ENY (one more time)

[Vraciu]

A lot of the perceived "double teaming" is simply perception.

Next time someone says "double teaming" they should first check the stats to see if an enemy switched to attacking your team because they already have 20% of the other enemy territory.   

The reason for it is irrelevant.

[The Fugitive]

A lot of the perceived "double teaming" is simply perception.

Next time someone says "double teaming" they should first check the stats to see if an enemy switched to attacking your team because they already have 20% of the other enemy territory.   

When was the last time you played?

I have seen many time were a team owns 35%+ of an oppsing's team base and they STILL continue to hit them. The game has become grab all the bases you can the easiest way you can. That means you rarely see players fight for a base.

Thats what all these complaints are about, the lack of fights these days. More and more players running to ack, or just running. More and more players bailing from buffs so they dont have to defend themselves. More and more players sitting in a GV or a gun for hours on end to get proxies. The common fact here is all of it avoids fighting.

[FESS67]

 It is comprised of three parts: 'I don't want to switch sides', 'I don't want to fly anything other than my favorite late war plane(s)', and 'This is completely unworkable with low numbers.' The last argument was rendered moot by HT. The other two arguments are merely complete stubbornness.

• it's not that I won't or can't fly a high ENY plane.  It's that I enjoy it less, to the point I would rather go do something else.
• it's not that I won't change sides, it's just that I don't want to commit to 6 hours on that side.

[li]ENY was active the other day with 5 to 7 a side.  I will fish out the screen shot when I  get home in 10 days.  Not sure what you think but I call that low numbers.
[/li][/list]

[Arlo]

The only rational argument I'm seeing in that is the abolition of map-winning and I find that potentially disastrous, considering the players that make that a priority. Never-the-less, what possible device could be employed to promote balance/even fights more so than ENY without causing an equally hard-voiced complaint against some other perceived wrong (ie: unlimited side switch would cause spying complaints to increase - though some have admitted to shade accounts already).
 

[icepac]

When was the last time you played?

I have seen many time were a team owns 35%+ of an oppsing's team base and they STILL continue to hit them. The game has become grab all the bases you can the easiest way you can. That means you rarely see players fight for a base.

Thats what all these complaints are about, the lack of fights these days. More and more players running to ack, or just running. More and more players bailing from buffs so they dont have to defend themselves. More and more players sitting in a GV or a gun for hours on end to get proxies. The common fact here is all of it avoids fighting.

I know that happens.

So the bish get 23% of knight territory and switch focus to the rooks.   

The knights who have been attacking the rooks will still be attacking the rooks regardless of what the bish do.

Now you have bish also attacking the rooks.

Yes, two sides are attacking but it's not really a pre-meditated double team but rather what is needed to win the map.

The knights who were defending against the bish are now free and likely not interested in stirring them up so some attack the rooks.

[The Fugitive]

The only rational argument I'm seeing in that is the abolition of map-winning and I find that potentially disastrous, considering the players that make that a priority. Never-the-less, what possible device could be employed to promote balance/even fights more so than ENY without causing an equally hard-voiced complaint against some other perceived wrong (ie: unlimited side switch would cause spying complaints to increase - though some have admitted to shade accounts already).

Why would you jump to " abolition of map-winning"??????

All people are looking for is a way for more fights to happen. In the case of FESS's post, maybe auto tune the side switch time.

20 or less players NO ENY, and 1 hour switch times.
Once the total players count hits 50, ENY is still out but switch time moves up to 2 hours.
100 players, ENY is back on and switch time is 3 hours.
200 players and ENY is on and switch time is back to 6 hours.

Players can still fight the war, but those inclined can switch with out effecting ENY and STILL find a fight. Once the numbers start climbing you get players back to thinking about switching and then when ENY kicks back in players arent jumping back and forth and so ENY isnt bouncing all over the place.

Tweak CAN BE MADE IF management wants to.

[flippz]

A lot of the perceived "double teaming" is simply perception.

Next time someone says "double teaming" they should first check the stats to see if an enemy switched to attacking your team because they already have 20% of the other enemy territory.   

many many times a team has lost more than 20% of there to fields to opposing team and don't even try to fight back for it.  it is the herd horde mentality in the game.  they continually attack a front that is non productive for the game other than kill score. 

[flippz]

Why would you jump to " abolition of map-winning"??????

All people are looking for is a way for more fights to happen. In the case of FESS's post, maybe auto tune the side switch time.

20 or less players NO ENY, and 1 hour switch times.
Once the total players count hits 50, ENY is still out but switch time moves up to 2 hours.
100 players, ENY is back on and switch time is 3 hours.
200 players and ENY is on and switch time is back to 6 hours.

Players can still fight the war, but those inclined can switch with out effecting ENY and STILL find a fight. Once the numbers start climbing you get players back to thinking about switching and then when ENY kicks back in players arent jumping back and forth and so ENY isnt bouncing all over the place.

Tweak CAN BE MADE IF management wants to.

Fugi the issue with that statement is "fighters" there is not a lot left in the game. lot of pickers, lot of horders (also score tards fall in this catergory).  I cant remember the last time I ran into a plane 1v1 and had a clean decent fight.  and you cant go straight to the spit 16 thing cause I fly in the am when bish average a 15 eny and yes even other spits dart to the ground and run when approached by another spit.  the "fighter" is a minority now in this game and doubt any changes will ever be affected for the "fighter".

[Vinkman]

(Edited out distractions or excuses for)

Everything I've stated has legs to stand on. This complaint is practically as old as the game. It is comprised of three parts: 'I don't want to switch sides', 'I don't want to fly anything other than my favorite late war plane(s)', and 'This is completely unworkable with low numbers.' The last argument was rendered moot by HT. The other two arguments are merely complete stubbornness.

it's easy to understand the complaint. I like to play 109 K4. I have relationship with that plane. I log on and I can't fly it because there are not enough Bish on. [notice I didn't say too many knights. Because we should be punishing large numbers of players].  Now I have to switch to Bish and leave my team mates. So my choice fly with team mates OR the fly the plane I want. And if I switch, I'm stuck there for 6 hours. [I thought it was 12]

Not an impossible choice....but what is the benefit of the choice? understanding the benefit of ENY is not easy for anyone to see.

To ease the pain, perhaps there should be no time limit for switching to the country with less players. then if in 1 hour 50 Bish log on, instead of being stuck on bish due to the switchback timer, it would let me leave if the team I'm switching back to has fewer players. For some hysteresis, make the player differential something big enough so you can't switch every 5 minutes when the numbers flip by or 2.

[Arlo]

I've seen team mates switch together (from the perspective of being part of that dynamic,even). It doesn't take all that much effort or coordination if nobody on the team has recently switched (and, quite frankly, squad-mates don't tend to unless the squad elects to - on squad nights, at least). I've seen large squads partially switch and then fight each other. This isn't a new idea but it is actually a pretty decent one. It places no unreasonable demand on the game designer to make a major change in code, it leaves a switch time limit to mollify the spy paranoiacs, it encourages players to move around and meet their occasional or even regular opponents (giving a bit more perspective).

The best part is the group can indeed re-group (if split) or change to their original side (or even yet a different side) in another six hours. Granted, few squads stay on a straight six hours now like some did in the 'grand old days' (squads have shrunk, many of us have gotten older, meaning players who started the game as kids probably now have jobs and/or their own kids - players who started out older .... are even older and stamina/endurance may not be what it used to be). That still means when everyone logs back on together they can reassess and react accordingly.

It comes down to priorities. If a player (or group) refuses to be flexible enough and just MUST have access to all rides no matter how much their side has a numerical advantage (or they have that peculiar 'chess piece loyalty' fetish) then it isn't really a 'broken design' they are complaining about. Sure, it's a game ... but even games may mimic life and you can't please everyone all of the time.

(P.S. If a player or group just can't stand that option, there's always the AvA. I spent years promoting that place and would still love to see others fall in love with it. And, of course, there's the best part of AH, IMHO .... events.)

[Vraciu]

 
 
 
 
 

[Vinkman]

I've seen team mates switch together (from the perspective of being part of that dynamic,even). It doesn't take all that much effort or coordination if nobody on the team has recently switched (and, quite frankly, squad-mates don't tend to unless the squad elects to - on squad nights, at least). I've seen large squads partially switch and then fight each other. This isn't a new idea but it is actually a pretty decent one. It places no unreasonable demand on the game designer to make a major change in code, it leaves a switch time limit to mollify the spy paranoiacs, it encourages players to move around and meet their occasional or even regular opponents (giving a bit more perspective).

The best part is the group can indeed re-group (if split) or change to their original side (or even yet a different side) in another six hours. Granted, few squads stay on a straight six hours now like some did in the 'grand old days' (squads have shrunk, many of us have gotten older, meaning players who started the game as kids probably now have jobs and/or their own kids - players who started out older .... are even older and stamina/endurance may not be what it used to be). That still means when everyone logs back on together they can reassess and react accordingly.


It comes down to priorities. If a player (or group) refuses to be flexible enough and just MUST have access to all rides no matter how much their side has a numerical advantage (or they have that peculiar 'chess piece loyalty' fetish) then it isn't really a 'broken design' they are complaining about. Sure, it's a game ... but even games may mimic life and you can't please everyone all of the time.

(P.S. If a player or group just can't stand that option, there's always the AvA. I spent years promoting that place and would still love to see others fall in love with it. And, of course, there's the best part of AH, IMHO .... events.)

Arlo, you just keep defending complicated work-arounds, but fail to explain your support for limiting plane choices?

[lunaticfringe]

1st- I've been playing for 10 years and for the last 5 at least people been whining about ENY-if HiTech was gonna change ENY he would have done so my now. Pony "D"'s and LA-7's are not the only planes you can BnZ and pick with. you're BnZ comes from altitude, take almost any plane up to 15-20k and you can pick with it, Uberhags and X15 had a lot of kills in the P40-C the last tour, proves that point, quit being a spoiled brat and try flying a different plane.

2nd- how many times do you all have to be told that HiTech said there will not be a 2 country war. but lets just say he did at least try it, what will happen next is people will start crying the maps are to big for just 2 countries, they already cry the maps are to big for our currant population. so with a 2 country war all the maps would have to be changed.

3rd-and this already happens-most people will go to 1 side so they can have an large advantage over the other country, so they can up their kill count, so 1 side can gang the other side, the what will happen is people will start hollering they want the 3 country war back. AH Players will never be satisfied with what they have so they might as well leave the game as it is-with the occasional up dates, the players bickering with each other-certain players need to watch their mouth-quit cussing and calling people names because they got shot down,or some how killed.

[Arlo]

Arlo, you just keep defending complicated work-arounds, but fail to explain your support for limiting plane choices?

I'm sorry if my understanding HT's ENY as a mechanic to give outnumbered sides less of a disadvantage seemed confusing. Every post I've made on the subject has been supportive of that element of design. As far as 'complicated work-arounds' are concerned, where did you see one? I posted about players not letting their own emotional or mental complications get in the way of enjoying a good game, as designed.  There have been very few design tweaks recommended by players that I have found compelling (Fugi recently posted one). So if you're mistaking my continued support of ENY as something radical or a 'solution to a game design problem' that is incomplete, somehow - please don't. I don't perceive the game as a problem, in that regard. There are players, however, that appear to insist on having one.

[Vraciu]

- The maps are too big for three countries, not for two. 
- You’re diluting the players dividing them by three.
- People will switch for balance and ENY will actually work as intended with two sides. 

Just my opinion.   Don’t shoot me.