Side Switch Time

[Bruv119]

I have never ever switched sides, i have no friends flying under other chess pieces, i enjoy being the part of the horde and i also think all the red guys are rotten evil cheap dweeb picken bastages who are there only to interrupt our mighty war-winning plans and they dont deserve anything else but to get ganged!

Holy sarcasm bro!

you forgot sending the guy who just killed you nasty hate PM's!   

+1 to lowering the switch time.

[Butcher]

Someone posted while back, most people are loyal to their country, some of us however are simply rogues who enjoy a fight. As the aces high website says "In the air, on land, and at sea, the battle rages 24 hours a day with participants from around the world."
Some of us simply don't get enough action, we free lance, its already said if you switch countries you can't get the perks for winning a war for few hours.. So whats stopping us from being able to switch?

Make it 6 hours (reasonable), and no war winning perks for 12 hours if you switch... I say this because I generally pop on around 2pm EST to fly on my hour lunch, I switch to find a quick fight, then log back in around 8pm EST, in which i'm bound stuck to a country still that may/may not be fighting again.

If we do, somethings I'd like to see is a countdown clock added to the Clipboard for those who do switch, thus enables us to watch the timer in case we want to switch again, kind of a life countdown timer.

[coombz]

"the battle rages 24 hours a day with participants from around the world."

if this was actually true I wouldn't mind having a 12 hour side switch restriction

[pervert]

Why not just have to pay perks for switching??? simple, I would not mind that I never use mine.

[SlipKnt]

Why not just have to pay perks for switching??? simple, I would not mind that I never use mine.

 

[Ardy123]

Then everyone goes to one country and wins the war!

There is a war? oh, I thought it was a video game.. sorry my bad...

[bustr]

All of you are such wonderful boyscouts and deacons of your churchs that late at night you will always switch sides to balance fights for the good of the game play. Opposed to joining in with freinds as a group to dominate some unsuspecting poor group of clueless shleps. After all, group scalping of clueless shleps is hard to resist with freinds. Sorta like tossing back a few pints while watching your team stomp a rival all of you hate. During prime time the advantages of a group are balanced by the volume of players fighting against you in most cases.

This is the low end problem with social conduct based on dunbars number. In real life it is a valuble strength. In multiplayer games it destabalises game play when numbers are low causing some number of the scarce comodity of available players to become scarcer. People are smart enough to recognise the results of getting a scalping by a group of freinds versus an uncoordinated furball of newbies and average players. You will more often switch sides to be with freinds than any altruistic intentions towards the game's flow.

The obvious is true in the upper end of dunbars number when it's passed through and you have an arena of 300 or 400 players. Now you need groups of players to play together and be at odds with other groups of players to generate conflict. You need them to stay put and not form super groups like the old JSO with 300+ players dominating the total map from a single country.

Who cares? You cannot be expected to give a ratz hairy brown humpus when you are paying for an expectation of 24x7 fun advertised by the proprietor. But, you cannot expect HTC to kill subscriptions to make a subset of players happy either.

Complaining about the game rather than understanding Hitech's reason for his rules are the third most popular activity practiced by players of this game. The first is actualy playing the game and then secondly the resulting girly fights in this forum over who whized down who's back when they weren't looking.

[The Fugitive]

All of you are such wonderful boyscouts and deacons of your churchs that late at night you will always switch sides to balance fights for the good of the game play. Opposed to joining in with freinds as a group to dominate some unsuspecting poor group of clueless shleps. After all, group scalping of clueless shleps is hard to resist with freinds. Sorta like tossing back a few pints while watching your team stomp a rival all of you hate. During prime time the advantages of a group are balanced by the volume of players fighting against you in most cases.

This is the low end problem with social conduct based on dunbars number. In real life it is a valuble strength. In multiplayer games it destabalises game play when numbers are low causing some number of the scarce comodity of available players to become scarcer. People are smart enough to recognise the results of getting a scalping by a group of freinds versus an uncoordinated furball of newbies and average players. You will more often switch sides to be with freinds than any altruistic intentions towards the game's flow.

The obvious is true in the upper end of dunbars number when it's passed through and you have an arena of 300 or 400 players. Now you need groups of players to play together and be at odds with other groups of players to generate conflict. You need them to stay put and not form super groups like the old JSO with 300+ players dominating the total map from a single country.

Who cares? You cannot be expected to give a ratz hairy brown humpus when you are paying for an expectation of 24x7 fun advertised by the proprietor. But, you cannot expect HTC to kill subscriptions to make a subset of players happy either.

Complaining about the game rather than understanding Hitech's reason for his rules are the third most popular activity practiced by players of this game. The first is actualy playing the game and then secondly the resulting girly fights in this forum over who whized down who's back when they weren't looking.

I don't think I've seen anyone say anything about balancing the sides, people are just looking for fights.

Chewies big horde mission Friday. It will be against either the Rooks or Knights. Say he hits Rooks and he gets more than the 50 he is looking for (Bish hordes grow like that ). The battle could easily draw the majority of players from both the Bish and Rooks side for an epic clash..... or so they hope. In doing so The Knights will have very little opposition. Sure a few enterprising groups will try to grab a few bases while the Bish and Rooks fight it out but there will be very little fighting for the Knights.

So now you have a bunch of Knights that would like to be in the fight but don't want to switch because in a hour of so when Chewies horde get tired of getting pummeled They are going to re-organise.....if that's what you call it when a horde gets back together...... and turn around and hit the Knights.

[guncrasher]

I don't think I've seen anyone say anything about balancing the sides, people are just looking for fights.

Chewies big horde mission Friday. It will be against either the Rooks or Knights. Say he hits Rooks and he gets more than the 50 he is looking for (Bish hordes grow like that ). The battle could easily draw the majority of players from both the Bish and Rooks side for an epic clash..... or so they hope. In doing so The Knights will have very little opposition. Sure a few enterprising groups will try to grab a few bases while the Bish and Rooks fight it out but there will be very little fighting for the Knights.

So now you have a bunch of Knights that would like to be in the fight but don't want to switch because in a hour of so when Chewies horde get tired of getting pummeled They are going to re-organise.....if that's what you call it when a horde gets back together...... and turn around and hit the Knights.

so and none of them are smart enough to not switch prior to the mission until they are certain of the objective.   If chewi can give a week warning then use it.   don't blame the 12 hr switch time. 

semp

[The Fugitive]

so and none of them are smart enough to not switch prior to the mission until they are certain of the objective.   If chewi can give a week warning then use it.   don't blame the 12 hr switch time. 

semp

you really shouldn't post when you have been drinking. I'm not blaming the 12 hour switch time on messing up my chance of flying into a horde. Take it to a third mission in which Chewie switches front again.

The point of the matter is a sizable portion of the players would like a shorter limit on the switch time. Few play 12 hours strait any more that I see. Time to play in many cases is limited. As like any other "request" like a certain plane, or an extra button so someone doesn't have to type out a whole dot command, a request to have the limit changed isn't unreasonable. And seeing as this request shows up as often as the "B29" request did in it's heyday I don't see why other limits could be explored.   

[guncrasher]

you really shouldn't post when you have been drinking. I'm not blaming the 12 hour switch time on messing up my chance of flying into a horde. Take it to a third mission in which Chewie switches front again.

The point of the matter is a sizable portion of the players would like a shorter limit on the switch time. Few play 12 hours strait any more that I see. Time to play in many cases is limited. As like any other "request" like a certain plane, or an extra button so someone doesn't have to type out a whole dot command, a request to have the limit changed isn't unreasonable. And seeing as this request shows up as often as the "B29" request did in it's heyday I don't see why other limits could be explored.   

I'm at work I won't be drinking for another hour.   

But I don't think having the time changed from 12 to let's say 4 hours will make a difference.  If the play. Time. is limited then do you really want to sit for another four hours in a country that has no fights?  it makes as much sense as having 12 hours.   I say allow to switch anytime.   4 or 6 hours make as much sense as 12.



semp

[The Fugitive]

There are many Saturdays that I spend 8 hours on a country that has no fights. 3-4 is less and would work for me. 1 hour is too short, or HTC wouldn't have chafed it. Maybe 3 hours would still serve HTC but not punish those of us who would like to switch now and then.

[Slade]

Make it 6 hours (reasonable), and no war winning perks for 12 hours if you switch

I really can understand those that want to switch for just wanting a good fight.    to you all.

Anything less than 6 hours would greatly help those that switch sides for all the gamey reasons already given ad nauseam.  Bummer how just a few can so adversely effect game play for all but there you go.  Its too bad that, given the chance, there will always be those that exploit games if given the opportunity. 

No less than 6 hours please is my vote.

Thanks.

[Ardy123]

I remember back when one could switch more freely. It was a lot of fun esp at the later hours when the numbers got a bit thin. I would look on the map and search for clusters of red attacking bases, then switch, up and fight it. For all the times I dished banter at a squad called the 'Devil's Rejects' I spend many hours single handedly attacking their midnight raids. My ability to do this was greatly happered when the side switch times were increased to 12 hours. I don't know if any of those players still play or remember dealing with me but twas fun

[pervert]

All of you are such wonderful boyscouts and deacons of your churchs that late at night you will always switch sides to balance fights for the good of the game play. Opposed to joining in with freinds as a group to dominate some unsuspecting poor group of clueless shleps. After all, group scalping of clueless shleps is hard to resist with freinds. Sorta like tossing back a few pints while watching your team stomp a rival all of you hate. During prime time the advantages of a group are balanced by the volume of players fighting against you in most cases.

This is the low end problem with social conduct based on dunbars number. In real life it is a valuble strength. In multiplayer games it destabalises game play when numbers are low causing some number of the scarce comodity of available players to become scarcer. People are smart enough to recognise the results of getting a scalping by a group of freinds versus an uncoordinated furball of newbies and average players. You will more often switch sides to be with freinds than any altruistic intentions towards the game's flow.

The obvious is true in the upper end of dunbars number when it's passed through and you have an arena of 300 or 400 players. Now you need groups of players to play together and be at odds with other groups of players to generate conflict. You need them to stay put and not form super groups like the old JSO with 300+ players dominating the total map from a single country.

Who cares? You cannot be expected to give a ratz hairy brown humpus when you are paying for an expectation of 24x7 fun advertised by the proprietor. But, you cannot expect HTC to kill subscriptions to make a subset of players happy either.

Complaining about the game rather than understanding Hitech's reason for his rules are the third most popular activity practiced by players of this game. The first is actualy playing the game and then secondly the resulting girly fights in this forum over who whized down who's back when they weren't looking.