2v1 country ganging needs intervention from htc

[bustr]

With the kind of number percentages in the first screen shot, have it trigger all perk rides free for the one country and 30eny as a default for each of the two other countries. Keep that percentage even if the two other countries are at 60 or what ever large number of players each as long as the third is at the same percentage. It will be like a two country only gang bang except the loosing country gets to fly all the perk rides for free and the cost of sin for the other countries is being locked out of anything late war by their own choosing.

Hitech should then have an additional message in the Country Status flip out page saying how many players will be needed to move to the low number country to turn it off. Normal ENY rules will apply as long as the two versus one percentage is not reached.

[8thJinx]

I still say the country that gets mobbed down to 40% should get nukes for B-29's.

[Shuffler]

Deny bathroom privledges.

[hazmatt]

I've switched countries to the low side and had the numbers climb to the point that another country is now low.

When I try to switch to the now lowered number country I get a message that I can't switch for said number of hours. Why would there be a limit to how often I can change sides that is sooo long? I could understand an hour or something but to me this side switching limitation doesn't allow for you to easily switch to the country that's getting ganged.

[BuckShot]

I simply attack the enemy that is most convenient to attack and rarely know which enemy team I'm attacking.

When the arm chair generals start squaking about attacking the other enemy, I have to check and see who I'm attacking to see what they are talking about.

I couldn't even say right now what colors I have the other chess pieces set to. White fields are friendly, the other two colors are bad guys.

This ganged status revolves through the three teams.

[Bruv119]

Bin off all make believe maps lets go AvA with real world ones.   

also start a separate thread for when the Axis pilots get  being outnumbered 5 to 1.   

[OldNitro]

2 sides, geographically realistic maps, (not necessarily real world maps),
fictitious but realistic is fine, and AvA one day a week, sounds kinda cool..

GVs would Axis Dominant..

[save]

And the 1945 battles 30:1.

Target rich environment I must say.

Bin off all make believe maps lets go AvA with real world ones.   

also start a separate thread for when the Axis pilots get  being outnumbered 5 to 1.

[DubiousKB]

I still say the country that gets mobbed down to 40% should get nukes for B-29's.

And one time-use air spawns.     

[CAV]

Still think they should institute a 2 base max capture per side. After you capture 2 bases from team A, you must capture at least one base from team B before you can capture another base from team A. This way the "roll one side" get broken up and it forces the team making the runs to attack the "ignored" side spreading the fights better to ALL fronts.

I like this... I would also turn down scoring down to .25% after two bases are taken against that side too

[Squire]

They can take our land but they cant take our freedom!

[FESS67]

You can all make as many smart bellybutton comments as you like but the premise of the OP stands.  It is simply not fun being outnumbered 5 to 1.  It does not matter if that is historically correct, this is a game and it is simply not fun.

You guys that brag that you love that environment so you can go hunt....you are in the minority.  You are probably in the range of 1% of players.  And before you all get overinflated about your skills the others could do it but for them staying safe in a 5 on 1 is boring as batshit

The fact is the game really needs to think about going 2 sides.  This would solve the gangbang issues and promote more even fights.  IMO

[OldNitro]

Ganging due to 3 sides, and Funky unrealistic maps, due to 3 sides..

Slapping more artificial conditions on gameplay, just to mask a more deep
rooted problem (3 sides), is not moving in the right direction development wise..

Ah well, it is what it is...!

[flippz]

Last night was a prime example of this. Bish was beat back to less than 40% of their own bases. Not a single nit/rook base changed hands. Was it fun for the 57 guys on the rook side that really had no one to fight?  What about knights that had 46 guys flying around aimlessly on the bish front with nothing to do. As the horde grew bish logged of. At “prime time” there was 37 bish on and two were new guys that had never played the game before. One lasted four flights was never seen again. The second. He gave it a hell of a go but I personally never seen him leave the run way. Hammer was assisting him so maybe he knows more.

And two of the guys that’s all ways spewing they like being out numbered as it gives them more target was seen twice in the horde picking of the few planes that upped.

[popeye]

I'm sure this has been <cough> "discussed", but I don't see why two sides would change the horde mentality.  It seems that some players play to win the war and tend to migrate to the side that is most focused on that goal and often has the numbers to accomplish it.  Why wouldn't that also be true with two sides?