Two countries vs Three

[Randy1]

In Lusche's wish and in past threads, the two country approach keeps coming up as an alternative to the current three country setup.

Outside of the technical issues, why would two countries be a bad idea?  I assume someone with a good deal of past experience might be able to say how we got to the three country system we have now.

Seems to me two countries is the way to go but I don't have the wherewithal to be sure that is the way to go.

[whiteman]

If the perceived hoarding now is bad, imagine the fun getting railroaded with only one option of attack.

[sunfan1121]

It's great fun to fight against a horde. I don't see a problem with more action. Aces high matchmaking, just like everything else, is user created. Less choice means more action.

[Wiley]

Well, you wouldn't have to worry about seeing that big juicy bardar and not being able to do anything about it because it's not on your country's front.  Even if one side did horde up and start facerolling maps, I can't see how it would be much different than what happens now.

Wiley.

[The Fugitive]

HiTech tried all combinations through warbirds to aces high. He found that 3 sides works best for keeping things more even and playability. I read that some place on the boards. On my phone or I'd look it up.

[Stampf]

Two for Tuesdays.  

Give it a rip.

[Nathan60]

Two for Tuesdays.  

Give it a rip.

Good compromise

[mthrockmor]

New motto: "Two for Tuesdays!" I give it a solid +1

A week or so ago about 40 of us ended up in the WW1 arena during a map change. The fight lasted 15 minutes or so. What was interesting is the sideswitching rapidly resulted in almost everyone one two sides, with great fights. Cleary AH is seeing a dip in the number of sticks. Going to two sides, and of course the oft discussed 12-hour rule could result in better fights.

As for AH having tried everything....I remember when they would have one Late War arena then sharply at 5PM they would close that and open two, smaller latewar arenas. When that happend 100-150 would promptly log off. It basically dumped the fight. AH changed that, kept the one arena open full-time, which is where we are at now.

Let's give two sides a try on night a week for a few hours and see what happens. Likely it would require some randomization on which chess piece you get the first time, and they may need to change the side switch rule to allow a more dynamic, organic adjustment to imbalance....

Let's see what happens!

[FLS]

So which country gets to rage quit Tuesday?

[shoresroad]

So which country gets to rage quit Tuesday?

Someone posted a good idea on this several weeks ago: two new country names such as Eagles and Falcons, etc. so no existing country feels jilted.

[TheCrazyOrange]

I feel like auto balancing would be needed then. Resides, nothing good about side loyalty, and this would just increase that.

[shoresroad]

...nothing good about side loyalty, and this would just increase that.

Side loyalty creates a sense of teamwork.  Many players like teamwork at both the squad and country levels.

[Randy1]

. . . side loyalty, and this would just increase that.

Side Loyalty when there is a choice between sides is a part of one's profile I would think.  The percent of people who share that type of profile is probably fairly constant.  Meaning, in very course terms, you either are a loyalest or not. I don't think two countries would effect the number of side loyal people.

[FLS]

What terrains would you use?

[BnZs]

See rule #4