Side Switching - Just a Thought

[AKP]

Although I dont have any problems finding a fight when I am on (usually evenings US time)... I am reading a lot about those that fly during "off peak" hours that are finding it difficult since the 12 hour rule has been put in place.

What about making the time required between switches dynamic?  So that during peak hours... its 12 hours.  During off peak hours... it's less.  It might still do what HTC wants it to, and not limit those that dont fly when there are 300 in the arena.  Just a thought?

[guncrasher]

there's only been a handful of people whining about the 12 hour rule from the very begining.  once they realized that lowering the time will just allow the horde switchers to join other hordes they understood it and adapted.

not sure if anybody plays late at night when we used to see 1/2 the rooks and 1/2 the knights switch to bishops to join the nightly (or early) base hording.  it happened every night at around 2 am pacific time.  it has slowed down with this new 12 hour rule.

the people that actually switched to help the low side or find fights are rare.  most just switch to horde.

one more thing unless I am different than anybody else, i never have a problem finding a fight.  even late at night now, i can either join the horde  , milk run  , or find smaller fights somewhere else  .  I find this "I cant find a  fight anywhere" a total bs.

semp

[Lusche]

the people that actually switched to help the low side or find fights are rare.  most just switch to horde.

The second part is not correct.
Most "hordes" mostly consist of country-loyal players looking for a capture, more often than not members of well-known big squads. I have fought hordes a lot and did switch sides to do so, but I never found other, renowned side-switchers as part of that horde, but mostly we all met each other on the same side facing the mob.
Not many players switched sides (most are pretty much chesspiece-loyal), but most that did were simply looking for more action, and this means more red than green darbars.

one more thing unless I am different than anybody else, i never have a problem finding a fight.  even late at night now, i can either join the horde  , milk run  , or find smaller fights somewhere else  .  I find this "I cant find a  fight anywhere" a total bs.

Define "late at night". In a world wide community, this ain't a very clear term

[Debrody]

As i seen, people switched sides for two reasons:
- when a country way about to win the map, for those 25 perks. Its laughable. Only the newbies did it since 25 perks can be earned in one sortie.
- when people got enough from the hordes and wanted to fight against it.
Im with AKP at this one. When there are 300 people on, theres no way you cant find a fight. Often you have many choices. I very rarely switched sides in those situations, even though i was known as a "slimebag spy". But when there are only 50 on, lets say in a 10v15v25, the situation is totally different, and can change a LOT from hour to hour as more people log in.

[Ardy123]

The second part is not correct.
Most "hordes" mostly consist of country-loyal players looking for a capture, more often than not members of well-known big squads. I have fought hordes a lot and did switch sides to do so, but I never found other, renowned side-switchers as part of that horde, but mostly we all met each other on the same side facing the mob.
Not many players switched sides (most are pretty much chesspiece-loyal), but most that did were simply looking for more action, and this means more red than green darbars.

Define "late at night". In a world wide community, this ain't a very clear term

I can vouch for snailman on this. I remember an instance about 1 year ago when snail and I took off a neighboring base to attack the 'mob' he was in a p51(If I remember correctly) I was in a k4. I never made it back to base but I was impressed & surprised by the courage snails have. The mob must have been about 40 members and I had heard they had salt. I don't know if he switched to fight it, but I did.

Although I don't profess to know all of the side-switchers, it has came to my attention that some people believe that the rule was reinstated due to a regular group of side switchers (myself included) who do this. I have never seen anyone in that group (the group of people is larger than the squad I'm in) change sides to be part of the horde.

I'll put it this way, do you want to fight Grizz or Snailman 40v1 or 1v40? now think about that....

[Mayhem]

We have an interesting discussion on it here?

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,318265.0.htm

I have been playing AH since beta and I stated in the above thread I don't see much of a difference in the 1 hour vs 12 in relationship to winning or spying or mission busting. I will admit I am somewhat biased in favor of 1 hour over 12 As I often change sides. But don't forget we also have NMY values and team balancing to contend with as well.

We have Team balancing because to many people cried because people Wouldn't shift to balance the sides. Now people are crying because people change sides. Can you all please make up your minds before I go into AH hibernation for another 4 years!

[guncrasher]

The second part is not correct.
Most "hordes" mostly consist of country-loyal players looking for a capture, more often than not members of well-known big squads. I have fought hordes a lot and did switch sides to do so, but I never found other, renowned side-switchers as part of that horde, but mostly we all met each other on the same side facing the mob.
Not many players switched sides (most are pretty much chesspiece-loyal), but most that did were simply looking for more action, and this means more red than green darbars.

Define "late at night". In a world wide community, this ain't a very clear term

i thought the part about 2 am pacific time was clear.

semp

[SunBat]

one more thing unless I am different than anybody else, i never have a problem finding a fight.  even late at night now, i can either join the horde  , milk run  , or find smaller fights somewhere else  .  I find this "I cant find a  fight anywhere" a total bs.

semp

Most of us don't consider dropping a bomb on a building then pouncing on an upper or two with 6v1 odds in easymode Spit16's a fight, but you go girl. 

[pervert]

Semp you talk out your rear end, you profess to know what you have never experienced, your views are based on a narrow minded 'if thats the way it is for me thats how everyone must do it'  point of view. The fact you never switch says more about how narrow minded you are than what gameplay you like. 

[shotgunneeley]

In a perfect world, the loyalties of the players would be clearly defined to a particular country and everyone would be more concerned about winning the war instead of individual gains. For me personally, i have never been a knight and have been a member of two squads: a rook and a bish bomb group. The two squads i was a part of were dedicated solely to their respective countries, so we never side-swapped and conducted operations that would be beneficial to our country's overall campaign. In this scenario, I would suggest that each player would be locked to a particular side for the entire tour or at least for a map rotation. If a player's side won the war, their account would receive the same perk reward as their country mates regardless if they were present or absent for the final victory. I believe this would give a lot of incentive to those players to dedicate their efforts to one side for better or worse and cut out those who want to switch to the team who is on the verge of winning the war.

But this ain't Walgreen's, and a lot of people just play this game with only themselves or at best their squad in mind. so my compromise would be to keep the side switching limit the way it is now, but you have to pick a country at the start of your participation in a map. You can play as much or as little as you want for this side (you won't be locked in), but if you're present for a country that wins the war and it is not the one you picked to begin with, then you won't receive a perk reward. Conversely, if your fighting for the losing side and your selected country wins, then you do receive the perk reward. I believe this will lessen the mass of players who switch to the dominant side to hoard and reap last minute benefits.

but in the end, this is only a game and we all pay our $15 to play the way we want to play. So this is not a gripe, just my 2 cents

Flame on, I expect to take heat from individualistic players

[ink]

In a perfect world, the loyalties of the players would be clearly defined to a particular country and everyone would be more concerned about winning the war instead of individual gains. For me personally, i have never been a knight and have been a member of two squads: a rook and a bish bomb group. The two squads i was a part of were dedicated solely to their respective countries, so we never side-swapped and conducted operations that would be beneficial to our country's overall campaign. In this scenario, I would suggest that each player would be locked to a particular side for the entire tour or at least for a map rotation. If a player's side won the war, their account would receive the same perk reward as their country mates regardless if they were present or absent for the final victory. I believe this would give a lot of incentive to those players to dedicate their efforts to one side for better or worse and cut out those who want to switch to the team who is on the verge of winning the war.

But this ain't Walgreen's, and a lot of people just play this game with only themselves or at best their squad in mind. so my compromise would be to keep the side switching limit the way it is now, but you have to pick a country at the start of your participation in a map. You can play as much or as little as you want for this side (you won't be locked in), but if you're present for a country that wins the war and it is not the one you picked to begin with, then you won't receive a perk reward. Conversely, if your fighting for the losing side and your selected country wins, then you do receive the perk reward. I believe this will lessen the mass of players who switch to the dominant side to hoard and reap last minute benefits.

but in the end, this is only a game and we all pay our $15 to play the way we want to play. So this is not a gripe, just my 2 cents

Flame on, I expect to take heat from individualistic players

if this game was only about the "war" I would have never stayed almost 6 years...seems like HTC is moving in this direction, gotta appease the Xbox crowd once its fully a "war" I will be gone, hell I barely have any desire to play at all, with this 12 hour change rule, absolutely BS.  definitely in my eyes worse decision HTC has made.

[coombz]

if this game was only about the "war" I would have never stayed almost 6 years...seems like HTC is moving in this direction, gotta appease the Xbox crowd once its fully a "war" I will be gone, hell I barely have any desire to play at all, with this 12 hour change rule, absolutely BS.  definitely in my eyes worse decision HTC has made.

just curious, how exactly is 'winning the war' gameplay aimed at xbox players?  

personally i'd imagine that players used to instant gratification, quick action type games would be more interested in getting in a fighter and just mixing it up in a random fight, rather than the long term, slow burn, base taking, boring as hell (imo) war winning gameplay...

it really seems that some people really love to throw 'xbox generation' or whatever around as generic slur against anyone who has a different view or playing style to themselves...i've seen it used to describe a whole multitude of different 'undesirable' flying styles 

not trying to de-rail this thread and make it about consoles or console players btw, just trying to highlight the sort of mentality we're dealing with here  

[ink]

its all about the "win" to them.....any way no matter what....they don't care about learning the intricacies of a dog fight...you hear "mindless" furballing yet dogfighting is anything but "mindless"  every single fight is different, but the "war" is the same thing over and over.....how many times do you attack multiple cons for them to all just HO and run.....the game play is quite lame and now I cant even go find a better fight

[kvuo75]

. I believe this will lessen the mass of players who switch to the dominant side to hoard and reap last minute benefits.

what last minute benefits? they do not get the perks as is.

[shotgunneeley]

what last minute benefits? they do not get the perks as is.

What do you mean? All players present on the winning side get a perk reward don't they? Besides, ive found that being at the tip of the spear when my country is dominant and aggressive tends to bring me more success. some people switch to fight for the underdogs, some switch to the team on the verge of success, and others stay put to slug it out no matter what.

Im a bomber fanatic, I enjoy making both tactical and strategic strikes on targets that would help me and my comrades achieve our immediate and longterm goals. But each arena has it's place, with the MA's being designed to appease to the playing style that would attract those just trying to have fun within the amount of time they have. Thank the lord for scenarios and special events!

But Xbox style players are not concerned with "winning the war" 


if this game was only about the "war" I would have never stayed almost 6 years...seems like HTC is moving in this direction, gotta appease the Xbox crowd once its fully a "war" I will be gone, hell I barely have any desire to play at all, with this 12 hour change rule, absolutely BS.  definitely in my eyes worse decision HTC has made.