Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: caldera on January 22, 2019, 12:44:33 PM
-
Just took this screen shot moments ago:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX540hB1/1-22.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Rooks lost more than half their fields and Bish/Nit combined lost one single field. 43 players vs 5 on two fronts. This is your three sided arena balance.
One country gets tag teamed like Poland in 1939, because it is easy to have double the numbers (or a shipload more in this case) and steamroll bases.
But this is bad for the game. People logged out, including me. It's time for a rule to prevent this.
Make a limit on % of bases that you can have on one country vs the other. Specifically, Country A can't take more than 10% of Country B than Country C. Once Country A has 10% of B, they must take from Country C before nay more captures from B.
People love easy mode. That will never change. But you can't let this dogpiling go on without limits.
-
Poland was rightfull Soviet clay
-
Just took this screen shot moments ago:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX540hB1/1-22.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Rooks lost more than half their fields and Bish/Nit combined lost one single field. 43 players vs 5 on two fronts. This is your three sided arena balance.
One country gets tag teamed like Poland in 1939, because it is easy to have double the numbers (or a shipload more in this case) and steamroll bases.
But this is bad for the game. People logged out, including me. It's time for a rule to prevent this.
Make a limit on % of bases that you can have on one country vs the other. Specifically, Country A can't take more than 10% of Country B than Country C. Once Country A has 10% of B, they must take from Country C before nay more captures from B.
People love easy mode. That will never change. But you can't let this dogpiling go on without limits.
rooks only have 5 people on what so they should leave Rooks alone-yesterday and the day before Rooks were helping bish beat up on Knights
-
Wow wish I was on.... that looks great. I would have gone rook and been a stick in the gangers side. I love doing that.
-
WHEN NOBODY PLAYS ANYMORE...WHAT DO YOU EXPECT.
-
Still think they should institute a 2 base max capture per side. After you capture 2 bases from team A, you must capture at least one base from team B before you can capture another base from team A. This way the "roll one side" get broken up and it forces the team making the runs to attack the "ignored" side spreading the fights better to ALL fronts.
-
https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,391491.0.html
Seems I wished for that a while back and was bashed pretty good. Should we start bashing this thread or go along with it? I know a lot of this is one sided. Just have to figure out what side we suppose to root for now.
Teeheeeheee
The games not gonna get any better. You boys need to shore up for the future.
-
Always been that way, placing more artificial conditions on gameplay isn't going to fix it..
But it may have unintended consequences, like making some people walk away..
We all know the root of that 2v1 ganging problem, hasn't changed.. Only one way to fix it!
Would help with the unrealistic 3 sided maps too!
But whatever, the game is, what it is!
-
Wow wish I was on.... that looks great. I would have gone rook and been a stick in the gangers side. I love doing that.
If all these guys that say that’s just more targets we would have no need for eny. I rarely see the guys that say this the loudest ever change. There are a couple that will but for the most part, epically weekend play they squawk it on 200 like they really fight then You see them In The horde in a late war monster vulching fields and picking in high alt speed demons. It’s more of away of self coating for most.
-
Time for two sides...
And spare me the reasons why you think it won’t work, because it will. :old:
-
Time for two sides...
And spare me the reasons why you think it won’t work, because it will. :old:
-1
-
If all these guys that say that’s just more targets we would have no need for eny. I rarely see the guys that say this the loudest ever change. There are a couple that will but for the most part, epically weekend play they squawk it on 200 like they really fight then You see them In The horde in a late war monster vulching fields and picking in high alt speed demons. It’s more of away of self coating for most.
Exactly. People talk a good game from the comfort of the bulletin board.
-
Some of the most fun in the game.. go to the side getting railroaded.. roll a 262, kill the mob. Added value if you decide to protect a base without a GV spawn into it.
Two countries would help.
-
If all these guys that say that’s just more targets we would have no need for eny. I rarely see the guys that say this the loudest ever change. There are a couple that will but for the most part, epically weekend play they squawk it on 200 like they really fight then You see them In The horde in a late war monster vulching fields and picking in high alt speed demons. It’s more of away of self coating for most.
Not all the folks do that or even offer.
-
Free Me 262's?
-
With the kind of number percentages in the first screen shot, have it trigger all perk rides free for the one country and 30eny as a default for each of the two other countries. Keep that percentage even if the two other countries are at 60 or what ever large number of players each as long as the third is at the same percentage. It will be like a two country only gang bang except the loosing country gets to fly all the perk rides for free and the cost of sin for the other countries is being locked out of anything late war by their own choosing.
Hitech should then have an additional message in the Country Status flip out page saying how many players will be needed to move to the low number country to turn it off. Normal ENY rules will apply as long as the two versus one percentage is not reached.
-
I still say the country that gets mobbed down to 40% should get nukes for B-29's.
-
Deny bathroom privledges.
-
I've switched countries to the low side and had the numbers climb to the point that another country is now low.
When I try to switch to the now lowered number country I get a message that I can't switch for said number of hours. Why would there be a limit to how often I can change sides that is sooo long? I could understand an hour or something but to me this side switching limitation doesn't allow for you to easily switch to the country that's getting ganged.
-
I simply attack the enemy that is most convenient to attack and rarely know which enemy team I'm attacking.
When the arm chair generals start squaking about attacking the other enemy, I have to check and see who I'm attacking to see what they are talking about.
I couldn't even say right now what colors I have the other chess pieces set to. White fields are friendly, the other two colors are bad guys.
This ganged status revolves through the three teams.
-
Bin off all make believe maps lets go AvA with real world ones.
also start a separate thread for when the Axis pilots get :ahand being outnumbered 5 to 1.
-
2 sides, geographically realistic maps, (not necessarily real world maps),
fictitious but realistic is fine, and AvA one day a week, sounds kinda cool..
GVs would Axis Dominant..
-
And the 1945 battles 30:1.
Target rich environment I must say.
Bin off all make believe maps lets go AvA with real world ones.
also start a separate thread for when the Axis pilots get :ahand being outnumbered 5 to 1.
-
I still say the country that gets mobbed down to 40% should get nukes for B-29's.
And one time-use air spawns. :devil
-
Still think they should institute a 2 base max capture per side. After you capture 2 bases from team A, you must capture at least one base from team B before you can capture another base from team A. This way the "roll one side" get broken up and it forces the team making the runs to attack the "ignored" side spreading the fights better to ALL fronts.
I like this... I would also turn down scoring down to .25% after two bases are taken against that side too
-
They can take our land but they cant take our freedom!
-
You can all make as many smart bellybutton comments as you like but the premise of the OP stands. It is simply not fun being outnumbered 5 to 1. It does not matter if that is historically correct, this is a game and it is simply not fun.
You guys that brag that you love that environment so you can go hunt....you are in the minority. You are probably in the range of 1% of players. And before you all get overinflated about your skills the others could do it but for them staying safe in a 5 on 1 is boring as batshit
The fact is the game really needs to think about going 2 sides. This would solve the gangbang issues and promote more even fights. IMO
-
Ganging due to 3 sides, and Funky unrealistic maps, due to 3 sides..
Slapping more artificial conditions on gameplay, just to mask a more deep
rooted problem (3 sides), is not moving in the right direction development wise..
Ah well, it is what it is...!
-
Last night was a prime example of this. Bish was beat back to less than 40% of their own bases. Not a single nit/rook base changed hands. Was it fun for the 57 guys on the rook side that really had no one to fight? What about knights that had 46 guys flying around aimlessly on the bish front with nothing to do. As the horde grew bish logged of. At “prime time” there was 37 bish on and two were new guys that had never played the game before. One lasted four flights was never seen again. The second. He gave it a hell of a go but I personally never seen him leave the run way. Hammer was assisting him so maybe he knows more.
And two of the guys that’s all ways spewing they like being out numbered as it gives them more target was seen twice in the horde picking of the few planes that upped.
-
I'm sure this has been <cough> "discussed", but I don't see why two sides would change the horde mentality. It seems that some players play to win the war and tend to migrate to the side that is most focused on that goal and often has the numbers to accomplish it. Why wouldn't that also be true with two sides?
-
Interesting experiment, would be to add another arena..
Realistic maps, with 2 sides, and multiple contact fronts..
Let the players choose!
-
Interesting experiment, would be to add another arena..
Realistic maps, with 2 sides, and multiple contact fronts..
Let the players choose!
Welcome to the AvA!
- oldman
-
Welcome to the AvA!
- oldman
Two sides, FULL plane/vehicle set, and realistic fictional, but non historic maps..
-
switching to a 2 sided war will only work if there is an automatic side balancing setup. Human nature dictates that one side will gang up on the other with out it.
sticking with 3 sides is ok so long as something is added to force teams to break away from rolling one front. Not only would this help cut back on the ganging one team to 40 percent of their bases it would also push the activity from front to front adding fun for more players. We are after here to have fun playing a game.
-
Three sides helps combat the issues with 2 sides.
-
ipso-facto, therefore 4 sides corrects the issues of 3 sides? :noid
-
ipso-facto, therefore 4 sides corrects the issues of 3 sides? :noid
ipso-fact I have created a game with 4 sides,
I have created a game with 2 sides,
I have created a game with 3 sides.
I played a game with 3 sides.
Ah has 3 sides, which one do you think I believe works best.
HiTech
-
I'm sure this has been <cough> "discussed", but I don't see why two sides would change the horde mentality. It seems that some players play to win the war and tend to migrate to the side that is most focused on that goal and often has the numbers to accomplish it. Why wouldn't that also be true with two sides?
Let them horde in Sopwith Camels then.
Two sides needs to be implemented. It’s defacto 2 v 1 any way, just that one side has two chess pieces.
-
ipso-fact I have created a game with 4 sides,
I have created a game with 2 sides,
I have created a game with 3 sides.
I played a game with 3 sides.
Ah has 3 sides, which one do you think I believe works best.
HiTech
Works for you, sir. Not so much for us.
Two sides with aggressive ENY would balance.
It would also allow any player to meet the point of attack at any time, unlike now, where a third of the population is fighting nobody.
-
Three sides helps combat the issues with 2 sides.
ENY helps combat issues with two sides.
Three sides creates more trouble than it is worth at current player levels.
-
switching to a 2 sided war will only work if there is an automatic side balancing setup. Human nature dictates that one side will gang up on the other with out it.
sticking with 3 sides is ok so long as something is added to force teams to break away from rolling one front. Not only would this help cut back on the ganging one team to 40 percent of their bases it would also push the activity from front to front adding fun for more players. We are after here to have fun playing a game.
Sky is falling fake news here.
Dump side switch timers and people will shift for balance. We did it ALL THE TIME in Warbirds. It was never a problem.
Use ENY to create balance. Problem solved.
-
Welcome to the AvA!
- oldman
Nope.
AvA is in no way comparable to the MA. No way at all.
You must allow open (Axis and Allied) plane sets for both sides if any two-country arena is to be viable. It boggles my mind that people can’t seem to grasp this.
-
Two sides, FULL plane/vehicle set, and realistic fictional, but non historic maps..
Bingo. And use ENY to balance numbers if you must.
-
Bingo. And use ENY to balance numbers if you must.
Hard to believe you have become an ENY advocate.
- oldman
-
Maybe a different approach to the aVA arena would work?? Change the name to Main arena Historical and Main arena Melee would still be available. Historical is small maps, two sides, same perks and scoring as Melee, maps rotate as won. Base take order is implimented into historical, focusing a smaller population into a coordinated fight.
I also think a two sided melee with ENY would work best, but ive seen the same answer from HTC enough to keep pissing into that wind.
-
ipso-fact I have created a game with 4 sides,
I have created a game with 2 sides,
I have created a game with 3 sides.
I played a game with 3 sides.
Ah has 3 sides, which one do you think I believe works best.
HiTech
This is the weirdest word puzzle I've seen this year... Is there a secret decoder ring needed?
You could have just said, "In my opinion and experience, 3 sides is the best option." No need to get all cryptic 80's riddler on me. You're post made me feel weird.
-
Hard to believe you have become an ENY advocate.
- oldman
I am not an advocate for ENY. But if it has to exist then two sides (full planesets) and no side switch limit is the only way it will work with current numbers.
-
This is the weirdest word puzzle I've seen this year... Is there a secret decoder ring needed?
Did you not get your copy of HiTech Trans in the mail after you subscribed?
HiTech
-
Sky is falling fake news here.
Dump side switch timers and people will shift for balance. We did it ALL THE TIME in Warbirds. It was never a problem.
Use ENY to create balance. Problem solved.
The timers were invoked to quiet the spy vs spy talk.
-
This is the weirdest word puzzle I've seen this year... Is there a secret decoder ring needed?
You could have just said, "In my opinion and experience, 3 sides is the best option." No need to get all cryptic 80's riddler on me. You're post made me feel weird.
Maybe it was already there and the quip just brought it to the surface. :P
:rofl
-
Maybe a different approach to the aVA arena would work?? Change the name to Main arena Historical and Main arena Melee would still be available. Historical is small maps, two sides, same perks and scoring as Melee, maps rotate as won. Base take order is implimented into historical, focusing a smaller population into a coordinated fight.
I also think a two sided melee with ENY would work best, but ive seen the same answer from HTC enough to keep pissing into that wind.
Nice idea, but it wouldnt work. People tend to mass where other players are. If the MA Melee is populated and the MA Historical has only a few players in it, no matter what type of flying there is most players will join the MA Melee.
A perfect example was when HTC first split the arenas to Early war, Mid war, and late war. They were listed in that order and the Early war was at the top. Players would log in, check the numbers and join the Early war arena because that was where most players were. It was a fun couple of days with everyone flying P40s and such. Once the idea caught on that ALL the planes were enabled in the Late war arena everyone moved there and very few bothered with Early War again.
-
The timers were invoked to quiet the spy vs spy talk.
Yes, but that comes at the expense of side balance.
-
Did you not get your copy of HiTech Trans in the mail after you subscribed?
HiTech
I dint.
-
I dint.
Me either!
- oldman
-
Did you not get your copy of HiTech Trans in the mail after you subscribed?
HiTech
Are you a Trans Individual now, D? Not hating. Just asking. :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
-
ipso-fact I have created a game with 4 sides,
I have created a game with 2 sides,
I have created a game with 3 sides.
I played a game with 3 sides.
Ah has 3 sides, which one do you think I believe works best.
HiTech
so you are saying that the one side that gets horded (happens every day to one side or another) winds up with the lowest numbers. all there bases get rolled works? or just for an example, the bish and the nits have an awesome aerial fight roaring between two bases and a mass ground attack going on and the rooks are over in left field with nothing to do works? what about the guy that like to fight and says damn I am gonna get in that fight the bish and nits have only to be grounded 30mins later because the rooks and nits started fighting so hes stuck on the bish front for 6 hrs, no he logs off. and I know you are gonna say well go start a fight, that don't work often times. I have grabbed lancs wf a field and before I can land the town is resupped and the fight is still raging on the other side of the map.
I like lazers idea on the ava historical arena.
even if there was a 2 sided war and there was a horde mentality its easier to fight a one front war for every one. the fighters will congregate in an area and the base takers in other areas. tonight was a good example of that. the bish and nit had an awesome knock down drag out fight that included no base take for hours. seemed the nit and rook front also had a great fight at 44 for hours and outside the dog fight areas there were bases being taken.
or some type of base capture quota before having to move to other front and lower the side switch time so people will move around a little more.
and there are people that still believe in the easter bunny but that don't make him real
-
Yes, but that comes at the expense of side balance.
I agree
-
Are you a Trans Individual now, D? Not hating. Just asking. :rofl :rofl :rofl :aok
I read it as transmission but it just may depend on what you have to deal with most of the time. :rofl
-
so you are saying that the one side that gets horded (happens every day to one side or another) winds up with the lowest numbers. all there bases get rolled works? or just for an example, the bish and the nits have an awesome aerial fight roaring between two bases and a mass ground attack going on and the rooks are over in left field with nothing to do works? what about the guy that like to fight and says damn I am gonna get in that fight the bish and nits have only to be grounded 30mins later because the rooks and nits started fighting so hes stuck on the bish front for 6 hrs, no he logs off. and I know you are gonna say well go start a fight, that don't work often times. I have grabbed lancs wf a field and before I can land the town is resupped and the fight is still raging on the other side of the map.
I like lazers idea on the ava historical arena.
even if there was a 2 sided war and there was a horde mentality its easier to fight a one front war for every one. the fighters will congregate in an area and the base takers in other areas. tonight was a good example of that. the bish and nit had an awesome knock down drag out fight that included no base take for hours. seemed the nit and rook front also had a great fight at 44 for hours and outside the dog fight areas there were bases being taken.
or some type of base capture quota before having to move to other front and lower the side switch time so people will move around a little more.
and there are people that still believe in the easter bunny but that don't make him real
Yes the historical arena (AVA) gets very little usage and it has been around for a long time.
-
If every front were perfectly balanced there would be no basetaking. the 3 fronts allow some semblance of operational strategy to win the war. ENY is still the best way to account for uneven sides. If one country is getting ganged it's not that big of a deal. The hanging will have to eventually stop for a country to attempt to win the war. Lifes unfair.
-
Did you not get your copy of HiTech Trans in the mail after you subscribed?
HiTech
No!....
I'm thinking scuzzy got to it before it shipped out... I did receive a chunk of wool and a torn velcro glove... :bolt:
-
Just took this screen shot moments ago:
(https://i.postimg.cc/pX540hB1/1-22.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Rooks lost more than half their fields and Bish/Nit combined lost one single field. 43 players vs 5 on two fronts. This is your three sided arena balance.
One country gets tag teamed like Poland in 1939, because it is easy to have double the numbers (or a shipload more in this case) and steamroll bases.
But this is bad for the game. People logged out, including me. It's time for a rule to prevent this.
Make a limit on % of bases that you can have on one country vs the other. Specifically, Country A can't take more than 10% of Country B than Country C. Once Country A has 10% of B, they must take from Country C before nay more captures from B.
People love easy mode. That will never change. But you can't let this dogpiling go on without limits.
not anybody's fault the rooks didn't show up. and if you try to force people to switch sides-they will quit...what it is people have no class in this game--they always look for the easy road.....................eny doesn't really work-because the side with the highest eny/most people on-will horde to make up for it..
like 20 people (no eny) take up late war planes and the country that their eny is thru the roof- will take up 30-35 high eny planes and horde -no eny people still lose.
-
not anybody's fault the rooks didn't show up.
That response will solve everything! /sarcastic blue
-
we already have a two side arena and hardly anybody goes there. Ava administrators are cool enough to set it up almost anyway you want. just prove there that a 2 side way works and see what happens.
semp
-
we already have a two side arena and hardly anybody goes there. Ava administrators are cool enough to set it up almost anyway you want. just prove there that a 2 side way works and see what happens.
semp
Except that a two-sided AvA is not a two-sided MA. :old: That’s why nobody goes there. :aok
-
we already have a two side arena and hardly anybody goes there. Ava administrators are cool enough to set it up almost anyway you want. just prove there that a 2 side way works and see what happens.
semp
Evidently they do not like the name. That or they want everyone to be forced to play two sides.
-
Nothing stops a player from playing 2-sided, as is. Spend half your time as a knight fighting rooks then switch to bish fighting rooks (or any combination you want fighting just one side).
Convince me otherwise. :D (raises cup of coffee)
-
Except that a two-sided AvA is not a two-sided MA. :old: That’s why nobody goes there. :aok
would it be better if the change the name to 2 sided arena and ma to 3 side arena?
semp
-
would it be better if the change the name to 2 sided arena and ma to 3 side arena?
semp
Nope. Too many variables out there. Your label only addresses ONE of them--and not the most important. :D
-
Nope. Too many variables out there. Your label only addresses ONE of them--and not the most important. :D
then what exactly do you want? and what makes you think that the 2 sided arena we have now, wont work? what makes you think that in a 2 sided arena one side wont be constantly horded? and most important, what makes you think that a 2 sided arena is what most players want? after all the ava has been reconfigured several times with all planes available.
semp
-
then what exactly do you want? and what makes you think that the 2 sided arena we have now, wont work?
Which one are you referring to, the actual two-sided arena or the defacto one falsely referred to as having three sides?
what makes you think that in a 2 sided arena one side wont be constantly horded?
Oh, ENY, my experience in WBs where we switched sides for balance, etc. (This is such a straw man argument it reminds me of Chicken Little.)
In any case it beats what we have 90% of the time now which is either:
1) Two sides against one (a two-sided arena lol)
OR
2) Two sides against each other with the third ignored (a two-sided arena with a built-in offline mode minus the drones ha ha).
I would rather be hoarded than bored in any case.
and most important, what makes you think that a 2 sided arena is what most players want? after all the ava has been reconfigured several times with all planes available.
semp
Silly rabbit. You still do not grasp what makes the AvA ANYTHING BUT the equivalent of the MA, no matter how many sides.
The AvA is not an MA. One side. Two sides. Ten sides. The key to the riddle is comtained in the NAME.
-
The NAME! Oh, that!
-
Yes, THAT.
Hiding in plain sight for all the “smart people” to miss. It’s quite entertaining to watch.
-
Yes, THAT.
Hiding in plain sight for all the “smart people” to miss. It’s quite entertaining to watch.
so you think if the ava was renamed the ma that people would just accept it and fly in it?
semp
-
so you think if the ava was renamed the ma that people would just accept it and fly in it?
Heh. I think his complaint is that all planes are not enabled for both sides in the AvA.
Boiled down to its essentials, it expresses a desire to be able to fly your favorite plane. Many people want to always be able to fly their favorite plane. Among them are many respected veterans. While I recognize this, I've never understood it. AH has so many planes, it seems a shame to ignore the variety.
That said, the AvA is not going to be the same as a two-sided MA.
- oldman
-
Heh. I think his complaint is that all planes are not enabled for both sides in the AvA.
Boiled down to its essentials, it expresses a desire to be able to fly your favorite plane. Many people want to always be able to fly their favorite plane. Among them are many respected veterans. While I recognize this, I've never understood it. AH has so many planes, it seems a shame to ignore the variety.
That said, the AvA is not going to be the same as a two-sided MA.
- oldman
the ava has allowed many times to have all planes available. planes are not hardcoded into the arena, it's an arena setting.
semp
-
so you think if the ava was renamed the ma that people would just accept it and fly in it?
semp
:rofl
-
Heh. I think his complaint is that all planes are not enabled for both sides in the AvA.
Boiled down to its essentials, it expresses a desire to be able to fly your favorite plane. Many people want to always be able to fly their favorite plane. Among them are many respected veterans. While I recognize this, I've never understood it. AH has so many planes, it seems a shame to ignore the variety.
That said, the AvA is not going to be the same as a two-sided MA.
- oldman
I detect a heartbeat in the search for life on this planet.
:cheers:
-
the ava has allowed many times to have all planes available. planes are not hardcoded into the arena, it's an arena setting.
semp
Then why call it AvA? Of course, there are other variables.
Frankly, HTC needs a two-sided MA, a TA, and the Match Play. Dump everything else except for special events. The arrangement now dilutes the players over a wide area for no benefit.
-
Well since 2 sides has been tried and failed, I see no reason to keep beating a dead tortuga.
-
In Air Warrior we had what was known as The Valley Of The Dweebs (VOD). The area comprised of two bases (one in Azland, other in Bzland) separated by a river. VOD area was known for its quick action and most of the time that's where most of the Az and Bzlanders flew, completely ignoring Czland. As a Czlander, it was hard to find a fight since every one else was on the far west of the map and Czland was on the east part of the map.
To fight in VOD, Czlander would have to fly 8 sectors or more t0 get there. A few of us got tired of it and organized our squadrons and started to hit the Az and Bzland factories and capturing the neutral bases in the Big Pond area and then shutting down the Az and Bz bases. After a couple of days without Spitfires, poor fuel, no cannon ammo and random mechanical failures, the Az and Bzlanders spent less time in VOD and more time fighting Czland.
Sometimes you have to start the fight instead of whining about not having a fight.
-
Well since 2 sides has been tried and failed, I see no reason to keep beating a dead tortuga.
It is rumored that a guy tried and failed to make an electric light globe some years ago. Failure does not mean something cannot work and changing conditions certainly change the dynamics.
Let me go light another candle and I will help you look for that dead horse
-
It is rumored that a guy tried and failed to make an electric light globe some years ago. Failure does not mean something cannot work and changing conditions certainly change the dynamics.
Let me go light another candle and I will help you look for that dead horse
When you find that candle... use it to read my post. No horse in it.
Turtles are rarely if ever confused with horses.
A light bulb that would not burn more than a few seconds is an odd comparison. In fact it is no comparison.
Nothing was added or taken away..... but in a way it was. A vacuum was added that actually took away air/oxygen. Funny is that....
-
In Air Warrior we had what was known as The Valley Of The Dweebs (VOD). The area comprised of two bases (one in Azland, other in Bzland) separated by a river. VOD area was known for its quick action and most of the time that's where most of the Az and Bzlanders flew, completely ignoring Czland. As a Czlander, it was hard to find a fight since every one else was on the far west of the map and Czland was on the east part of the map.
To fight in VOD, Czlander would have to fly 8 sectors or more t0 get there. A few of us got tired of it and organized our squadrons and started to hit the Az and Bzland factories and capturing the neutral bases in the Big Pond area and then shutting down the Az and Bz bases. After a couple of days without Spitfires, poor fuel, no cannon ammo and random mechanical failures, the Az and Bzlanders spent less time in VOD and more time fighting Czland.
Sometimes you have to start the fight instead of whining about not having a fight.
That works real well with ENY and Side Switch Timers working in opposition to each other. Or not.
Nits and Bish have their daily purse fight while Rooks twiddle their thumbs on the other side of the map. I’ve droned around for hours trying to “start the fight” and gotten nowhere with it. Didn’t used to be that way but it is reality now.
People have offered great ideas on how to make a two-sided MA work. It is worth a try. However Dale has made it clear what he thinks so this entire discussion is of no purpose.
-
Open your own custom 2 sided arena. Let players choose.
My prediction is 3 sides is more popular.
-
Open your own custom 2 sided arena. Let players choose.
My prediction is 3 sides is more popular.
Wrong. People go where critical mass is. Two sides or ten sides it doesn't matter. If the MA had only two sides and a custom arena had three sides take a guess where people would go.
YEP.
-
Wrong. People go where critical mass is. Two sides or ten sides it doesn't matter. If the MA had only two sides and a custom arena had three sides take a guess where people would go.
YEP.
So people don't like 2 sides? What is their problem? :D
-
So people don't like 2 sides? What is their problem? :D
Lol.
Put up a two-sided MA for two weeks. People will find so much action they’ll think they died and went to Heaven.
But we really are wasting our time on this. Dale has made his decision known. Case closed, basically. :salute
-
Lol.
Put up a two-sided MA for two weeks. People will find so much action they’ll think they died and went to Heaven.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
But we really are wasting our time on this. Dale has made his decision known. Case closed, basically. :salute
Yup.
Wiley.
-
Lol.
Put up a two-sided MA for two weeks. People will find so much action they’ll think they died and went to Heaven.
But we really are wasting our time on this. Dale has made his decision known. Case closed, basically. :salute
Yes it has officially been tried and died.
-
Yes it has officially been tried and died.
Like this eh?
https://youtu.be/-Ci44G8j1F0
Sent from my Moto Z2 Force using Tapatalk
-
Yes it has officially been tried and died.
No. It was tried then not now.
In other games it worked fine. The conditions used to say it won't work don't exist right now. The conditions of the game now actually support a two-sided arena and work against three. But we will never find out.
-
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/31/Webcomic_xkcd_-_Wikipedian_protester.png)
*Klaxon*
Deflection detected. Deflection detected.
Any way.
It's a dead horse. Can't even make Alpo out of it.
-
No. It was tried then not now.
In other games it worked fine. The conditions used to say it won't work don't exist right now. The conditions of the game now actually support a two-sided arena and work against three. But we will never find out.
dude what could these conditions that have changed be? being a foreigner I would love to learn.
semp
-
No. It was tried then not now.
In other games it worked fine. The conditions used to say it won't work don't exist right now. The conditions of the game now actually support a two-sided arena and work against three. But we will never find out.
I say pack up those studies and send them to HiTech. HiTech loves to consume new information.
-
dude what could these conditions that have changed be? being a foreigner I would love to learn.
semp
Don’t worry about it. If you don’t know by now I can’t tell you.
(Besides... I don’t parlay with the intentionally obtuse.)
-
I say pack up those studies and send them to HiTech. HiTech loves to consume new information.
I am sure a look at arena numbers then vs now is the only study he needs in order to understand the point I am making.
On a related point: The idea that a three-country map offers more opportunities for more players to find a fight compared to one with two countries is absurd.
If we are gonna ride this into the ground so be it. It’s not my business to run, I’m just a customer. But...
-
When two sides was tried more than twenty years ago, there was no ENY.
-
I am sure a look at arena numbers then vs now is the only study he needs in order to understand the point I am making.
On a related point: The idea that a three-country map offers more opportunities for more players to find a fight compared to one with two countries is absurd.
If we are gonna ride this into the ground so be it. It’s not my business to run, I’m just a customer. But...
It seems ashame you are sitting on all this good information and will not share it with HiTech.
-
It seems ashame you are sitting on all this good information and will not share it with HiTech.
you know how much hitech would pay for this information if vraciu could prove that 2 countries are better than 3 and would attract a lot more people. :noid :furious :t :uhoh :devil :x :banana: :neener: :bhead :evil:
just posted a lot of emojis cause there isnt a sarcasm one. well there is one :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana: dance baby dance :banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:
semp
-
Don’t worry about it. If you don’t know by now I can’t tell you.
dude this is the kind of info people keep secret that bugs me. for example, i flew a 262 yesterday on squad night. have flown maybe 4 or 5 262 runs in my ah life. did you know that 262 doesnt have wep? i didnt know that. nobody ever bothered to tell me, i was counting on that wep when i did my pass :bhead :bhead :bhead
semp
-
Don’t worry about it. If you don’t know by now I can’t tell you.
Tell me please, because I don't know any difference between then and now.
HiTech
-
Tell me please, because I don't know any difference between then and now.
HiTech
Look, I am on your side here. I am not trying to be a jack wagon and I think you know that. But...
You know full well what has changed. Some of those factors have been addressed (and ignored) in this very thread.
It seems you’ve made up your mind on this issue—which is your prerogative. If you’re interested in what I have to say I will gladly have the discussion via PM. I’m not gonna’ go head to head on non-level playing field like this one (your forum), though. I don’t want a PNG. LOL
:noid
I’ll leave you with this general thought: You’re boring a third of your players to death much of the time with three sides when they could be in the midst of a fight all day with two sides. You lose little to try it out on a limited basis and see how it goes. Someone suggested a TWO-SIDED TUESDAY for example. Could be fun. ENY would be a good motivator for side balance that even WBs didn’t have IIRC.
The numbers will support two sides. That can generate interest, action—FUN—just like the new radar system has. When numbers again support three sides you can go back to that.
With two sides EVERY SINGLE PLAYER CAN JOIN THE POINT OF ATTACK. This is not the case with three sides, where one country is often totally ignored by the other two. (Unless someone makes a map using my “Wheel of Fortune” concept this will always be a problem at current player levels.)
:salute
-
When two sides was tried more than twenty years ago, there was no ENY.
Twenty YEARS ago? Goodness.
I guess nothing has changed since then...? Not even ENY? :headscratch:
-
Twenty YEARS ago? Goodness.
I guess nothing has changed since then...? Not even ENY? :headscratch:
I think he stated that there was no ENY then.
-
I think he stated that there was no ENY then.
Exactly. But according to all the smart people nothing has changed. :headscratch:
-
Someone suggested a TWO-SIDED TUESDAY
That guy is not only rich of intellect, but also fabulously good looking. :D
-
Tell me please, because I don't know any difference between then and now.
HiTech
The post referring to 'then and now' was
When two sides was tried more than twenty years ago, there was no ENY.
Or was it
dude what could these conditions that have changed be? being a foreigner I would love to learn.
semp
Are you saying there is no difference between twenty years ago and now?
ENY is mentioned by caldera as being a difference. Semp is asking for what conditions have changed. A bit odd as he knows full well what has changed.
Back on point. HITECH, the truth is that much has changed and there is a massive difference between then and now. Your game offering has changed in many ways, from the limited dar to 'all seeing dar' to the current hybrid. From GVs being bomb**** fodder to invisible hidetard GVs. From Titanic Tuesdays to Find a Fight Fridays. Mass Brawls to hit and run. Being ganged to gang banging......it all changes.
In my opinion there is an issue with combat in the game and there are many factors influencing it. With respect to the 2v1 ganging, yes, I believe it is an issue and I believe 2 sides is an option that should be considered. I do not think I can name any other current game out there where there are 3 sides in open conflict. I think the last one I remember was Red Alert.
Is 2 sides the answer? I do not know, cannot hurt to try. I think smaller maps are a must given the population and if they were smaller maybe 3 sides would still be relevant.
My parting shot. Herein lies your problem. To go to 2 sides requires 2 sided maps. You do not have many of those and it appears that it takes 2 years to create a map (buggy at that). so, you are in a corner. Your player numbers are too low for your maps and certainly too low for 3 sides on those large maps but you cannot produce maps easily in order to address that issue so your best option is to do nothing.
Respectfully
-
No. It was tried then not now.
In other games it worked fine. The conditions used to say it won't work don't exist right now. The conditions of the game now actually support a two-sided arena and work against three. But we will never find out.
hey fess these are the conditions that I'm curious about. vraciu and a couple of others seemed to have a lot of data that could be a game changer but they must have a non disclosure agreement between them or something.
I have an idea and have proposed it several times on 200. it will get rid of the majority of the "faults" some find with the game. imagine this, no hording, vulching, picking, hoing, bomb****ing, no drop and bail, no campers, no eny, no spies, no cheaters, no country being ganged by others etc.
my solution, let's have only 1 country, my solution is not perfect but will get rid of 99.99% of all customer's complains. now Hi-Tech has never tried this. and based on all complains I hear, it is time we try it.
semp
-
That guy is not only rich of intellect, but also fabulously good looking. :D
:rofl :aok
-
Vraciu is correct. Time for two sides. It would immediately make the game better.
Mo Better fun !
Just so the kiddies don't cry....come up with two new names for each side.
-
Just to note... I have no issues with folks bombing GVs. GVs seem to like shooting at me while I am fighting so if they want to play in my sandbox, I will play in theirs....... over and over.
I much prefer fighting than messing with GVs. I let them make the choice.
-
Vraciu is correct. Time for two sides. It would immediately make the game better.
Mo Better fun !
Just so the kiddies don't cry....come up with two new names for each side.
Troll left and troll right.
-
I thought it was implied in my question, "what has changed" is really asking what changed that you think will have a drastic impact on issues with 2 sides vs 3 sides since the last time I tested 2 sides.
I think your simply reach at straws to believe eny and radar would have any impact on the 2 sided issue.
PS All is a mute point any way it's not changing if for no other reason the the amount of coading and all new terrains that would be required.
HiTech
-
Same for 4-sided I suspect but it would be cool to see Spades vs Hearts vs Clubs vs Diamonds just to fit in with 'Aces High' (since a naming game was called for by someone).
(https://previews.123rf.com/images/olehsvetiukha/olehsvetiukha1803/olehsvetiukha180300350/97117684-set-of-four-aces-playing-cards-suits-.jpg)
Neh - game design and function is fine and has nothing to do with numbers or a player's inability to figure out how to get to a fight.
But ..... if a new plane was ever needed (for events and such) this one is it:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Savoia_Marchetti_SM_79_Sparviero_in_volo.jpg)
(And it would be cool if the DD torps were trainable/fireable.) :D
-
Neh - game design and function is fine and has nothing to do with numbers or a player's inability to figure out how to get to a fight.
Uh huh...
:rolleyes:
Any way. Hitech has weighed in—AGAIN. Same answer as last time so it is time to fold this one up.
/thread
-
Uh huh...
:rolleyes:
Any way. Hitech has weighed in—AGAIN. Same answer as last time so it is time to fold this one up.
/thread
Until yet another thread is started about this 'great idea.' ;)
-
Until yet another thread is started about this 'great idea.' ;)
Well, at least you got the great idea part right—because it is.
-
The answer is very clear though. It is simply too much work to make it happen.
So, then next time the issue comes up we can shut it down quickly.
By extension of the reasoning I do not think we can look forward to any new terrains so same old same old for a while.
-
By extension of the reasoning I do not think we can look forward to any new terrains so same old same old for a while.
Terrains are designed, built and presented by players in the community. I have a great deal of respect for those who put time and effort in such (it takes a lot of both). I think anyone who complains about terrains should, at least, try their hand at creating and submitting one. (Even though I am not a terrain whiner, I tried. I ain't got the skill or the time.)
-
Terrains are designed, built and presented by players in the community. I have a great deal of respect for those who put time and effort in such (it takes a lot of both). I think anyone who complains about terrains should, at least, try their hand at creating and submitting one. (Even though I am not a terrain whiner, I tried. I ain't got the skill or the time.)
Buzzsaw came from Waffle didn't it? That was the first terrain I've seen come from HTC since I've been here.
Wiley.
-
Buzzsaw came from Waffle didn't it? That was the first terrain I've seen come from HTC since I've been here.
Wiley.
But that makes the point. The game required a terrain to be playable, period, so not having an in-house terrain would be weird. But players have been thoroughly encouraged and supported when it comes to terrain development and submission (no different than skin design). Comparing the addition of more aircraft or the fundamental design of the game (number of sides, etc.) to lack of new maps is comparing asparagus to hand grenades.
-
The answer is very clear though. It is simply too much work to make it happen.
So, then next time the issue comes up we can shut it down quickly.
By extension of the reasoning I do not think we can look forward to any new terrains so same old same old for a while.
Pretty much. Although some historic maps could be used in some form. Surely it is easier to modify an existing map than creating one from scratch. Then again, maybe not.
-
Hmmmmm,
Just imported this into the terrain editor. Based generally off Svalbard island, I imported the topo profile map for Svalbard and adjusted for the MA. I moved it south so I don't have to do snow and glaciers. Now I carve mountains and fjords.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sgNLQWcK/tileset38.jpg)
-
Looks like a interesting map :aok
DutchVII
-
Yeah, but if we stick with the standard three purely contiguous countries we will have the same problems as now. On these bigger maps you need to break that into six so it becomes harder to ignore/isolate any single country.
Overall Bustr has done a good job making fights accessible on his maps.
-
Right now I'm fixing a problem tank furballers have that is exactly like air furballers. On BowlMA I made the center crater too big with too many places to hide. The best adapted and got too good at ambushing, so people stopped tank furballing there. They want to go where there are a lot of tanks from their own country to hide with as a sardine school.
Two, three, four, six, sides it dosen't matter. Only a small number of players want to play air or ground samurai, the rest want numbers to hide in for their $14.95 evening of play time. Hitech's game is three sides, if you want to keep trying to prove something to the effect that you are smarter than him in the realm of his career, go at it. Mostly it makes you look foolish as someone grinding an ax while trying to get even with him dancing on the edge of the rule#'s to tell him you think he's a failure and stuck in the past.
Biggest complaint about tanking with the speedtree clutter and trees is not enough open space to see through before being ambushed like you could in AH2. So I've reduced the crater to one village inside of a 3mile dia area and the gallery is 1.5 miles out from the village center. I'm using a tile that has very sparse trees while using micro hills and gully's in place of small trees and bushes that everyone shuts down and goes invisible in. Any farther and some players are not setup to see other tanks and get nailed for not adjusting their graphics sliders. Air combat, all you need are airfields and the air combat players will do the rest.
First run at the center of the terrain doodling, it will be three 1x1mile vbases spaced 5 miles from the center of the village. The first airfields in each country are not populated for 1.5 sectors away from these three vbases in the map center. I'll have to drop in a vbase and some spawns to make sure everyone can hide up on the gallery like on the AH2 craterMA and snipe each other without having to move. Only the best of the best tank fighters like the trees and bushes anymore. I've even had a serious request to build an MA terrain with only grass on it by a tank player..... :confused:
(https://i.postimg.cc/CL8ccKjL/tileset39.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/13ZJ2ZH0/tileset40.jpg)
(https://i.postimg.cc/XYcQ0DHR/tileset42.jpg)
-
Two, three, four, six, sides it dosen't matter. Only a small number of players want to play air or ground samurai, the rest want numbers to hide in for their $14.95 evening of play time.
Pure, abject, unfounded conjecture.
Three countries divided six ways where no side is ever isolated from the fight would matter.
We see a glimpse of this on your map that was up Friday night.
Besides... Hiding isn’t the issue for those who seek avoidance of engagement (pretty easy to do on a mostly empty map). It’s two sides having a fight while the third twiddles its thumbs that’s bleeding players. Keep it up and you won’t have to worry about avoidance—you’ll be alone.
——
(I’ll just ignore the ridiculous and false assertions in your post regarding axe grinding, getting even, edge dancing, and the like. Stick to map making because you suck at mindreading, per par.)
:rolleyes:
-
What you want Hitech to do is force everyone to not have any way to avoid each other while playing the game their way for their $14.95. That is a back handed way of telling Hitech to force everyone for their $14.95 to play the game your way or Hitech is just too old and stupid to understand you are a genius at this.
So until you get what you want or Hitech in here banning you, you are using the forums to insult everyone cloaked as sage wisdom beyond their understanding and getting around the rule#'s as bonus points.
-
See rule #4