Since I hate making a wish without being able to offer a way to achieve it, I've been considering for some time now the artificial game play constraints of ENY and the arena split. I believe that there may be a better way to achieve the effects that both are meant to introduce to the game, without many of the unfortunate side effects where the current implementations impact areas of game play adversely, especially at the individual level. This is something that I think many players besides myself would like to see.
What I'd like to propose for discussion is some variation of the following two-part implementation...
Part one - Open the arena in stages!
What if, Instead of trying to size the maps smaller and limit the total number of players in any one arena, we used the largest maps possible but the arena itself essentially adjusted "size" based upon the number of players playing? Imagine an arena that's just reset at 3 am and is totally empty. Imagine if this arena had only the 2 fields for each side that were closest in distance to the 2 other sides fields enabled, such that there are 4 fields total for each side enabled, 2 Knight to the closest 2 Rook, 2 Knight to the closest 2 Bishop, etc. All other fields for each side are greyed out - you can't spawn there, and you can't damage anything if you attack them (although perhaps you could rearm there).
This would mean that as the arena begins to fill, the gameplay is concentrated to a few fields, bunching up the game play into a few areas when it needs to be. As such, it limit some of the least attractive aspects of game play associated with low numbers, where when there are only a few players on it's very easy to avoid fighting anyone if you want, and very frustrating for players who are trying to find a fight, or defend.
Now, imagine more people come in to the arena. As more players come on, at certain thresholds, more fields open. Perhaps at 30 players another field pair is opened, and at 50, another 2 (now 5 total per side), and at 70, another 4, and at 90, another 8 (17 total field pairs) etc., until you reach the point where all the fields are open. And as players leave, at a certain threshold the field pairs begin to close - perhaps with a 10 minute warning that the fields are going to close, and perhaps some sort of a map indicator as well that those fields will soon become inactive. There should also be some sort of a gap (say 25%) between the number required to open field pairs and the at which they close again (so for example, if at 90 the number of field pairs opened per side is 18, it doesn't drop back to 10 until the number of players drops below 67.)
This forces the map to be small when things need to be bunched up, but lets it be spread out as much as it needs to be when that's required too.
Part two... Using ENY instead of split arena's to spread things out in a balanced manner as numbers increase:
Imagine if, instead of getting an unlimited number of aircraft at each open field, you got only a certain number of aircraft, plus a number that is capped at some percentage of the total players in the arena (lets say for example 3 aircraft, plus 1 for every 20 players playing). So in this example, if there are 100 players on, there would be a cap of 8 of each aircraft type at each field. As more players enter the arena, the caps go up, and the number of players decrease, the caps (and the number of aircraft available if they exceed the caps at the time) go down. (Patience, we'll get to it...)
Now, imagine if the aircraft taken from the fields by players were replenished at a rate that was dependent upon it's ENY. For example, imagine the formula was something like "ENY VALUE" divided by 20. This would mean that normally, a 40 ENY aircraft would be added once every 1/2 minute up to the cap value. So if a squadron takes off in all 7 Emil's, a few minutes later, there are a full complement of them again. But what about an aircraft with an ENY of 5? It would replenish once every 4 minutes in this example.
This would tend to spread the front out, because if it were implemented at the right values, if too many of the players attempted to "horde" one small section of the map they'd quickly run out of the best planes, and would either need to use lesser mounts (which is essentially a localized ENY) or spread things out. Either one would tend to break the horde - a good thing, and one that would engender healthy game play over a larger area without resorting to the necessity of applying an inflexible and arbitrary split with the associated caps to do so by forcing a segment of the player base into another arena.
But what about balancing? Imagine if the current "ENY" formula instead of limiting what aircraft you can or cannot take off as is currently the case were instead to create a value that gets added to - perhaps in some fashion multiplied to - the replenishment rate divisor discussed above?
Let's say the numbers are off balance such that under the current system, we've just hit an ENY of 5, where currently the "best" tier of aircraft would suddenly be unavailable under the current system. We all know what happens now - a bunch of folks begin to sit in the tower waiting for their ride to become available, missions blow up, etc., etc.
But what would happen if it were applied to the replenishment rate instead ( as one example, if perhaps it was multiplied by .50 and then mu liplied to the rate)? For one thing, it would be a lot gentler, far less disruptive on an individual basis, and yet still have the same effect over time of slowing down the side with the greater numbers if implemented at the right values. You'd have less planes - and many less of the best planes - to divide among more pilots. But doing it this way means that the player still has a choice - take lesser rides at the front, or if they wanted to, back up a few fields, and fly rides from further back. Either way, they are going to be less effective and less "overwhelming" against the lower numbered side. And at the same time, if the players we are discussing happen to be the lightly concentrated defenders in the less popular area of the map, they'd be mostly unaffected. They'd still be getting their share of the planes at a reduced rate too of course - but would have many more to divide up per pilot.
Please don't consider the numbers used as anything other than examples - I'm quite sure that they would need to be refined. But what issues do you guys foresee with something like the processes described (other than the most obvious one to me, which is that it might very well take more effort to code than it's worth)?
Generally, I like what ENY is intended to introduce to gameplay - a certain amount of adjustment in the amount of force the overweighted side can apply to their outnumbered opponents is good for game play. What I don't like at times is that because ENY is globally applied (out of necessity at least as far as I can see, as every methodology I've considered for localized application of the current system has been fatally flawed) it means that at times, it can have a detrimental affect on areas of the map where the underdogs are the few players from the "overweighted side" that are defending against a larger number of players from another side. As well, ENY can lay waste to a mission setup faster than anything else in game. And I don't think anyone but a masochist would like the fact that it is often very disruptive to INDIVIDUAL gameplay because it's essentially arbitrary, extremely abrupt, and when it kicks in, inflexible in the extreme.
Generally, I like what the arena split is meant to accomplish, which is in large part addressing the fact that with unlimited plane choices after a certain threshold number of players is exceeded the game play devolves into an unappetizing pattern composed primarily of 3 largely unstoppable hordes mostly avoiding each other. What I don't like about it is that while capping the number of players in the arena minimizes the horde mentality somewhat, at times it's at best minimally effective. And once again, only a masochist would enjoy the issues that arise when they are the player that's excluded from the arena they'd prefer to play in, which is arbitrary, abrupt and utterly inflexible on the individual level.
These ideas implemented as a package would I believe keep all the best parts and fix many of the flaws. Not the least of which is that both ENY and the arena caps as currently implemented are about as pleasant and gentle as getting clocked in the teeth with a bat when they kick in.
<S>
