And you are very mistaken, I really do not care what team anyone plays for.
That isn't what I said. I said it seems, based on quotes people have posted here, that you don't think anyone else should particularly care what team
they play for.
Explain how the ENY system doesn't work because from my standpoint it works very well for its intended purposes.
It does not seem to reliably persuade players to switch countries or switch arenas, and it doesn't do much to create more balanced play because balance is affected more by local conditions than by overall numbers. If I'm in an A6M2 being ganged 2-1 or 4-2 by Spit XVIs it makes no difference to me whether there are 150 other players from my country at some other base across the map.
Could it be that you don't understand how the ENY system works and therefore are basing your opinion on faulty information?
No. Disagreement != ignorance.
Please expound/explain your proposal on how one could connect CAPS and ENY and how it would be better than what we have now ... I am very curious.
Certainly. Players who wish to change sides would have to exit the arena and re-enter after changing to their new country. Caps would be based on how many people from your country are in that arena, not the overall number of players in that arena. If 70% of the rooks are in Blue, then the cap for rooks in Blue would be lowered and the cap for rooks in Orange raised. This means the numbers within each country would be proportionately distributed between the arenas: you couldn't have 80 knights, 80 bish, and 20 rooks in Orange and 50 knights, 50 bish, and 100 rooks in Blue. It would also preserve the function of the existing caps because if there are three caps all proportionately balanced then the sum of the three must also be proportionally balanced.
It's just a thought, maybe there are reasons why it won't work. I just put it out there for discussion.
I don't think you were here before ENY was introduced, but the whineage and more than likely loss of subscriptions due to consistent (months at a time) country numbers imbalance was far more prevelent and damaging than ENY limiter could ever be.
No, I wasn't. However, I'm not proposing to scrap ENY entirely, just to run it slightly differently.
I also find the idea of localized ENY intriguing, but it would be much more complicated to implement and I imagine it would have a lot more rough edges and technical difficulties.
While I have no statistics or evidence that would or wouldnt work, nor does anyone else, I would say this about it. From what Ive seen the ENY is typically not caused by the caps and allowing more of the lower number side in wouldnt resolve the situation. I base that on the observation that most times when 1 side is low on numbers in 1 arena and has the highest numbers in the other arena its caused by 1 thing, people leaving the first arena to goto the other arena (usually caused by the other 2 sides ganging them).
Right. But that's EXACTLY what the system I'm proposing would address. The nits wouldn't all be able to do that, because after the first 5 or 10 did the nit cap on the other arena would kick in and the rest of them wouldn't be able to switch - at least until some rooks and bish also switched. Or they could change sides just like they can now.
The point isn't that ENY is
caused by caps, it's that addressing ENY and caps together could make each one work better.
This was cause IMO by all the Knights who were "getting ganged" in Orange migrating over to the Blue arena where they knew they would be the horde. Nothing wrong with this if you want to be the horde and not the hordee, however its very clear once again that its players actions dictating and not the ENY or Caps.
True, but from the POV of an individual nit logging on 20 minutes later, there's nothing he can do about it - it's either change sides, be ganged 4-1 the whole time, or have an ENY of 29 and not be able to find any decent fights. This system is meant to address that by making it impossible for the numbers to get that lopsided to begin with.
So by allowing only the lower numbered country to enter a capped arena where 1 side is way outnumbered wouldnt solve much as players always want to go where they feel they have the superiority.
They could want it all they want but they wouldn't be allowed to.
Having that feature on both arenas could prevent that sure..... but then youre introducing just 1 more factor that someone will complain about.
So let them complain. I think "I hate being stuck with this huge imbalance and having to choose between horder and hordee" is an infinitely more legitimate complaint than "The game won't let me team up with 50 buddies and go to the smaller arena and gang everyone 5-1!" To put it another way, if it's about choices, either way there are some restrictions, but I think the array of choices that would result from this system would be better both for the individual and for the game as a whole than the choices offered by the current system.
And you would still always have the option of changing sides if that's how you choose to resolve the situation.
Now instead of me seeing Orange with 206/200 and thinking hmmm I might get in there in a few minutes, now Im going to see Orange with 85 Rooks/85 Bish/46 Knights and say...... no chance of getting in there for a few hours. Then look at blue with 100 Knights/30 Rooks/30 Bish and say ya I really want to donate kills to the horde
But you would never see that, because the country-based caps would never let the balance in either arena get that badly skewed.
Of course, it would still be a problem if there were twice as many knights
online as opposed to the same number but all of them piled into one arena. But that's true with the current system too, and I don't see how the one I'm describing would make that any worse.
ENY is not that bad. Would you prefer ACS (Auto Country Selection).
No, but I don't think "It's not the worst possible way" is much of an endorsement.
This is just my opinion.
As is mine. And I find the forums much more rewarding when people do like this and offer their opinions for discussion rather than just tearing into people they disagree with.
Problem: ENY too high
solution: switch sides
Outcome: Problem solved!
if you're gonna stick with 1 chess peice, deal with it! Othewise have fun!!
Problem not solved - or rather, problem solved only by creating a worse problem.
This is what I mean by not respecting the choice to stay with one country. If you want to switch teams twice a day, fine, I'm not going to shout "Spy!" at you or call you a traitor, it is just a game. But I think it's wrong to suggest that preferring otherwise is not a legitimate way to play or a preference to be accounted for whether there's a relatively easy way to do so - in other words, why punish people for staying on the same team when the same purpose can be accomplished without punishing anyone?
And it's not a chess piece, it's a team made up of fellow players for which the chess piece is just an abstract identifier. A sports team is more than its mascot and an AH2 country is more than its chess piece.
