LW1 cap needs lowered.

[hitech]

TILT: Because I belive that 600 people in 1 arena was far beyond, not was is posible, but rather what makes for better game play.

The prime example that I see proves my case was the need to eliminate channel 1. (BTW) I think it will be back on soon.

To date I realy have not seen one post by anyone that disagrees with that premiss. The only ones that come close are the totaly streched argments of I play this game because it is a MMOG. Pryor to the change there were lots of people complaining about items, that realy were just symptoms of, "It is just to crowed in here"

I see lots of arguments that say, the lower limits cause us to have other problems , like not being able to play with my friends/ squads. But that realy is not a direct problem caused by the arena limits. It is caused more by a perception of the way things used to be. And unwillingness to change.

Now do not missenterpt how I view those issues. Im not pointing a finger and saying "It is these peoples fault" what I am saying is those items are just very natural people behavior.

On a side note everyone has heard the quote,
you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink.

I always wonder how many people have all so heared the coralary.

"True, but you can salt the oats."

So I am still looking for other ways to change the old perceptions. Time will possibly help. And I am still looking for other ways.

At the same time, we are reavaluting other previous changes that have been implented over time do to the "To crowed" syndrom.


HiTech

[whels]

Deleted

[Mugzeee]

Thanks HT. I appreciate your willingness to give insight to your process.

PS...now before anyone gets the wrong idea.

I didnt need HT to spell it out! Im just dancing to the fiddler.
well.Duuuhhhh  

HT

[whels]

Originally posted by whels
Deleted

lol typical

[LePaul]

Well, I'll give you this...you've been very tolerant of the posts and I'm looking forward to seeing how you guys balance it all out.  

Thanks for that.

[Tilt]

Originally posted by hitech
TILT: Because I belive that 600 people in 1 arena was far beyond, not was is posible, but rather what makes for better game play.

HiTech

Strange to connect overcrowding with abuse on CH1............

The term over crowding is strange too.......bigger maps are never over crowded there are always zones with no activity even when the arena is near full.

However the zones of activity do grow larger and game play in these zones swings locally from domination of one side to domination by another.

This is poor game play ( a true battle balance is never reached)and I can see that local surges would be more easily fed by a larger pool of players than a smaller one. Hence with smaller arenas the problem is lessened even if it is not eliminated.

EW (particularly)and MW allows for very specialised game play just due to its ac set. In fact we note that a smaller % of folk are enjoying just this.

They benefit from this additional choice but it is not (IMO) driven by the absence of over crowding it is driven to the type of conflict forced by the plane set. Land grab is more difficult and so gameplay emphasis is different.

It seems clear to me however that a considerable % also want the LW/Main arena format and a % of them  do indeed follow the numbers(freinds, opponents etc etc) and not the gameplay.

There are tools that spread arean density to prevent localised massive inbalances in game play and still keep large arenas.

Zone/ field limits are such tools. Admitedly the arena layout has to be sympthetic to the maths of zoning (many of ours are IMO). Similarly zoning maths should take into account the distribution of players across a sides front line when there is a missbalance in field numbers.

AS you say there would be some that consider zoning as they now claim to consider smaller multi arenas............folk resistant to change. Not wanting to tolerate any new restraint.

What would concern me is that whilst you have seen a correlation between a gameplay problem and arena population...........there are too many other variables between the two............ the correlation is not a direct one, neither is it necessarily proportional.

It would be a shame if an enhancement (EW & MW) to give more choice actually turns into a heavy handed approach at gameplay manipulation.............

back to where we are now...............

I think you could over come the squad problems............ you could "flex" the arena limit to allow "affiliated" squads access to one arena ( the one they are  "affiliated to") regardless of how full it is. Just a tick box set by the squad leader would give any squad member access to the arena selected.

This would actually promote squad member ships and could be seen as squad membership adding choice.

I can see some additional problems to over come for this to work (phantom members and one man squads etc) however there are solutions here to.

You could also rebalance the arenas when opening a new one......lowering the limit on LW1 as you open LW2 causing LW2 to fill up faster.

I am sure you have thought of other stuff too.

[SKJohn]

Originally posted by hitech
I agree Mugzee: It would tend to get LW2 more populated, and hence the over flow would no longer be an over flow, but wrather 2 constant durring higher load times.

Btw the above resone is why we intialy did 200,200

But allas, I think a riot would erupt.

HiTech

That's quite a jump to Two Hundred Thousand Two Hundred!

[hitech]

Tilt: You are only addressing game play over crowding, and not addressing the social aspects of over crowding.

And have you ever considered that the social aspects effect the game play aspects?


HiTech

[volvo744]

Most sensible reason right there. EW and LW are most used, and have most complaints on 200. MW is the most fun for everyone, including ENJOYABLE banter between countries with far more regularity than either of the other two arenas, and yet seems to be less populated on a regular basis. So I gravitate there if total numbers on MW are even close to reasonable.

[BlauK]

I am still slightly wondering why you guys decided to make such a drastic change with the MA:s.

Obviously a single arena in the prime time (US time) was not enough, however, it was perfect in Euro time. Would it not be enough for prime time to have 2 arenas (instead of 3 or 4), because for other times the 3 or 4 arenas are simply too many.

I imagine that only 2 arenas (MAs) with large overlap of time periods could address the previous problems best without creating too many new problems.

That would be "EWA+MWA" and "MWA+LWA"... or simply "EWA+MWA" and "LWA".

Maybe the lone "LWA" could even be like the old MA? There seem to be pros and cons for both of these approaches.

The current EWA ans MWA have something like 20 or 30 player each in Euro time.. sometimes later a bit more. That is not really enough for enjoyable massive multiplay experience. But combining those 2 arenas would mean 50 players+ to begin with, which would then also attract more people... snowball effect.
The currently available planes would also fill better the time periods, meaning that EWA alone and MWA alone seem to have some gaps.
Also with just 2 arenas there could be enough people to also use the larger maps, which are now kind of wasted effort.

[lazs2]

would be interesting to see how many people were in what...

How many were in tanks say or other GV's or fluffs at any one time in each arena.

Wonder what percentage of LW players are strictly fighter guys.

lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's

[Tilt]

Originally posted by hitech
Tilt: You are only addressing game play over crowding, and not addressing the social aspects of over crowding.

And have you ever considered that the social aspects effect the game play aspects?

HiTech

Well I may be guilty of assuming that  poor game play leads to dissatisfaction which (when expressed) leads to poor social aspects.............

Dissatisfied communities will not promote better game play..............

ergo poor gameplay has a double hit on the total product ..........

and I will agree that penduleming of local dominence from one side to the other can be fed to greater detriment when there is a larger pool of players in the arena............. in this respect "crowding" worsens this aspect of poor gameplay.

Given this I surmise it is the ability to create massive local inbalance which leads to poor game play. Whilst this ability is worsened by higher numbers.......those numbers are not the cause they are a catalist to its worsening..........

I would focus on ways of limiting such local  inbalance.........


alternatively

Do you believe that (regardless of gameplay influence) higher numbers leads directly to poorer cummunity?

Like overcrowding rats in cage?

or is it more the effect of an arena of total strangers with differing objectives?

I think its pretty important you find out why this may occur

I think that if you do believe this then may be a consultant sociologist could help.

[hitech]

Do you believe that (regardless of gameplay influence) higher numbers leads directly to poorer cummunity?
Like overcrowding rats in cage?

Yes this is what has been happening.

And I bleive that we have crossed the threshold of self governance / peir pressure for the community.

Tilt: I know you have been here for some time, if you were around when peek arena usage was 200 , start thinking back of how people interacted, vs how they do now.

Then start looking at the changes we made.Look at how player behavior changed as we grew. Were the changes fixing a problem our a symptem?

And just like your sugesten does it bandade a problem or symptem?

HiTech

[ttso]

My forum account looks new, I know, because I just registered it.


From old DOS Confirm Kill beta test, WB, AH, WW2OL. I've to say the best experience ever is having all my squady on side and rush into massive battle, some 80~100 aircraft in same airspace. So I never like the idea of "caps".

I do understand the "over crowded", "spam spawn" causing problem of gameplay. But there is better solution than just give arena "caps". Ex: given airfield maximum aircraft it host, like 20, so you can only have 20 aircraft in air tookof from that airfield. By doing this you can limite an airspace to have around 100 aircrafts. Of course if people welling to do long fly, you can get more aircraft into same airspace. But that's how it should work, right?

If you asking me what I prefer with, I would say a single arena, with history-rotation (1wk for each EW/MW/LW), airfield host cap, would be what I prefer. I also prefer allied-vs-axis or just 2 countries war, but no 3 countries.

Just my 2cents (and it's 3AM here, LOL)

[bj229r]

I really think  that a field cap would limit the 'horde' mentality (that it would limit LA7's from outlying fields due to their poor range is just a bonus:) --Would hack off all the mega squads tho, and possibly mess up missions too. (Hmm..Rooks don't do missions anyhow... Go FOr It!)