Author Topic: Arena Balance  (Read 5301 times)

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: There seem to be two sides.......
« Reply #120 on: December 07, 2006, 07:59:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Why do so many people panic at the thought of not having a pronounced advantage?
That's rather presumptuous of you . . .

Try "I'd rather not be forced to play for a side I don't want to or against people I'd rather be flying/fighting with . . . for starters.

I have yet to see anyone say they only enjoy themselves if they have a 20 to one advantage.  These are words you are putting into their mouths.

So, why are you so dead set against any base ever being captured ever?  Everything you suggest taken to its logical conclusion means the entire front will be completely, 100% balanced at all times, meaning no forward movement, no base capture, nothing but a constant furball . . . Aha!  The true purpose comes out.

See, its easy to form baseless accusations.  Please stop.
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Arena Balance
« Reply #121 on: December 07, 2006, 08:52:32 PM »
Kindly explain to me why balanced arenas mean that no bases can be taken. Are you saying that everyone else is so hopeless they can't possibly succeed without an overwhelming advantage?

Quote
So, why are you so dead set against any base ever being captured ever? Everything you suggest taken to its logical conclusion means the entire front will be completely, 100% balanced at all times, meaning no forward movement, no base capture, nothing but a constant furball . . . Aha! The true purpose comes out.


That's just ****ing stupid. I know you like to play devil's advocate, whether you've got a valid point or not, but I fail to see why the game should be setup as 60 knits vs 60 bish vs 100 rooks. Obviously you support this idea, since you're opposed to balanced arenas, so perhaps you could share with us the positive aspects of such a setup?
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline E25280

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3475
      • http://125thspartanforums.com
Arena Balance
« Reply #122 on: December 07, 2006, 09:30:23 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Kindly explain to me why balanced arenas mean that no bases can be taken. Are you saying that everyone else is so hopeless they can't possibly succeed without an overwhelming advantage?



That's just ****ing stupid. I know you like to play devil's advocate, whether you've got a valid point or not, but I fail to see why the game should be setup as 60 knits vs 60 bish vs 100 rooks. Obviously you support this idea, since you're opposed to balanced arenas, so perhaps you could share with us the positive aspects of such a setup?
You've "obviously" completely missed the point, by design or not I won't hazard to guess.

No, I don't believe any of that paragraph you quote, but rather I am illustrating that reducing the arguments of those you disagree with into the most simplistic and silly sounding one-liners is both easily done and (usually) completely inaccurate.  You are using the "political tactic" of minimizing those who disagree with you rather than debate the issue on its merits.

Yet, you attempt to do it again.  Why listen to him, he is obviously just a horde-monger who wants his 10000 to one advantage, you say.  Well, then, I respond, why listen to a furball-whiner who wants nothing more than his unending circle-jerk?

But, to directly answer your question, I do not support the idea of a 60 v 60 v 100 arena, and I seriously doubt there are many who believe that is a good thing, despite your attempts to paint their views as such.

It isn't the goal, rather some of the proposed solutions I am opposed to.  The occasional lopsided numbers are tolerable in my opinion.  The prospect of being forced onto a side I do not choose to go to is not.

The cure seems worse than the disease.

Hope this is clear enough for you now.


« Last Edit: December 07, 2006, 09:32:26 PM by E25280 »
Brauno in a past life, followed by LTARget
SWtarget in current incarnation
Captain and Communications Officer~125th Spartans

"Proudly drawing fire so that my brothers may pass unharmed."

Offline brucerer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
      • http://www.miraclehat.net
Arena Balance
« Reply #123 on: December 07, 2006, 09:35:33 PM »
I think auto-balancing of sides is fair. There must be some way of auto-assigning you to a low # side and still letting you fly with your squad..

If the sides were auto allocated, then chess-peice allegiance would quickly go out the window anyway and everyone could concentrate on the game-play rather than macho 'my side is better than your side' bs.

I'm only a noob, so maybe theres some mystic quality to beating your chest for your country that i'm missing, but like others have said before, its all about the people in the country and and not the country itself. If there are people on who you want to fly with i'm sure you'll still be able to hook it up. You'll still be able to switch sides to get together it just wont necesarilly be the side with the most players.

Offline Grits

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 5332
Arena Balance
« Reply #124 on: December 07, 2006, 09:40:27 PM »
I think they should NOT take the walnuts out of Rocky Road ice cream and replace them with pistachios.

Offline brucerer

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 96
      • http://www.miraclehat.net
Arena Balance
« Reply #125 on: December 07, 2006, 09:42:27 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Grits
I think they should NOT take the walnuts out of Rocky Road ice cream and replace them with pistachios.


Oh dude, you've opened a whole new world of possibility... Pistachio rocky road. We could call it pistacky road! I've gotta call my agent..

Offline hubsonfire

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8658
Arena Balance
« Reply #126 on: December 07, 2006, 11:07:12 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by E25280
 You are using the "political tactic" of minimizing those who disagree with you rather than debate the issue on its merits.


Okay, on its merits only. How is having a near constant state of numerical imbalance better, for all involved, than having roughly balanced country populations within an arena, or, how is the situation worse without this imbalance?
mook
++Blue Knights++

Proper punctuation and capitalization go a long way towards people paying attention to your posts.  -Stoney
I was wondering why I get ignored so often.  -Hitech

Offline MOIL

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1639
      • http://www.ltar.org
Arena Balance
« Reply #127 on: December 07, 2006, 11:30:41 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by jhookt
i think wirbelwinds could be the solution to your problems HT.

HEY!!!!  that's my line :furious


Offline Mark Luper

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1626
Arena Balance
« Reply #128 on: December 07, 2006, 11:40:26 PM »
I remember something said early in the development of this game to the effect: "I don't want to use colors  because people get all hung up on colors and allegiance to colors." This is severly paraphrased, I don't remember thier exact words but it was in reference to another game that used colors to determine countries.

Now I see a bunch of people getting hung up on and pledging allegeance to chess pieces.

:rofl
MarkAT

Keep the shiny side up!

Offline john9001

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9453
Arena Balance
« Reply #129 on: December 07, 2006, 11:49:59 PM »
we could get rid of the chess pieces and call the 3 countries moe, larry and curly.

oh, wise guy eh. :D
----------------------------------------------

but if you really serious, HT could use a random name generator and change the names every month with three new names. The planet name generator would work good.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 12:04:34 AM by john9001 »

Offline moto61

  • Copper Member
  • **
  • Posts: 143
      • http://www.eastex.net/moto
Number Balance..? hmmmm
« Reply #130 on: December 07, 2006, 11:54:09 PM »
Here is just some food for thought.

The board may say 100- Bish, 100- Knits, 100- Rooks.  This does not mean that everything is balanced out though. Of the 100 on each side how many are working at the same task. ie. (For lack of better discription) Furballing, defending, toolshedding, base captures etc.

Being Numerically identical really means little at times. If 70% of my team mates are furballing and 70% of your country is capturing bases.  

This is the reason I threw out the idea for some consideration for an arena that caters to those who like to capture bases and one that caters to the non-capture crowd.

Moto

Offline Flayed1

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1091
Arena Balance
« Reply #131 on: December 08, 2006, 12:17:10 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Heres a similar idea.  Remove the need for perks from the lower countries plane choices altogether.  When the sky is full of 262's the overwhelming countries guys will swith sides, swith arenas or log off.  No matter which the sides become balanced again.



  LOL ya know I actually kinda like this idea....  Would be funny when everyone tries to go to the big #'s side and they are faced with a small army of 262's, Tempests, F4U-4's and Chogs..... LOL would be funny. :D
From the ashes of the old we rise to fly again. Behold The Phoenix Wing!

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Arena Balance
« Reply #132 on: December 08, 2006, 12:35:32 AM »
Moto's right.

For those of you that are rook, and are proud to point out, The rook JSO's were effective.

I think that what we'll find, in the end, is that no matter how many arena's we use, no matter how many sides or countries are put into the game, No matter what are preference as to whether we take deflection shots, calibrate the Norden, or superelevate to land a round on an NME panzer, this game is played by individuals that all have a different idea on how to play the game. And they'll keep playing the game they want to play, until either AH shuts down, or they run out of money for the subsciption. The fact is, people are sociable animals. We tend to group up, to reach our goals, rather than go it alone.

If you could figure a way to side balance, without breaking up squads, or even those that routinely fly with each other, You will probably be more than halfway to the Holy Grail of MMOG's. But, If you can make everybody happy at the same time, you will actually have it in your hand. I would think that If you truly want to achieve side balance, You're going to have to either:
Give more incentive to fight for something(How you do that, HTC, I could start another thread on, I won't do it here)

Take extremely tight control of what people fly, where, and who with.

Or, Just throw it all open, and hope things fall into place.

Offline TexInVa

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 433
Arena Balance
« Reply #133 on: December 08, 2006, 05:34:14 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I like the recurring statement that people are paying to have fun, not to be frustrated. I especially like seeing this statement come from the mouths of the safety horde. I notice the vastly outnumbered side doesn't seem to share this sentiment. I wonder why.


Hmmm....

I don't belong to a squad....

I usually up against bish (as a rook)....

There are usually only 2-3, at most 6, players defending or attacking bish from the rook side....

Safety horde, eh?

This is the first time I've heard you talk out your tush. Until this moment, you've usually had something intelligent to say, something I would listen to.

Offline Edbert

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2220
      • http://www.edbert.net
Arena Balance
« Reply #134 on: December 08, 2006, 07:02:21 AM »
I have yet to see/read about someone who desires an arena entirely without base captures, so those of you who use that term as representative of one side of the argument in the arena balance issue need to stop. Base taking is fun, defending against base takers is also fun, but only if when there's some modicum of the level playing field.

The way I see the argument from the perspective of those who want no side-leveling mechanism boils down to this:
Numerical imbalance is bad, but any mechanism that FORCES arena-balance would be worse. [/b]Is that a fair representation? They are willing to live with perpetual unfairness in the game as long as they get to fly what/when/where/how they want with who they want.

It boils down basically to this...all online games that I've ever played, from chess, to poker, to mmolrpg, to 1st-person shooter...you name it...has some sort of hard-coded mechanism to enforce equality among the players. There'll never be a level playing field if you seek to build one based on player skill, it is (and should be) the constant variable, because no matter how you intend to evaluate and record a players skill it will be flawed in some way. So what you do is make the game-structure itself as level as humanly possible and let the players test their skills against one another.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2006, 07:05:00 AM by Edbert »