides.... but for now it should be 2.
-
If there will be 200+ people it can always come back to 3 sides.... but for now it should be 2.
Agreed.
The war will be a lot more dynamic, too, which is in and of itself fun.
I do miss the fullscreen map we had in WBs though. You got a much better idea of what was going on than you do when forced to "fold" your map onto a clipboard-sized area. A fullscreen map option would be a good move. Most games have this (even Zombie hunting games have it).
The clipboard is a nice work of coding prowess, but I think it probably confounds noobs a bit.
-
I like 3 sides
-
Check this out, there is a two sided war being fought at the moment. One is a blatant front and the other is a silent front (players and performance)
here is a way to deal with them both at the same time:
Remove the third country
- 1/3 of 3d geometry removed from the rendering engine - better performance
- force a two sided war, people are more apt to fight if they have numbers with them (don't even start about the three countries have numbers crap)
- stronger fronts for people to fight over
there is more but I feel the beer gods calling my name.
-
Check this out, there is a two sided war being fought at the moment. One is a blatant front and the other is a silent front (players and performance)
here is a way to deal with them both at the same time:
Remove the third country
- 1/3 of 3d geometry removed from the rendering engine - better performance
- force a two sided war, people are more apt to fight if they have numbers with them (don't even start about the three countries have numbers crap)
- stronger fronts for people to fight over
there is more but I feel the beer gods calling my name.
^^^^ I like this guy.
+1
-
Remove the third country
1/3 of 3d geometry removed from the rendering engine - better performance
This makes absolutely no sense to me :headscratch:
-
This makes absolutely no sense to me :headscratch:
What doesn’t make sense?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What doesn’t make sense?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
What I quoted.
-
What I quoted.
Depending on how the rendering pipeline, culling and LOD are set up. Less geometry = less math, this means fewer server calculations equaling better performance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Depending on how the rendering pipeline, culling and LOD are set up. Less geometry = less math, this means fewer server calculations equaling better performance.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Why would removing one chess piece affect the number of objects to be rendered on your screen? Why would there be less geometry?
-
Answer me this, how would it not increase performance?
I ask this cause I am drinking captain and miller lite at the moment and would like to have a great place holder to answer tomorrow after the evening festivities have stopped.
This subject deserves a sober Ciaphas.
Cheers!
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Don’t worry about that rabbit hole. Two sides = More Action.
-
Answer me this, how would it not increase performance?
Because there would not be less geometry to render just because it's two instead of three chesspieces. You still have the same stuff around you.
-
If the culling is set up to render 100 miles at 20k feet the extra countries assets will not be there.
Shall I tech you about rendering?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Performance would not improve by removing a chess piece.
You can try and teach me rendering, I could use a good laugh.
-
Kenai showed and proved that 3 sides can and does work in a small arena setting.
-
Also, the 2 sides as well as 4 sides has already been tried and tested to not work as great / as well as the 3 side fight...
This dead horse has been verifibly beaten until it became dust in the wind.....
-
Performance would not improve by removing a chess piece.
You can try and teach me rendering, I could use a good laugh.
It wouldn’t?
How does Dale handle the rendering?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
It's logic and common sense.
50 players online
3 sides - you are on one part of the map and the other 2 sides are on other side of the map, that's 30 players you have no contact with, 30 players you cannot fight against
2 sides - all players are in potential contact with each other
-
If AH were to go two-sided the only quick way to do it would be to disable the missing country's fields on each MA map, as creating brand new two-sided maps would be a massive undertaking and special event maps lack the necessary strats etc. The disabled fields would still be there, just uncapturable and not accessible to players. So there would be no benefit to frame rates as we would be playing on the same maps.
Apart from the everyone piling into one country issue already mentioned there are other problems I can see that might arise from this arrangement. One would be players hitting fields and strats in the now empty country to get easy points. I could be wrong but don't think there is an easy way to prevent this short of editing the maps to remove all these fields and strats or HT writing new code to make that country's objects immune to damage. Also some of the less symmetrical maps might have balance issues without a third country in the mix.
-
50 players online
3 sides - you are on one part of the map and the other 2 sides are on other side of the map, that's 30 players you have no contact with, 30 players you cannot fight against
2 sides - all players are in potential contact with each other
"Aw, Mom, I'm never going to need all this boring math stuff."
"You never know, dear. You just never know."
- oldman
-
It's logic and common sense.
50 players online
3 sides - you are on one part of the map and the other 2 sides are on other side of the map, that's 30 players you have no contact with, 30 players you cannot fight against
2 sides - all players are in potential contact with each other
This is why I advocate it. You will always be on a country able to face the enemy’s point of attack.
-
But what would you name them?
-
But what would you name them?
"Winners" and "Losers" because the people who like to roll bases will gravitate to one side while the people who like to defend will gravitate to the other. Guess which side will have more.
Wiley.
-
But what would you name them?
Kings and queens :devil
-
But what would you name them?
Dumbs and Dumberers.
-
"Winners" and "Losers" because the people who like to roll bases will gravitate to one side while the people who like to defend will gravitate to the other. Guess which side will have more.
Wiley.
*PURE* CONJECTURE.
Absolutely based on NOTHING and completely opposite my experience in other games. The sides will balance out fairly well.
That said, I'll take being outnumbered to being ignored.
-
*PURE* CONJECTURE.
Absolutely based on NOTHING and completely opposite my experience in other games. The sides will balance out fairly well.
That said, I'll take being outnumbered to being ignored.
How many of your other games have a decent sized contingent of players that do everything within their power to avoid having to deal with a meaningful opposing force?
Wiley.
-
How many of your other games have a decent sized contingent of players that do everything within their power to avoid having to deal with a meaningful opposing force?
Wiley.
We don't have a decent-sized contingent of players right now so it's an irrelevant comparison. However, if you are concerned with people avoiding battle then three sides certainly doesn't fix the problem. Two sides would sure make a dent in it though.
You have base takers and base defenders in every country, some within the same squadron. They will filter into the new countries on a roughly equal basis.
If you fix the side switch timer people *WILL* switch for balance. Seen it all before.
-
We don't have a decent-sized contingent of players right now so it's an irrelevant comparison. However, if you are concerned with people avoiding battle then three sides certainly doesn't fix the problem. Two sides would sure make a dent in it though.
You have base takers and base defenders in every country, some within the same squadron. They will filter into the new countries on a roughly equal basis.
If you fix the side switch timer people *WILL* switch for balance. Seen it all before.
Ah. I see your conjecture trumps my conjecture. Good to know.
Wiley.
-
Im fine with slaughtering a horde of HE111's and 110's because ENY is too high.
-
Ah. I see your conjecture trumps my conjecture. Good to know.
Wiley.
Again, intelligence guided by experience and common sense.
You think squadrons will break up along base take/base defense lines? :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Im fine with slaughtering a horde of HE111's and 110's because ENY is too high.
I'll be there with you. :salute :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:
-
You have a more likely reality that the same people sitting in manned guns and wirbles with the current three country scenario will do so even more. They are not paying Hitech to be your fodder, they just want to avoid you and take bases. Running into you occasionally is the cost of doing business. Two sides and a quicker side switch change will make the cost of doing business to high for them. Two sides and a faster side switch will have them running into you more often than it will be worth their $14.95. Why do you think they want to sneak around and take bases away from active combat hot zones?
All of these ideas are being thrown out there without admitting you don't care if they quit which cuts into Hitech's bottom line. You then have no guarantee they will be replaced while all of you won't admit most average Joe customers play games like these for some fun and a little bit of action. Not for white knuckle all night boom, boom ACM fixes, look at the numbers playing WT easy mode. Once long ago our arena was filled with mostly average Joe players that accepted running into the ACM ADD crowd "once in a while" as the cost of doing business.
Why aren't you ACM two country people all living in the AVA if that is what all the real deal players want? The AvA CMs have begged you guys for a decade to make their arena your home. And they were willing to setup scenarios for you that Hitech won't in the MA. Hitech gave you guys a two country war arena all for yourselves.
-
You...
[Y]our fodder...you...you...you...
Why do you think...?
[W]ithout admitting you don't care... You then...while all of you won't admit...
Why aren't you...?
...[Y]ou guys...your.
[Y]ou... [Y]ou guys...yourselves.
More of this again? Come on now...
SMH.
Meanwhile, hows that status quo working out for YOU? (Whisper: They’re already quitting--and new players aren't staying.) :bolt:
This is a COMBAT game. It is losing subscribers because people will not fight. Seems to me if YOU and YOURS want to take bases unopposed you can do it offline or in a custom non-combat arena. That at least makes more sense than asking people in an arena called MELEE to expect the opposite.
Melee me·lee
ˈmāˌlā,māˈlā
noun
a confused fight, skirmish, or scuffle.
PS - 2-Sided AvA NOT EQUAL to 2-Sided MA :old:
-
You don't observe them to build terrains for them, the average Joe player does not see this as a combat game. They see it as playing at something resembling combat and capture the flag is the most they want to expend effort at for their $14.95. You want to harvest them becasue they are easy kills while you take the risk of occasionally running into better ACM players than yourself as the cost of doing business. Most of this is ACM players want to harvest the average players becasue it's a quick win and makes for a feel good when the kills landed message goes out. If you guys wanted to go at it all night against other ACM players hard core, you would ditch the MA and go at it in the DA or a custom arena. Even the AvA but, you don't. You complain at Hitech that he has to come up with some way to force the average players to let you harvest them and your only evidence is they are killing the game becasue they won't play the game your way.
You or some version of you has been screeching exactly this at Hitech since the beginning of this game. The average players have been leaving since 2009 when NOE was taken away becasue they were here to play capture the flag in WW2 toys, not air samurai in WW2 toys. They don't want to fight you, they want to capture your feilds. Before 2009 we just got good at determining where an NOE would popup and go whack them becasue that was the game. With 400 players there were always ACM players running around above dar to keep the air samurai occupied so both groups coexisted doing their own thing. You will not force them to become air samurai, they will just cancel their subscriptions and leave. And lately that has looked like what the experiments were trying to see if it was possible to force them to do. Because force is the only way to get them into situations they are not paying to be in. NOE is not force, it is accepting what that average customer type is really paying $14.95 to accomplish in this game which makes them happy.
If Hitech gives them back NOE at this late date, chances are people will grief them anyway by ratting them out with PM's, 3rd party VOX, or having a laptop with a two week account to watch for NOE missions logged into other countries. You will still be at this impasse, they are not paying $14.95 to play air samurai so you will still not get them into the air so you can harvest them. So far since 2009 everyone's solutions to the average player not wanting to play air samurai has been for Hitech to force them no matter what they want in this game for their $14.95.
Lets ask Hitech to test this.
Hitech,
Please turn off the ability to capture map rooms for 7 days as a test in the MA. (at this point radar settings won't matter.)
-
You don't observe...
You want to harvest them...you take...yourself... [Y]ou guys wanted...you would...you don't. You complain....you....your only evidence...your way.
You or some version of you...you...your feilds (sic). You will not force them
You will still...so you will still not...so you...
As I've noted before, you (pun) sure know an awful lot about what everyone else is thinking.
If you guys wanted to go at it all night against other ACM players hard core, you would ditch the MA and go at it in the DA or a custom arena. Even the AvA but, you don't.
Please note the burning straw man here.
They don't want to fight you...
:headscratch: :headscratch: Then why are they in a combat game? :headscratch: :headscratch:
[T]hey want to capture your feilds.
"[T]hey want to capture your feilds (sic) UNOPPOSED."
FIFY.
If you guys wanted to go at it all night against other ACM players hard core, you would ditch the MA and go at it in the DA or a custom arena. Even the AvA but, you don't.
"If [those] guys wanted to go at it all night against [nobody but an undefended base] hard core, [they] would ditch the MA and go at it in the [offline mode] or a custom arena. Even the AvA but, [they] don't."
FIFY.
Those who do not wish to engage in combat are not the future of this game. They are in fact contributing mightily to its demise and are holding Hitech's business hostage. New blood is needed and that new blood wants action. They are not going to pay for empty arenas and a lack of combat. PERIOD.
The old paradigm no longer holds, whatever it was, and Hitech deserves a bit of good faith, support, and patience from us if we are going to revive this game. :old:
-
bustr this entire post was very well thought out <S>
You or some version of you has been screeching exactly this at Hitech since the beginning of this game. The average players have been leaving since 2009 when NOE was taken away because they were here to play capture the flag in WW2 toys, not air samurai in WW2 toys.
-
Most of this is ACM players want to harvest the average players becasue it's a quick win and makes for a feel good when the kills landed message goes out.
Bustr, you've got some pretty weird and - I'm sorry to say - uninformed ideas about MA balance and your so-called ACM-sharks, Lions and now Air-samurai players as you're calling them. It's almost like an idea springs to your mind, and instead of testing its validity you just keep refining how you write it and with every new iteration become even more convinced of your own correctness since it reads more smoothly. Keep moving towards your ever-so-comfortable nirvana of correctness, don't let reason or balance get in your way...
I'm amazed I have the energy to bother posting here on this forum the state it's presently in, perhaps just for the sake of novelty, I thought I'd address your momentous ongoing attack on all things ACM with some alternate perspective. At least once, for the record...
You seem to be positioning yourself as an objective, unbiased, for-the-good-of-AH campaigner. But I'll remind everyone one of your earlier maps was designed expressely to train all things anti-fighter, so in the first instance I think your anti-fighter bias runs pretty deep.
Let's examine your predator-prey analogy: firstly it suggests there is once group which purely predates on another. Untrue. Untrue because the herd are also armed and want to eat the predators. And they try that with larger numbers. Has it ever occurred to you that ACM-centric players arise as a reaction to that and not the other way around. No. Of course it didn't, because you can't peek over the top of your own container.
You propose a division of the AH air combat-world into two discrete groups. Also untrue. It is more like a spectrum with noobs at one end and your ACM-sharks at the other. You further imply someone on the more advanced side always wants to predate on those to the less advanced side. Untrue. Untrue, ignorant and naive. For those who have committed to becoming skillful at ACM, you must seek, fight and be defeated by those to the more advanced side than you. Hence you must look for those who can challenge you and your present set of ACM theories & practices. Anyone less able than you doesn't do that and results in what you do with your writing: reinforces unfounded material.
But then here's the kicker (especially for you) the spectrum's not even a line, it's a 2D graph, the y-axis denoting experience. So you'd have a huge, and now increasing (thanks to reduction) bell curve in the middle of ACM ubernoobs. Not particularly skilled at ACM but magnificently experienced in knowing when they have momentary advantage and when they do not. When to attack a -e plane, to literally trip over each other to attack a damaged aircraft, to run in groups, run away, dive away, to friends, ack, CVs, hop in an 88-mm what-have-you. Those are the group which predates on noobs and ACM-masters alike. Because simply there's more of them than anyone else. Always has been, and that group is your sacred 'Average Joes'.
With an absence of ACM masters at one end, and an enormous herd of Average Joes with their heads down grazing all day long. The herd is unchecked, unchallenged, unaware of its surroundings. So new players come in, look around and leave very quickly - this is exactly what HiTech's stats reported. Would you stay, honestly, if you were new and inexperienced?
Do you know how many new players come to my Breakfast Club, by proportion? It's a lot. So much for your 'they all want to avoid combat' motif.
Any healthy natural system has a balance or is moving towards a balance. If it is not it is moving towards extinction. The balance is gone now, and when HiTech runs a minor test to explore a re-balance (and initiating all kinds of change suggestions) you all start with your ultimatums and tantrums and 'don't change nothing' nonsense.
Congratulations. WTG on stiffling any furter experimentation. Side-swapping to low numbers side untested. Zone ENY untested, cycling maps untested, etc. Won't likely be when your 'average Joes' immediately threaten to leave en masse if you change anything. And you say the ACM-players pressure HTC. Outragoeous and hypocritical behaviour. You lazy, inflexible crybabies.
Keep it then. Keep it exactly as it is. And as it is right now it is dying. Enjoy your decreasing savanna of green grass while the desert encroaches rapidly around you. Just keep looking down!
You're spraying your vitriol in the wrong direction old man.
-
Once upon a time there was a great 2 side arena called Combat Theatre (AH1 days) it was moderately populated and hugely fun.
Today it is called Axis Vs Allies, but it is virtually empty most of the time...
If so I'd rather prefer to have one AvA like arena than what it happens today. But this is me. I always preferred historical match ups
-
Further to nrshida’s point,
I flew incognito the other night with low numbers. There was not much going on my side of the map so I changed teams based on a deduction made by looking at the dar bar. My deduction was incorrect and I ended up on the side with more at that base.
Great, now my evening is screwed, my choice is to join in and beat up on the defenders or log. I took off and headed to the enemy field. What happened then goes against all that you think of me and those like me bustr.
Instead of swarming in, we politely waited our turn. We fought as evenly as we could, I changed my plane to a KI84 as that is what the enemy player was flying. I flew low so as to not have a big advantage and we all had a blast.
Your opinion is the more skilled fighter pilot types are the problem. I disagree. The problem is much more complex than that however a playground devoid of players is compounding the problem.
No body want to go for a game of tennis and end up hitting the ball against the wall on their own. May as well go play squash at least st when playing alone it is valid match practice.
I am bored in game more than not now. Your thinking will see more like me quit and what you will have left is a bunch of guys racing each other to take undefended bases.
-
bustr this entire post was very well thought out <S>
Not so much. See below.
Bustr, you've got some pretty weird and - I'm sorry to say - uninformed ideas about MA balance and your so-called ACM-sharks, Lions and now Air-samurai players as you're calling them. It's almost like an idea springs to your mind, and instead of testing its validity you just keep refining how you write it and with every new iteration become even more convinced of your own correctness since it reads more smoothly. Keep moving towards your ever-so-comfortable nirvana of correctness, don't let reason or balance get in your way...
I'm amazed I have the energy to bother posting here on this forum the state it's presently in, perhaps just for the sake of novelty, I thought I'd address your momentous ongoing attack on all things ACM with some alternate perspective. At least once, for the record...
You seem to be positioning yourself as an objective, unbiased, for-the-good-of-AH campaigner. But I'll remind everyone one of your earlier maps was designed expressely to train all things anti-fighter, so in the first instance I think your anti-fighter bias runs pretty deep.
Let's examine your predator-prey analogy: firstly it suggests there is once group which purely predates on another. Untrue. Untrue because the herd are also armed and want to eat the predators. And they try that with larger numbers. Has it ever occurred to you that ACM-centric players arise as a reaction to that and not the other way around. No. Of course it didn't, because you can't peek over the top of your own container.
You propose a division of the AH air combat-world into two discrete groups. Also untrue. It is more like a spectrum with noobs at one end and your ACM-sharks at the other. You further imply someone on the more advanced side always wants to predate on those to the less advanced side. Untrue. Untrue, ignorant and naive. For those who have committed to becoming skillful at ACM, you must seek, fight and be defeated by those to the more advanced side than you. Hence you must look for those who can challenge you and your present set of ACM theories & practices. Anyone less able than you doesn't do that and results in what you do with your writing: reinforces unfounded material.
But then here's the kicker (especially for you) the spectrum's not even a line, it's a 2D graph, the y-axis denoting experience. So you'd have a huge, and now increasing (thanks to reduction) bell curve in the middle of ACM ubernoobs. Not particularly skilled at ACM but magnificently experienced in knowing when they have momentary advantage and when they do not. When to attack a -e plane, to literally trip over each other to attack a damaged aircraft, to run in groups, run away, dive away, to friends, ack, CVs, hop in an 88-mm what-have-you. Those are the group which predates on noobs and ACM-masters alike. Because simply there's more of them than anyone else. Always has been, and that group is your sacred 'Average Joes'.
With an absence of ACM masters at one end, and an enormous herd of Average Joes with their heads down grazing all day long. The herd is unchecked, unchallenged, unaware of its surroundings. So new players come in, look around and leave very quickly - this is exactly what HiTech's stats reported. Would you stay, honestly, if you were new and inexperienced?
Do you know how many new players come to my Breakfast Club, by proportion? It's a lot. So much for your 'they all want to avoid combat' motif.
Any healthy natural system has a balance or is moving towards a balance. If it is not it is moving towards extinction. The balance is gone now, and when HiTech runs a minor test to explore a re-balance (and initiating all kinds of change suggestions) you all start with your ultimatums and tantrums and 'don't change nothing' nonsense.
Congratulations. WTG on stiffling any furter experimentation. Side-swapping to low numbers side untested. Zone ENY untested, cycling maps untested, etc. Won't likely be when your 'average Joes' immediately threaten to leave en masse if you change anything. And you say the ACM-players pressure HTC. Outragoeous and hypocritical behaviour. You lazy, inflexible crybabies.
Keep it then. Keep it exactly as it is. And as it is right now it is dying. Enjoy your decreasing savanna of green grass while the desert encroaches rapidly around you. Just keep looking down!
You're spraying your vitriol in the wrong direction old man.
Nrsida, this entire post was very well thought out. <S> Bravo.
-
Further to nrshida’s point,
I flew incognito the other night with low numbers. There was not much going on my side of the map so I changed teams based on a deduction made by looking at the dar bar. My deduction was incorrect and I ended up on the side with more at that base.
Great, now my evening is screwed, my choice is to join in and beat up on the defenders or log. I took off and headed to the enemy field. What happened then goes against all that you think of me and those like me bustr.
Instead of swarming in, we politely waited our turn. We fought as evenly as we could, I changed my plane to a KI84 as that is what the enemy player was flying. I flew low so as to not have a big advantage and we all had a blast.
Your opinion is the more skilled fighter pilot types are the problem. I disagree. The problem is much more complex than that however a playground devoid of players is compounding the problem.
No body want to go for a game of tennis and end up hitting the ball against the wall on their own. May as well go play squash at least st when playing alone it is valid match practice.
I am bored in game more than not now. Your thinking will see more like me quit and what you will have left is a bunch of guys racing each other to take undefended bases.
That’s what he advocates. As he said in his most recent post I dissected, ”They don’t want to fight you.”
Well stated, Fess. I do the same as you did the other night. I called my guys off and we moved out over the water to let the uppers grab. I wound up in an outnumbered 3 v 2 when it was all said and done. So much for the ACM Shark-Predator theory.
-
-1
-
- 1
Be patient. Mr HiTech will get the numbers back up.
:salute
-
I think people will balance up.
+1 to OP.
They will not and when you force them into Emils and P-40's, they whine.
-
They will not and when you force them into Emils and P-40's, they whine.
Then they need to balance up. See how that works? :D
-
you all are just whistling Dixie, HiTech already said no to a 2 sided war-on nugetx's previous posts when he made his presence known.
nugetx came back dug up that poor dead horse and and is beating it again, give it up it's not going to happen.
-
+1000 this is a phenomenal idea.
and to date no one has matched a decent rebuttal on why we don't do this. other than the standard this is what dale wants or this is how its all ways been.
I switch from time to time to get some action. and theres nothing worse than like fess said, you play the shell game and come up still empty handed, even by looking at roster numbers. if it was a 2 sided country war and team a had 50 players and team b had 25 players, guess what I know what team to switch over to.
how many folks do you think log in and see both there fronts completely dead and log? or they log in on the weekend and see double dar on both there fronts and log?
if there was a two country war guess what time switch wouldn't be such an issue as there is a one front war and the base rollers could roll bases and dog fighters to dog fight. I think folks would be more likely to even up teams and sides as for better game play. it may also actually encourage MISSIONS and a collusion of team players to master mind a base strike (imagine that). humans tend to flow like water and water takes the path of least resistance. so lets say (average arena numbers) there 30 players per team, in our current states of game play there is going to be one front that is dead and the other team is gonna have 30 vs 15. now if it was a 2 country one front war it would be 45ish versus 45ish.
-
you all are just whistling Dixie, HiTech already said no to a 2 sided war-on nugetx's previous posts when he made his presence known.
nugetx came back dug up that poor dead horse and and is beating it again, give it up it's not going to happen.
(http://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/beating-dead-horse-gif-2.gif)
-
Just like Titanic Tuesday used to generate excitement, I would like to see Two Side Tuesday tried out.
Two countries, a one hour switch time and unlimited switch time to low numbered country. Convert an AVA or scenario map.
If it fails, the proof will be there for all to see. HTC can say "I told you so" and go back to business as usual.
Suppose it doesn't fail? Having one day per week a little different would generate excitement.
-
Just like Titanic Tuesday used to generate excitement, I would like to see Two Side Tuesday tried out.
Two countries, a one hour switch time and unlimited switch time to low numbered country. Convert an AVA or scenario map.
If it fails, the proof will be there for all to see. HTC can say "I told you so" and go back to business as usual.
Suppose it doesn't fail? Having one day per week a little different would generate excitement.
This would be so much fun. I bet it would be a hit requiring Two-sided Thuraday, too.
+1
Shake things up, Hitech.
-
Just like Titanic Tuesday used to generate excitement, I would like to see Two Side Tuesday tried out.
Two countries, a one hour switch time and unlimited switch time to low numbered country. Convert an AVA or scenario map.
Oh man, can you imagine the poorly spelled, hysterical, all-caps posts that will generate when peoples cherished chess piece is gone for a night?
Glorious.
-
Oh man, can you imagine the poorly spelled, hysterical, all-caps posts that will generate when peoples cherished chess piece is gone for a night?
Glorious.
No doubt. Just like with the dar experiments. Just having it on one day of the week would alleviate some of their "suffering". :D
As far as I know, HTC hasn't tried a 2 sided MA format since the '90s. There was probably no ENY system in place to keep things from getting out of hand.
Barely 100 players in prime time isn't cutting it. Please try this out. :pray
The sides can be "Us" and "Them". Whichever side you pick becomes "Us" on your map and the enemy side will always be "Them".
-
No doubt. Just like with the dar experiments. Just having it on one day of the week would alleviate some of their "suffering". :D
As far as I know, HTC hasn't tried a 2 sided MA format since the '90s. There was probably no ENY system in place to keep things from getting out of hand.
Barely 100 players in prime time isn't cutting it. Please try this out. :pray
Yup.. i know they have said they know from experience that two sides hasnt worked, but I dont believe ENY was around during that time. Neither was I, so that is an assumption. I can see what happens when all available players online can interact with eachother, i saw it last night. Its hard to evenly share a pizza with three people.
-
Oh man, can you imagine the poorly spelled, hysterical, all-caps posts that will generate when peoples cherished chess piece is gone for a night?
Glorious.
That would be just treble!!!!!!! :old: OH THE HUMANITY!!!!!
-
Yup.. i know they have said they know from experience that two sides hasnt worked, but I dont believe ENY was around during that time. Neither was I, so that is an assumption. I can see what happens when all available players online can interact with eachother, i saw it last night. Its hard to evenly share a pizza with three people.
Divide that pizza into three equal pieces. Be specific. Hee hee.
-
Divide that pizza into three equal pieces. Be specific. Hee hee.
Some of you guys proved that it worked last week,as well. In AvA. I would be willing to bet that even on the STATISTICALLY lowest turn out day/evening that would change, once the word got out. What, maybe a month? Wonder if a case of Scotch, IF it doesnt work to boost that particular time slot? I mean all things being equal with MA, except for time switch timer, but keep ENY to FORCE Balancing? :uhoh It will split the players from MA, but it could go along way with letting this old horse either getting some rest or at least some peace :uhoh
-
-edit-
posting in wrong thread :P
-
Some of you guys proved that it worked last week,as well. In AvA. I would be willing to bet that even on the STATISTICALLY lowest turn out day/evening that would change, once the word got out. What, maybe a month? Wonder if a case of Scotch, IF it doesnt work to boost that particular time slot? I mean all things being equal with MA, except for time switch timer, but keep ENY to FORCE Balancing? :uhoh It will split the players from MA, but it could go along way with letting this old horse either getting some rest or at least some peace :uhoh
what??? Lol
-
a 2 sided Tuesday would probably be the night I would not play- or any 2 sided night for that matter
-
a 2 sided Tuesday would probably be the night I would not play- or any 2 sided night for that matter
Well that should encourage a lot more people to vote for it.
-
-1
-
Well that should encourage a lot more people to vote for it.
:rofl
-
a 2 sided Tuesday would probably be the night I would not play- or any 2 sided night for that matter
lol you're.. nevermind
-
a 2 sided Tuesday would probably be the night I would not play- or any 2 sided night for that matter
:ahand
-
I'm with Lunatic, that would be the night I would not play, or maybe spend time in the training arena or the offline arena. :bolt:
Let all you "find a Fight" guys have at it.
-
I'm with Lunatic, that would be the night I would not play, or maybe spend time in the training arena or the offline arena. :bolt:
Let all you "find a Fight" guys have at it.
Your choice to miss out on all the fun. Good luck with that! :cheers:
-
Let all you "find a Fight" guys have at it.
This comment blows my mind. For the life of me I cannot understand why you choose a game based on WW2 combat and then don't want to fight.
Sincerely, help me understand, what would a fun game session look like for you?
-
This comment blows my mind. For the life of me I cannot understand why you choose a game based on WW2 combat and then don't want to fight.
Sincerely, help me understand, what would a fun game session look like for you?
Never said I wont fight, nor do I "play" to avoid a fights, I will fight and I search for fights, just not the way the "find a fight" guys want. There are any number of ways to play this game to suggest or imply there is only one way, is near sighted or narcissistic. Taking off to defend a base under attack is fighting, taking a tank into an enemy town to wf it is fighting. Bombing strats, shooting the 16" guns at an enemy target, is fighting. Even Cybro fights. The ops was about going from 3 countries to 2, I believe that is a mistake.
I have fought you any number of times in game, with you winning most of them I'm sure, your very good in fighter. I am not, I am fair in a gv, not sure if I've ever seen you in one or not. If I do I'm sure I will get a least a few kills on you, oh btw that will be because of our fighting. :D
-
your very good in fighter. I am not
Don't underestimate yourself, Kenai, you're quite competent and a good person to boot. We get that you think two sides is a mistake.
- oldman
-
Even Cybro fights.
Cybro's a fisherman.
-
Cybro's a fisherman.
Is he a fisher of men or a fisher man? :devil Fishy man? :rofl
-
this dead horse is all bones now
HiTech said no to a 2 sided war-why can't you all get it thru you're thick skulls.
he has tried it on another game it didn't work. he didn't say why it didn't work. but I can imagine why it didn't work. seeing what is going on in the Melee arena when I logged on this morning at 11:00am central 20bish 9 Knights 8 rooks..
in a 2 sided war it would probably be 29 bish 8 rooks.
in a 2 sided war most would flock to 1 side to roll the other sides bases to win the war easier to get the 75 perks for each war won.
because as in the Melee arena people won't switch to even up the sides, in my opinion it's because they are afraid they will shoot down a squaddie and one will get mad. they will find out who is the better pilot than they are, and may cause arguments.
-
I we need to rename Knights, Bishops and Rooks to Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia...
And all will be much better
-
this dead horse is all bones now
HiTech said no to a 2 sided war-why can't you all get it thru you're thick skulls.
he has tried it on another game it didn't work. he didn't say why it didn't work. but I can imagine why it didn't work.
For hundreds of years Britain and France were enemies. They fought wars.....in fact one is referred to in history as the 100 year war. People said to the peace makers, "why can't you all get it thru you're thick skulls." After all, we had tried for hundreds of years and it didn't work.
Yet, less than 100 years after the defeat of Napoleon (a French guy) the English (a race of very handsome people) fought alongside the French as allies, bonded in a common cause. (WW1 for those who do not know your history). Even though people had told them for years it would not work. Stupid thick skulls turned out to be right. France and England could be friends, united.
As they say on the stock market.....past performance is not a measure of future gains. Open your thick skull and understand change is what drives progress and because it did not work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the present or future.
-
...the English (a race of very handsome people) fought alongside the French as allies
Zack1234 is by far the best looking player in game.
As they say on the stock market.....past performance is not a measure of future gains. Open your thick skull and understand change is what drives progress and because it did not work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the present or future.
You haven't read Bustr's Bubba Analysis yet. It's excellent.
-
You haven't read Bustr's Bubba Analysis yet. It's excellent.
Bustr lost my attention by posting 100 page diatribes about how his making a single map would save the game and any who had not undertaken such endeavour could not fully understand the minds of the AH masses.
-
As far as balancing goes, maybe we need to look beyond the simple yet drastic solutions like having 2 sides. Lots of valid points are being made but all of them seem to bring the potential for their own new problems.
I haven't put much time into thinking about this but I just had an idea while reading the other posts.
Instead of striving for a balance of population, maybe we should strive for a balance of conflict between the 3 sides.
While writing that I had a even crazier idea and it's probably a bad idea but it may inspire someone else to have a good idea. Perhaps it would be fun to combat the 2 sides having an unofficial armistice while ganging up on the 3rd country by giving the 3rd or hypothetical 4th AI based purely communist country between the first two countries and beef up that new territory that grows as long as it's ignored with hard to breach fortifications that resemble the Maginot line or something that can block tanks from spawning into the new territory. This could be a place for wonder weapons that wouldn't really fit within our current strategic model like the F7F Tigercat, F8F Bearcat, P-61 Black Widow, or other things like the V2 flying bomb or B-29s armed with nuclear weapons.
Personally I don't care how crazy or stupid the solution to this issue is so long as it works.
-
this dead horse is all bones now
HiTech said no to a 2 sided war-why can't you all get it thru you're thick skulls.
he has tried it on another game it didn't work. he didn't say why it didn't work. but I can imagine why it didn't work. seeing what is going on in the Melee arena when I logged on this morning at 11:00am central 20bish 9 Knights 8 rooks..
in a 2 sided war it would probably be 29 bish 8 rooks.
in a 2 sided war most would flock to 1 side to roll the other sides bases to win the war easier to get the 75 perks for each war won.
because as in the Melee arena people won't switch to even up the sides, in my opinion it's because they are afraid they will shoot down a squaddie and one will get mad. they will find out who is the better pilot than they are, and may cause arguments.
Excuses. That’s all these are.
Two sides would work better than three with some adjustments to side switch times and perhaps even the dreaded ENY.
You already have a defacto two-sided war. Two sides fight while one side is ignored. People can ignore this reality at their figurative peril.
-
For hundreds of years Britain and France were enemies. They fought wars.....in fact one is referred to in history as the 100 year war. People said to the peace makers, "why can't you all get it thru you're thick skulls." After all, we had tried for hundreds of years and it didn't work.
Yet, less than 100 years after the defeat of Napoleon (a French guy) the English (a race of very handsome people) fought alongside the French as allies, bonded in a common cause. (WW1 for those who do not know your history). Even though people had told them for years it would not work. Stupid thick skulls turned out to be right. France and England could be friends, united.
As they say on the stock market.....past performance is not a measure of future gains. Open your thick skull and understand change is what drives progress and because it did not work in the past does not mean it cannot work in the present or future.
Bingo.
Bustr lost my attention by posting 100 page diatribes about how his making a single map would save the game and any who had not undertaken such endeavour could not fully understand the minds of the AH masses.
Ditto.
-
While writing that I had a even crazier idea and it's probably a bad idea but it may inspire someone else to have a good idea.
That's creativity for you.
-
Bustr lost my attention by posting 100 page diatribes about how his making a single map would save the game and any who had not undertaken such endeavour could not fully understand the minds of the AH masses.
Yes. Bustr-fade is a serious and increasing medical condition. :old: :salute