Two Teams

[EskimoJoe]

I believe that a short 'campaign' period of 2 teams would be beneficial until 1) more bugs have been hammered out and 2) advertising kicks off hardcore and we start seeing a noticeable amount of new players.

I also believe that this game advertised the right way on Steam would bring in a large amount of players, although I'm sure many Steam player reviews wouldn't be too positive (kids these days.)

I'm sure that Hitech & crew have a master plan of attack, but time will tell.

[Skuzzy]

Hitech doesn't have the server power to support that many players in one area during peak times would be very hard on their servers as most teams gang up on one field at a time.

A solution to this would be a sort of field bottleneck, ie A field can only up a certain number of planes in a span of time, this would spread people out.

some games can manage large amounts of players well (planetside 2), but they have huge dedicated teams that specialize in single fields, Hitech and his team are jack of all trades.

This is just baseless nonsense.

[caldera]

"Two Side Tuesdays" would be an option I would like to see given a chance.

[Randy1]

I made this suggestion a year or so back but after thinking about the problems, it is fairly clear to me three countries is better than two.  Not perfect, but better.

On map size.  The secret to successful maps is not size as much as it is design to generate action.  Just about every map has a hot spot.  The Crater map in AH2 was a huge success for GVs but in AH3, the redesigned map, at least so far, has yet to have a major tank battle.  The best hot spots have both Air and GV attacks with carriers thrown in.

[mthrockmor]

I vote yes

Boo

[Ack-Ack]

It's funny how some players think they know better than the developer.  It has been shown (not only in this game) that two sides just doesn't work.  It was a conclusion Kesmai came to when AW was still around.  HiTech found out through WB that 4 sides doesn't work either and researched more and (like Kesmai) found that a 3 country system worked best.  He has even posted that and in this thread said "No".  That really should be the end of it but those that seem to think they know better continue on declaring a 2 country system is the best but yet have nothing to show to back up their claims, while those that have been developing this game have ample evidence that a 2 country system doesn't work best.

[Lazerr]

I guess three doesnt either.

[Vraciu]

No.

HiTech

Pffft.

[EskimoJoe]

It's funny how some players think they know better than the developer.  It has been shown (not only in this game) that two sides just doesn't work.  It was a conclusion Kesmai came to when AW was still around.  HiTech found out through WB that 4 sides doesn't work either and researched more and (like Kesmai) found that a 3 country system worked best.  He has even posted that and in this thread said "No".  That really should be the end of it but those that seem to think they know better continue on declaring a 2 country system is the best but yet have nothing to show to back up their claims, while those that have been developing this game have ample evidence that a 2 country system doesn't work best.

I don't think anybody is seriously asking for it to be permanently switched. I think most agree that 3 sides is certainly the best way to go about business, when higher numbers are present. When there are 500 players on, it works much better than when only 100 are on.

Yeah, AvA has one side vs one side, but it's a niche environment within an already niche game. People won't go there unless the numbers are there, which is sad but people want that MMO combat experience, not the side vs side recreation one. (No offense AvA crew, I always loved the arena but was always disappointed that there weren't enough interested players.)

[Chalenge]

What's keeping everyone from joining one of three countries and sweeping the map?  Not that I am saying two countries is the answer.

The "Alliance Whine," which is basically what started this whole thread.

[Lazerr]

The "Alliance Whine," which is basically what started this whole thread.

What started this thread, was the discussion of two teams, to help funnel action, rather than have 60 players spread out over hundreds and hundreds of square miles.

I don't play this to win wars, and many of the 2/3rd's of the lost player base didn't either.  I will push a base take now and then to try and kick a nest and get a fight going, but the response is a field full of manned guns, or a m3 driving into town in 3 minutes undoing 3 sorties of my work.  Do I want to bomb strats?  No.  Can i ask for the help of fellow players when there is 20 people on my team, and half are AFK?  No?

The fight is rather difficult to find lately I find.  I dont need any tips from anyone on how to do it either, ive been here long enough to know the game quite well.


I understand sometimes there are enough players to have a decent time in here.  More often then not, there isnt, unless shooting static objects is your thing.

This wasnt meant to turn into a pissing match, which you seem good at doing on here.  This was for discussion.

You guys mention two teams doesnt work, which must have been tried before my time here starting in 2000.  Wouldnt this be before ENY, troops supplying town?  All these new aspects that make this a totally different game than before?

I guess a decent answer would be nice, rather than the garbage ive read in here so far.

[Lazerr]

 

[BowHTR]

If it went to 2 sides, what would keep one side from rolling map after map?

[Dawger]

While I think 2 sides is the wrong way to address the issue, the lack of aerial fights outside the AAA is a big negative for me, a recent returnee.

I am looking for an aerial fight outside of the range of manned ack and flakwagons.

I know there are more dollars in ground vehicles since you only need minimal brain activity to be successful but its not what I am looking for.

Luckily FSO is still a guaranteed aerial fight or I would seriously consider unsubscribing.

[popeye]

Seems like this a player-driven game.  If "most" players wanted air-air fights, that's what we would have.  Players would gravitate to two near-by bases, would switch countries to have two even sides, wouldn't try to capture, wouldn't vultch, wouldn't kill radar, etc., etc..., and there would be a nice continuous furball for all to enjoy.

However, since that isn't what is happening it seems reasonable to assume that "most" players don't want it to happen.  So, having only two sides wouldn't necessarily create gameplay that is already possible but for whatever reason doesn't happen.