How can we keep the small arenas fun?

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.

What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.

Once one a  field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.

HiTech

GREAT IDEA ... but ... once a field is captured ... the next captureable field should be a random field somewhere else on the front ... not the next one back ... that would only further cause concentration to one area on the map.

Causing the "next" base to move would require the attackers to re-group somewhere else ... giving the team that was attacked time to re-group as well.

Also, the next base available for capture would only be known (on the map) by the attackers ... the ones getting attacked would have to figure it out by seeing where the next concentrated attack was.

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by hitech
Had a new thought today on field capture.

What if each country had only 2 fields that could be captured at any one time.
I.E. Bish would have 1 field on the knight front , and 1 field on the rook front that could be captured.

Once one a  field was captured , the next one back would then be available for capture.

HiTech

There you go!!!!  No chance of steam rolling since the war guys will know where to go and stop the enemy, the furball guys will know where to go find a fight, the ground deffecnce/war guys will know where to go, and the anti-horde guys will know where to find a horde to destroy.  I think it would even work for the EWA and MWA since it would make it easyer to find where the few bud guys are.     It could even make possible the reduction of the uper limit in the arenas.  Worth a try I think.

Actually, since taking a base would now mean something since you have to put up a fight for it, it may even get some more people helping the war effort.

[Yeager]

I dont think the issue should be forced by limiting a person in game to actually not being able to play.  Limiting the available planes is one way, providing incentive to build up highly inflated perk points is another.

The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out.  I was on one night in MW as rook when the bish had +30, the nits had 7, and we rooks had 5.  Of course a certain unamed mega squad was boosting bish numbers to better than 3.5 to 1 overall and was attacking fields of the least defended country making an actual ratio of 6 to 1.  What was spectacular to me was the WTGs and Attaboys these guys were giving each other after taking undefended bases in a game where they had such a clear superiority in numbers.  Was really a dumb moment in the life of the game for me.

Even it out.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by bsdaddict
the MWA last night was rediculous.  I guess the rooks were having fun milkrunning, but it wasn't a fun night to be a nit.  

obviously relying on the player base to keep the sides even isn't working.  It's not that I feel that "even sides" is the holy grail for good, fun gameplay, but it certainly helps.  My main beef since the changes simply boils down to time spent looking for a fight versus time spent actually fighting.  Since "the change" I've been spending more and more time looking.  it's getting old...

a fighter town might help...

Yeah ... it was REALLY COOL watching the Rooks roll over the 5 Knights ... brought tears to my eyes watching the precision and speed at which they took bases.

When I joined the arena ... Bish were down, so I switched to them ... then the Knights went into the barrel ... I didn't stay on long enough (1 hour) to switch to the Knights ... else I would have.

Plenty of people are switching sides, I have seen it, it's the large squads that are still causing the imbalance when they ALL join a side ... and then they feel the need to steamroll the lowest side ... sad to see.

[DadRabit]

seems like it would further limit choice ht      

bring back the big maps    

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by BugsBunny
There you go!!!!  No chance of steam rolling since the war guys will know where to go and stop the enemy, the furball guys will know where to go find a fight, the ground deffecnce/war guys will know where to go, and the anti-horde guys will know where to find a horde to destroy.  I think it would even work for the EWA and MWA since it would make it easyer to find where the few bud guys are.     It could even make possible the reduction of the uper limit in the arenas.  Worth a try I think.

Actually, since taking a base would now mean something since you have to put up a fight for it, it may even get some more people helping the war effort.

I don't know Bugs ... In the current setup ... After a capture, 99% of the time I could tell you exactly what field will be next on the hording highway ... they think "straight line". Make them move and re-group ... some might drop off and/or get bored waiting for all the lemmings to get things together ... which might take some of the steam out of the steam roller.

[Airscrew]

What if the strat targets were capturable instead of the bases.   Use the zone in reverse.   Capture all the strats for a zone and then all the bases in that zone change hands.  Increase the troop capture to 20 or 30 and time limit to get the troops in the map room.   add vehicle spawn points to the strats.  Might need to add additional ack (auto and manable) to the strat sites

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Yeager
The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out.  

Won't happen so long as the stated goal of the game is winning the reset.  As these boards have shown over the past few weeks, there are a lot of goal-oriented people playing AH.

- oldman

[pluck]

i like HT's idea, it may not solve all the issues, but i don't see any reason to not try it.  i think it is a good step to help concentrate forces on a map in a way to promote more actual fighting.

maybe also consider linking fields together.  add some strat for those strat guys.  for example, maybe at the start you have 5 fields to choose to attack.  after you take a base, maybe you get 1, 2, or 3 other options to choose from depending on map, location of field, and altitude. (not added on to the 5 original options).  maybe even the amount of players on a side can affect allowable base.

maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options.  you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.

just a couple of thoughts, no idea of the time consumption on HTC's part for any of this.  but as i said, it's worth a shot, and probably stepping towards a solution.   vast

[cav58d]

Originally posted by Airscrew
What if the strat targets were capturable instead of the bases.   Use the zone in reverse.   Capture all the strats for a zone and then all the bases in that zone change hands.  Increase the troop capture to 20 or 30 and time limit to get the troops in the map room.   add vehicle spawn points to the strats.  Might need to add additional ack (auto and manable) to the strat sites

Interesting.......I could see a form of this being very cool...

and ht, i very much disagree with your idea and really hope it doesnt happen...lets get away from the direction of "limitation"

[SlapShot]

maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options. you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.

WOW ... nice twist on the idea ... I like it !!!

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Yeager
I dont think the issue should be forced by limiting a person in game to actually not being able to play.  Limiting the available planes is one way, providing incentive to build up highly inflated perk points is another.

The bottom line is people need to be willing to change sides to even the game out.  I was on one night in MW as rook when the bish had +30, the nits had 7, and we rooks had 5.  Of course a certain unamed mega squad was boosting bish numbers to better than 3.5 to 1 overall and was attacking fields of the least defended country making an actual ratio of 6 to 1.  What was spectacular to me was the WTGs and Attaboys these guys were giving each other after taking undefended bases in a game where they had such a clear superiority in numbers.  Was really a dumb moment in the life of the game for me.

Even it out.

(I'm assuming you were responding to my suggestion...)
Nothing I suggested would result in people not being able to play.  They can wait till a slot opens up (someone lands/dies) or switch sides.

[Airscrew]

Originally posted by SlapShot
maybe if one team has 30 players, while the other 5, then only 1 base could be attacked on the lower numbered side, while the lower numbered side has more options. you could take it even farther if imbalance is to great than the country with lowest number of players could not have a base taken by a country who has huge number advantage.

WOW ... nice twist on the idea ... I like it !!!

You could even take it another step and similar to the ENY settings.  the fewer numbers a country has the stronger their bases/CVs are.  IE:  strat and base/town objects require more ord to bring down.  Their bases would require more troops to take, and/or the side that has the most numbers their strats and base/Cv objects would be weaker and require less troops to capture.

[Masherbrum]

Originally posted by Oldman731
Won't happen so long as the stated goal of the game is winning the reset.  As these boards have shown over the past few weeks, there are a lot of goal-oriented people playing AH.

- oldman

NOTE:  Oldman, I quoted your article to talk about "resets" as well, don't think I'm singling you out please.   That is not the intention here.  <>


I see Rooks dogged on more than other's and am frankly tired of it.  

I have more or less flown Rooks since I joined because Boxboy28 got me into the game, and I joined his squad "Nazgul".  

Now right after this "new system" was implemented.   The squad I used to fly with "47 Ronin" (has since disbanded) would switch to the lowest numbered country.    But, after we would switch a certain "someone" would PM us and ask us why we would "have the gall to attack Rooks"?    So then the question we asked ourselves is this: "Why switch to fight a country with higher numbers if those guys are going to whine about getting vulched, ganged, etc.?"  

Also, if some are courteous enough to switch and help "even out the numbers" they should at least be treated with some respect.   We were snubbed by a couple of Knights (when we switched there were two on).   We were on the Mindanao map and had 27 leveled with the help of a "BG" member.   We couldn't another person to goon it.   So again we asked ourselves "Why bother switching if the chesspiece is in effect?"  

I switched and flew Bish and winged with either the BK's or BoP's, never had an issue.  I wasn't considered "a Rook spy, etc".   I never told them, "Hey their CV is over thisa way, follow me!"   I don't give a damn who I shoot down in this GAME.  Point is, too many people have too much loyalty to a damn chesspiece.   Yeah, BoP's and other squad's, you should be a little more "forgiving to bend the rules" you may have to help curtail this.  (Not to meant as a slight, just a reminder that if it is your squad night, try and even things out is all.)

So now that those are out of the way, I haven't been in the MA since Friday night.   I noticed last week however, that the darbar and flashing bases between Bish and Knights were eliminated.   Rooks were on the short stack all last week and getting ganged on top of it.   I never came in here right away and "Whah, this isn't fair that they are doing this, when we are doing that!"   Again, I shoot down with no malice, and will get shot down less.   Storch and a few of us went into the MWA, and stopped "Grim's Reapers and friends" from getting a High alt base next to our HQ.   I just find it funny some are going to come in here bashing "rookland" when there are 30  rooks, 20 Knights and 10 Bish on.   The story NOT BEING TOLD is 30 Rooks are more or less fighting 30 cons.  

MY opinion (I realize that some who have been here longer, usually get results):

1.)  What about eliminating the "Reset".   None of us should "NEED" free perks.   Take that aspect away.   I have enough perks to fiddle around with.  Or just take away the "free perks".  

2.) Eliminate the Chesspiece.   Number the Countries and lose all "WHAH, I fly this chesspiece because it harkens back to WB or AW days, WHAH".   Act like adults instead of spoiled little brats having a toy taken away from you.

3.) Harden the armor of Field Gun's and strat's.   I enjoy shooting down suckers trying to pad their score while vulching and watch them whine about something they could have dropped prior to vulching.    Troops and supplies should be more difficult to destroy, as should BUNKERS by design.  

Those Three things (especially 2) will have a more resounding impact on gameplay and lead to more whining about something else.

[bsdaddict]

Originally posted by Masherbrum

30  rooks, 20 Knights and 10 Bish

that I could (almost) live with.  Last night in the MWA, however, it was more like 60 rooks, 20 bish and 7 knights.