Two sides

[Vraciu]

H&G.  Planetside 2 has 3 sides and seems to work decently, although their numbers went down from launch similarly to what's going on in AH, IMO for similar reasons that have little to do with 2 or 3 sides.  Open FFA side based PVP is still a niche within a niche.

Again, would you rather play in an arena where you've got the "winners" and "losers" side versus what we have now?  I wouldn't.  Also regarding your comment about sometimes getting rolled in BF.  Yeah, for one what, 30 minute round?  Then it resets.

WT clone or dating simulator.  That is the path forward.

Wiley.

Would you rather play in an arena with PLAYERS vs. PLAYERS or PLAYERS vs. BOREDOM?

I'll take action against odds vs. churning empty air.

[Wiley]

AH has a benefit of no direct competitor in terms of open-world-persistent-arena but that dog only hunts so long.  When a third of your player base is being ignored on the battlefield eventually they quit.

Two sides will alleviate that problem.

And likely create the winners-losers problem.  Is it a net gain?  I don't think so.  Where do you see a ton of people who will sign up to be stomped constantly?  I do have to admit you'll likely find a ton of people to roll bases with no substantial opposition.

Three sides may SEEM to be 1-0 but that's a default judgment based on overflowing arenas.

How were H&G's numbers affecting whether one side won every time for 2 years?  PS2 doesn't have overflowing arenas.

We're not there now.    With current numbers any benefit to three sides is easily outweighed by its negative effects.

Any way.   People are voting with their feet and an exodus can be a much bigger avalanche than an influx.  Time is a wastin' to solve the riddle.

Again, why will they stay when it's 2 sides horde or be horded?

Wiley.

[Traveler]

I don't think it's the three sides or two sides, it's the lack of players on all sides, I've been playing weekly every Saturday evening EST 7 to 10 or longer, but of late not so much,  Our squad 113th Lucky Strikes is down to two members,  We attempt to draw in new players but no one seems interested.  The sameness of the game does not help, not enough destroyable targets.  While the technical side has improved and new eye candy added, no new strategy has been added.   there are no destroyable bridges , no chock points for conflict to either attack or defend.  Road systems that mean nothing.  I saw a youtube review of the top War simulators and Aces High was not even mentioned.  Game play has grown stagnate and stall it's not drawing enough new players and people are finding War Thunder and IL2 a better investment for their time and money.  Sad to say, I no longer look forward to flying on Saturday Evening. 

[snugar109]

I say go 5 sides,  but split into country specific planesets.

Wouldn't work, we have a sqd that flies all sorts of planes from all sorts of countries so now the sqd is split based on their fav plane choice or wanting to take up something new for a scenario to practice in and that won't be good.

[Shuffler]

140 on last night

[Vraciu]

And likely create the winners-losers problem.  Is it a net gain?  I don't think so.  Where do you see a ton of people who will sign up to be stomped constantly?  I do have to admit you'll likely find a ton of people to roll bases with no substantial opposition.

How were H&G's numbers affecting whether one side won every time for 2 years?  PS2 doesn't have overflowing arenas.

Again, why will they stay when it's 2 sides horde or be horded?

Wiley.

Again.   This is an apocalyptic prediction that's used as an excuse not a reason.

WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues. 

People will get sick of being stomped in their horde of P-40Bs and switch sides.   In the meantime the outnumbered side will enjoy feeling like gods while slaying these EW bandwagoners in our LW Uber Machines.   

Or we can continue to have a third of the players flying around bored taking empty bases until they cancel their subs.

Action > Inaction

[Vraciu]

If three sides are here to stay then you must solve the problem of the ignored third country.   Smaller maps.  A Wheel of Fortune layout where people can always get to the front without needing a P-51 + Drop Tanks.  SOMETHING.

Smaller maps are the easiest remedy in my opinion.

[Vraciu]

140 on last night

Holiday surge.

[CptTrips]

No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map.  Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.

Or more likely, The largest side and the next largest simply decide to pick on the weakest side because their bases are easy pickings.  Ah the magical powers of 3-sides. 

 

Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now?  I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?

The goal of a 2-sided configuration would be to concentrate the fights more and to make sure that any good fight that develops organically can be reached by all players in the arena an not keep 1/3 of the players blocked off from access by several sectors. 

There are two goals Hitech needs to achieve: 

1.  He needs to bring in more new players and keep them.
2.  He needs to not lose the ones he has, at least until he can replace them.

I think with numbers this low, 3-sides is dysfunctional.  I think if numbers got up to 400, 2-sides would be dysfunctional. 

The goal would be to improve the quality and quantity of action so it looks like fun to new and old.

 

Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?

Stawman.  That would only kick in in the most extreme cases of imbalance.  They would prefer it over mass imbalance, which can just as easily occur with 3-sides.

Nope.  But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.

Strawman.  There is no evidence there would be a two year long imbalance in AH Melee (Non-AVA where could have tech imbalance).   Your imagined doom scenarios are astrawmen.

------------------------------------------------------

Look, I get it.  If you just say your personally prefer 3-sides I won't try and argue you out of it.  Just don't make up false arguments to justify your preference.  I fully respect a personal preference. 

I don't have a preference for 2-sides.  I just want to see the proper tool used for a given job.  I like 3-sides fine too when numbers are higher.

If the argument is that Hitech doesn't like 2-sides and will never do it.  <Shrug> OK, that has nothing to do with what is the best approach.  Hitech is not a God.  He is a dude.  Dudes can make good choices and bad choices.  I don't begrudge him the choice.  It's his paycheck.  But I won't grovel and pretend that everything he prefers is the perfect choice just because he made it.  If I don't agree, then I don't agree, and I'll state such respectfully.

If the argument is that it would be too much work to change at this point, OK, I get it.  Life is hard.  Sometimes things are desirable but not feasible.  That doesn't mean there are not advantages to 2-sides when numbers are low.  Feasibility is a separate issue.  Perfectly valid, but separate.

 

[CptTrips]

140 on last night

180 on a year ago.

[Wiley]

Again.   This is an apocalyptic prediction that's used as an excuse not a reason.

WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues. 

Again, where counterexample?  We can clearly see from player behavior in AH that they don't switch like they used to in WB.

People will get sick of being stomped in their horde of P-40Bs and switch sides. In the meantime the outnumbered side will enjoy feeling like gods while slaying these EW bandwagoners in our LW Uber Machines.

Just like they do now.  Oh wait...

Or we can continue to have a third of the players flying around bored taking empty bases until they cancel their subs.

Action > Inaction

Right.  As opposed to the vast majority flying around bored taking functionally undefended bases until they cancel their subs.  Improvement!

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Planetside 2 has 3 sides and seems to work decently, although their numbers went down from launch similarly to what's going on in AH, IMO for similar reasons that have little to do with 2 or 3 sides.  Open FFA side based PVP is still a niche within a niche.

I just tried PlanetSide the other day.  I think it is much more similar to BF than AH.  I had to laugh at how many game-play mechanism were direct rip-offs from BF.  Which is a good thing.  I'm a big fan of ripping-off great ideas and using them. 

However BF is 2-sided not 3-sided;  and I assure you they make billion$  more than PlanetSide and AH combined. 

For the 3-siders it seems to have become a religion. 

For me, 2-sides vs 3-sides is merely a design choice.  It's like asking me if I think you should user for-loops or while-loops.  It depends.  They both have advantages and disadvantages.  It's best to use which ever one has the most advantages in a given situation depending on your requirements.

If we had 500 players back in the arena and someone was arguing for 2-sided, I would argue against them.  I'm not married to 2-sides, I'm just looking for an optimal solution to a design problem.

[Wiley]

Strawman.  There is no evidence there would be a two year long imbalance in AH Melee (Non-AVA where could have tech imbalance).

Actually, that's a good point.  Tech imbalance was likely a major factor.  I still don't see based on current player behavior why it would change anything here.

------------------------------------------------------

Look, I get it.  If you just say your personally prefer 3-sides I won't try and argue you out of it.  Just don't make up false arguments to justify your preference.  I fully respect a personal preference. 

I don't have a preference for 2-sides.  I just want to see the proper tool used for a given job.  I like 3-sides fine too when numbers are higher.

If the argument is that Hitech doesn't like 2-sides and will never do it.  <Shrug> OK, that has nothing to do with what is the best approach.  Hitech is not a God.  He is a dude.  Dudes can make good choices and bad choices.  I don't begrudge him the choice.  It's his paycheck.  But I won't grovel and pretend that everything he prefers is the perfect choice just because he made it.  If I don't agree, then I don't agree, and I'll state such respectfully.

If the argument is that it would be too much work to change at this point, OK, I get it.  Life is hard.  Sometimes things are desirable but not feasible.  That doesn't mean there are not advantages to 2-sides when numbers are low.  Feasibility is a separate issue.  Perfectly valid, but separate.

 

The only counterargument that isn't purely based on hope to it causing a winners-losers situation is "it didn't happen in WBs".  It also didn't apparently overcome the legion of issues that caused WBs to die.

I too want the right tool for the job.  I just think the potential downside that comes with 2 sides outweighs the downside with 3.

Wiley.

[Wiley]

I just tried PlanetSide the other day.  I think it is much more similar to BF than AH.  I had to laugh at how many game-play mechanism were direct rip-offs from BF.  Which is a good thing.  I'm a big fan of ripping-off great ideas and using them. 

However BF is 2-sided not 3-sided;  and I assure you they make billion$  more than PlanetSide and AH combined. 

And they're round based, not long term strategic, which is an enormous difference.

For the 3-siders it seems to have become a religion. 

For me, 2-sides vs 3-sides is merely a design choice.  It's like asking me if I think you should user for-loops or while-loops.  It depends.  They both have advantages and disadvantages.  It's best to use which ever one has the most advantages in a given situation depending on your requirements.

If we had 500 players back in the arena and someone was arguing for 2-sided, I would argue against them.  I'm not married to 2-sides, I'm just looking for an optimal solution to a design problem.

Everything has potential and observed disadvantages.  I just don't see any indication that it would play out any different than how I described, with the only counter example being WB.

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Actually, that's a good point.  Tech imbalance was likely a major factor.  I still don't see based on current player behavior why it would change anything here.

The only counterargument that isn't purely based on hope to it causing a winners-losers situation is "it didn't happen in WBs".  It also didn't apparently overcome the legion of issues that caused WBs to die.

I too want the right tool for the job.  I just think the potential downside that comes with 2 sides outweighs the downside with 3.

Wiley.

And 3-sides does not appear to be preventing a population drop in AH.

I just think that when player populations are below 200-300, the downsides of 3 sides outweigh the downsides of 2 sides.

In a perfect world, the code should be configurable to support 2..N countries as needs dictate.  To my shock, we don't appear to live in a perfect world.