Here's what's wrong with the arenas

[Krusty]

The arena I was in tonight had about thes numbers:
bish: 79
knit: 49
rook: 99

Bish and rook weren't even trying to attack each other (except in tank town) and both were steamrolling the SAME knit HQ from opposite sides. Last saw the map with 6 airfields left in knit hands, endless streams of bombers from 15(?) were hitting HQ and 16 (which only survived because it was a 163 field, Ghi was landing 6-kill sorties in 163s NONSTOP all evening). No less than TWO enemy CVs were parked at 12 and 17, both of which were being vulched and porked mercilessly, meaning if you wanted to take off without being vulched you had to (at the time) use A5, 2 sectors away. Oddly enough it was surrounded but left alone.

THIS is what's wrong with the arenas. There will always be gaggles, groups, large steamrollers ("hordes", if you insist), but they will never dare fight each other. I don't know if lower arena numbers are the answer. Maybe to other problems (they help in a couple of areas), but there will always be a 2-sided fight with both larger teams milk running, steam rolling, porking, and vulching the side with less people on it. There were (and I added them up at the time) 196 combined vs 49. And of those 49 at least 1 dozen were in TT GVs, and another dozen in TT fighters/bombers. There were 2 dozen (at LEAST) trying to defend A16, our HQ field, but there were hundreds of enemy attacking it. Countless GVs up the side of the hill. I was told there were no less than 6 *formations* of lancasters unopposed over it at a couple points.

Lower numbers fixes some things. It doesn't fix side imbalances.

Not a rant. Not a rave. An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.

[JB88]

[Krusty]

Originally posted by Krusty
An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.

Quoted for emphasis

[NCLawman]

Which came first the chicken or the egg?

Is it possible that Knits numbers dwindled after they started losing map ground? Or, were the numbers you posted the reason that both the Bish and the Rooks were on the sides of your HQ?

Not a bash, just a question.  I have seen the same thing, where two countries pound on the third trying to finish it off.  Meanwhile, the losing countrymen (and women) see the butt whipping and just goes to another arena.  In that regard, I agree.  The unfortunate side of effect of choice is people on the losing side leave rather than try to defend the losing map.

[Krusty]

Well, considering that the numbers were pretty steady at 200, and the arena cap is usually lower than this, I'm guessing it was that way for a long time. This is born out by the fact we were down to our last 6 airfields (and 1 TT V-field).

EDIT: Just a guess, mind you

[E25280]

Originally posted by Krusty
Bish and rook weren't even trying to attack each other. . . There were (and I added them up at the time) 196 combined vs 49.

If this was when the rooks finally won the reset, it is a perfect example of how personal impressions are often wrong . . .

I would say at least 20 Bish and at least 15 rooks were having a ball up around 45 - 46 - 47 as the Bish were trying to gain some bases before the reset (sadly, we were too slow).  I would wager this was not the only place Bish and Rooks were fighting.

Just an observation . . .

[SlapShot]

Krusty ...

Since I have been playing Aces High, it has always been ... the two most populated countries gang-bang the crap out of the 3rd country rushing to see who can get the reset first ... while satellite groups try and steal bases from each other to either close the gap between them ... or lengthen the gap between them.

bish: 79
knit: 49
rook: 99


I'll bet the Rooks were up in fields followed by the Knights, probably not by much ... so the race is on.

The reason why the 2nd place team won't attack the 1st place team is due to the possibility of the 1st place team winning before the 2nd place team can regain and take the lead, so they race to see if they can take more Knight fields faster than the 1st place team to regain the lead for the win.

Like I said before ... this isn't anything new ... it's the way in Aces High.

Because numbers are now lower, I believe the effects of this common phenomenon are a little more intensified, but never the less, the actions and results are the same.

And think about this ... all that effort to "race for the reset" and pound the crap out of the weakest team for a measly 25 perks in each category and the realization that you just won a war that will start all over in 5 minutes.

What needs to happen ... eventually ... is the reason for winning needs to be changed ... a different goal other than smash a country down until X bases are left ...  until then, this is what you will always see and experience and arena numbers has nothing to do with it IMHO.

[rogerdee]

last night euro time i was in mid war ok bish had the higher numbers rooks had the most bases .
  it was my squad night so we tried out new methods  of base capture and i enjoyed it.
  the numbers werent level but there was some good fighting.

the arenas wont get level numbers because  people wont change sides so we got to make the most of it

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The problem is the people from one country assume they have a complete and accurate view of the entire map and all interaction between all three countries. Further, when being overwhelmed, they assume that their situation is being duplicated exactly all over the map.

It is very common to be flying for country A, and be in a desperate struggle to survive or defend against country C, and hear a dozen different people from country B on channel accusing countries A and C of having an exclusive truce and not fighting each other at all. And being very nasty about it. And people wonder why some refuse to switch countries.

Krusty, I'm not picking on you or singling you out, but if I had a nickle for every time the above situation applied I'd have a free AH account for life for me and three friends or relatives. There are people on every side who swear they're the only ones that ever get ganged, and that their side never has numbers and never gangs. The thing is, they just don't see it, because they don't want to.

[Masherbrum]

Deleted for hijack

[SlapShot]

Deleted for hijack

[Masherbrum]

Deleted for hijack

[hitech]

Lower numbers fixes some things. It doesn't fix side imbalances.

Not a rant. Not a rave. An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.

Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved  by your facts.

At best your facts show lower number did not improve side imbalance in the case you listed.  But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance.  Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance (that is yet to be seen, and other forces are creating waves in the system), I am just showing the difference between an observation (The numbers listing you did, is an observation) vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.

[Mugzeee]

Krusty...i believe your observation is accurate.

I also know that this has been the subject of exam for very long time now.

HT has said in many ways many times that he wouldn’t force anyone to stay with a country for say a 30 day period.

But i think it is safe to say, that allocating new players to the low numbered country at signup and first log on, is the only way to balance the count.

While this may seem rash and a sure method to bring out the cries of many,
I don’t suppose it would be any different than what we are experiencing now.

The difference is that the sides would be balanced numerically and the crying would still be heard. But at least the numbers would be balanced.

As it is now, the sides are not balanced and the crying is being heard.

Now then, say the sides are all balanced 99% of the time. Would this address the problem of "Ganging" one side?

Some would argue that it wouldn’t...but the fact that the sides are balanced brings a dynamic to the game. The back door attacks (Flanking) bring the fronts into balance as they have many times in the past when the numbers were balanced.

Think back on the nights that the side’s numbers were balanced in the MA.

Anyone that was truly paying attention couldn’t argue the fact that the War was basically balanced on the fronts.  (Stalemate)

Im not against stale mates because it brings out the fight in players.

I would not be against being forced to stick with one country for a 30-day period.

But even if you could get enough to switch countries to balance the sides, there would be just as many switching sides in an effort to create a country with a superior numbers advantage.

This is the key reason that "Switching sides" to even up sides is doomed from the beginning.

Expecting the entire player base to even up sides by switching countries is nothing more than a fantasy.

From what i see, the new setup has created WAY more problems than it has solved.

[Max]

Originally posted by hitech
Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved  by your facts.

At best your facts show lower number did not improve side imbalance in the case you listed.  But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance.  Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance (that is yet to be seen, and other forces are creating waves in the system), I am just showing the difference between an observation (The numbers listing you did, is an observation) vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.

OMG!!! Perfect spelling  WTG Google.