LW1 cap needs lowered.

[Mugzeee]

should be interesting.

[Saxman]

As being pretty dedicated to the late-war (and I'm not ElGay or Spixteen dweeb, all my sorties have been Corsairs except I think one in an SBD, excluding GVs) I just want to share an observation:

I'm not so sure that the arena caps are going to relieve the hordeing and one country being heavily outnumbered as was hoped. The Rooks have been out-numbered BADLY in LW1 by the Nits and Bish during prime-time pretty regularly since the change. In fact, I think it was either this past or last Monday, we were outnumbered in excess of 3:1 by the Bishops ALONE. Now, this DOES change in cycles throughout the day, generally evening out in late hours of the night. However, often one or more country has at LEAST a 20-player advantage over the third. This was not as significant when there's 500+ players in one arena, but when we're looking at half that, 20 players is a SIGNIFICANT disparity.

The problem that I've been watching is that for significant periods of the US prime time hours because of the low arena cap one country is able to attain such an overwhelming numerical advantage that one, or both, of the others have almost no chance of finding a fair fight. And, because one country has virtually taken over the LW1 arena, when going to LW2 the result is ANOTHER country with overpowering numbers.

I genuinely don't think the arena caps are helping to restore parity. In fact, I think the effect has been SHOWN to be quite the OPPOSITE. The lower cap just allows one country to flood the arena and milkrun a reset virtually unopposed.

The only way I can honestly see the low caps working WITHOUT the disparity, is to ALSO cap the numbers of each country, but that I think will add even more fuel to the fire because for some people country loyalty IS important.

[JimJones]

I still don't get it, is the arena split a technology issue, a gameplay issue or both?

If it is a gameplay issue, then the split would seem to address it (i.e. people who dislike large crowds can go elsewhere).

However, why the low cap on the LWA?  Is this to artifically force people into other arenas?

[Grits]

In the immortal words of Jimmy Pop from the Bloodhound Gang:

'Cause my name ain't Quasimodo but I still got a hunch
That like the Jim Jones cult I'll take you out with one punch [/b]

[LePaul]

I guess I dont follow the logic

You have three arenas.  The third is the most popular.  You dont want to up that to accomodate more players?

I mean, you realize customers are opting not to play if they cant play with their squads, right?  Or many gravitate to where the most people are.

Explain the logic of making it harder for people to play?

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by JimJones
I still don't get it, is the arena split a technology issue, a gameplay issue or both?

If it is a gameplay issue, then the split would seem to address it (i.e. people who dislike large crowds can go elsewhere).

However, why the low cap on the LWA?  Is this to artifically force people into other arenas?

game play/community health.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Mugzeee
game play/community health.

Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.

[Mugzeee]

Originally posted by Saxman
As being pretty dedicated to the late-war (and I'm not ElGay or Spixteen dweeb, all my sorties have been Corsairs except I think one in an SBD, excluding GVs) I just want to share an observation:

I'm not so sure that the arena caps are going to relieve the hordeing and one country being heavily outnumbered as was hoped. The Rooks have been out-numbered BADLY in LW1 by the Nits and Bish during prime-time pretty regularly since the change. In fact, I think it was either this past or last Monday, we were outnumbered in excess of 3:1 by the Bishops ALONE. Now, this DOES change in cycles throughout the day, generally evening out in late hours of the night. However, often one or more country has at LEAST a 20-player advantage over the third. This was not as significant when there's 500+ players in one arena, but when we're looking at half that, 20 players is a SIGNIFICANT disparity.

The problem that I've been watching is that for significant periods of the US prime time hours because of the low arena cap one country is able to attain such an overwhelming numerical advantage that one, or both, of the others have almost no chance of finding a fair fight. And, because one country has virtually taken over the LW1 arena, when going to LW2 the result is ANOTHER country with overpowering numbers.

I genuinely don't think the arena caps are helping to restore parity. In fact, I think the effect has been SHOWN to be quite the OPPOSITE. The lower cap just allows one country to flood the arena and milkrun a reset virtually unopposed.

The only way I can honestly see the low caps working WITHOUT the disparity, is to ALSO cap the numbers of each country, but that I think will add even more fuel to the fire because for some people country loyalty IS important.

This does seem to be the trend doesn't it. I see the same thing as well.

I only suggested lower caps for a numbers issue, without regard for balance.

[Simaril]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.

?

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Simaril
?

Give him a call and ask him.
Wouldn't feel right about posting what was a private conversation between us.
But if he wants to, I have no problems.

I think if he just posted all the reasons for the change it would help everyone.

[Saxman]

That's the point exactly, Mugz. When the change was implemented a lot of the "for" crowd said it was all about numbers, that the old MA had gotten too big. What I think is being discovered now is that while yeah, hordes were a problem, it was largely isolated to a couple bases on a side but for the MOST part numbers were balanced and it was easy to find a more balanced fight. Sure every now and then one country would have an influx or numerical advantage because of squad nights, etc, but otherwise the numbers were pretty even.

Now, instead of only overrunning a corner of a map, the horde has taken over an entire ARENA because a numerical advantage that may have only been minimal is now creating a BIG disparity (again, one country being up by 20 guys when the others have around 100+ is nowhere NEAR as significant as the same number advantage when the "small" countries only have 40).

Case in point:

In LW2, The Bish had ~38 players, which equalled Nits and Rooks combined. HALF the Bish made a horde vulch run on the Rook base at A8 (likely defeated only through the efforts of a lone Goon hunter and the Bish being more interested in vulching until out of gas than upping another Goon. Also, we had a CV nearby that we brought in as an ack battery). That raid equaled the ENTIRE player base for the Rooks, who were engaged at other locations already, leaving only about 4-5 to try and oppose it. In the old MA there would likely have been another 10 Rooks upping either from the CV nearby, another base, or from the one under attack in either planes or GVs to break the CAP.

The same situation is being repeated over and over again. What was largely an annoyance to some players on the old MA is now on its way to becoming a widespread issue.

[Donzo]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Give him a call and ask him.
Wouldn't feel right about posting what was a private conversation between us.
But if he wants to, I have no problems.

I think if he just posted all the reasons for the change it would help everyone.

That would be nice.

Not that I'm entitled, but I'd like to know what these other pressing issues are/were.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.

If you're saying that the reasons we were given aren't the actual reasons for the changes, I'd be interested in hearing more about this as well.

[Kev367th]

Never said that, I said there were more reasons.

Wasn't just gameplay etc.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by hitech


Strange thing a lot of people do not seem to realize, is this issue realy can not be ignored, no matter where you think the limit of arena size is, it will eventualy be hit, and hence the same split up problem as we have been trying to over come the past few weeks would still have to be addressed at a different date.

HiTech

Why not set it at 500 or 700? (previously the biggest size)

What is the reason for choosing other much lesser numbers of 250 + 250?

I agree that all limits may be eventually reached but 250 when we know 700 is possible seems arbitarily designed to divide the arenas. Giving less choice during  times when they are inproportionatly filled............ not more.

Is there a present problem that the 700 threshold is being reached?


And if there is why should not the MW or EW arenas be viable alternatives when the LW (Main) is obviously full?

Other than the above..................

I would suggest that you show the terrain used in the the arena choice window such that folk may be influenced this way. (and have different terrains across the various arenas)

I would suggest that these lists are also available from inside an arena with the number of folk etc.

I would suggest that it is possible to automate the logout/login on an FE to enable players to move directly between arenas (or at least seem as if they do)

All this makes it easier to move............ folk can look at the numbers and terrain type in an alternative arena and easily check it out.