Arena Balance

[RedTop]

I'm not going to fly if I have to "Switch" sides and fight squaddies. Just not my thing.

I fly for knights tho. Not likely Id have to worry about it anyway. It's not loyalty to a chess piece but to the guys I fly with. If we want to fight one another we go to the DA. When in the arenas we all try to fly together , have a laugh , cut up , get killed alot , and so on.

We all pay and play for different ideas of fun. But when I have to fly with people I don't really fly with alot because of a race to reset , then I'll just play more golf. I have been on the side with numbers. It's ok and all but most times my squaddies and I are looking to start a fight away from the place where you get nothing but sloopy 8ths.

Make the side with lowest numbers get double the perks when they land kills. Triple even. Make resets worth much less. I mean how many perks do we get for a reset? 75? Most of the guys I fly with make that in a squad night. And LOSE the war!!!!!!

Krusty's Idea was pretty good.

ENY matters not to me. Cut it off. So what If I have to fight more 16's and Lalas. I am anyway. Make anything under a eny of 15 a perk ride. No eny factor anymore.....

LA's = 5
Spit 16= 7
Nik's = 6
51D's =7

Any way ya like it based on that list we used to see on Fighter Usage and kill stats.

Everyone has a few perks. Lots of people fly higher eny planes.

Your giving perks for a reset....and I for one have 17000+ fighter perks and could care less about em.

But don't make me change sides , because some night the rooks may be in the barrel and I log on to be told I have to fly there or not fly.

Just my 2 cents.

and BTW.....The Hordes...well Just lets me know where I need to go to to find a fight. The WAR means NOTHING to me at all.

[Meatwad]

I would vote to remove the ENY limiter

[Overlag]

Originally posted by Meatwad
I would vote to remove the ENY limiter

something else needs to go in its place though.

a new edit on my server balance "plan".



However, i didnt really work the maths out correctly, and this picture of our ideas is way to restictive..... only noticed once i done it that all servers was basically full.. ..anyway.



the point is, the arena cap is still there, although slightly less important. Sides are worked out by the ammount of players in the server. I choose 28% for min size, 33% for target and 38% for max. However i think they are maybe a bit restictive.

the idea is that if a country has 38% or more no one else can join that side and new players can only choose the other two sides to join, or another server.

if theres a country with less than 28% of players, the other 2 sides are locked out.

so basicaly
red = overpopulated (locked)
green = good
blue = underpopulated (other 2 are locked even if they are "green")


However im not sure 28% for min, and 38% for max is practical. Maybe 26% and 40% would be better.... i dunno... i just throwing up ideas.



my picture is also a bit too clutterd and has a bit too much information really... its a bit of a mess lol

[LYNX]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Thank you, Lynx. A perfect example of the mindset that led to this situation in the first place. Now be still.

Now there's a challenge if ever there was one.  OK threadie R U sitting comfy?

the constant lopsided numbers can't be doing much good.

You used the word "Constant".  Two late war arenas inadvertently allow / promote lobsided arenas.  Give these guys TWO (2) full plane set arenas and they'll use them.  As I said above if one side is taking a beating some of those guys being beaten move to the other arena.  You can watch this happening.  Not rocket science. Not exaggeration.....fact.  With in no time you have one arena being dominated because players moved next door.  Then the next doors arena becomes dominated by quitters from the first.....fact.  It's self perpetuating.....fact.

I think the lack of balance is going to create the same avoidance strategies

Would that be because 3/4 of one side are in LWo and 3/4 of the other team are in LWb ?  

Personally I like the upgraded, upgraded, upgrade.  Err, the latest upgrade.  It still retains the essence of the Big Fight for a base whilst adding a bit of diversity.  Allows a little free thinking by members, squads, missions or indeed, sides.  The single base capture is to restrictive in my opinion.  The only surprise you can mount is "How" and not "where"...... OOooppps  of topic.

Solutions in my opinion, for what they are worth.  Are not about filling in for arena quitters.  I'm not here or paying to "fill in".  It's about restricting the ability to dominate and TWO late war arena allow that to happen....fact.

You can either restrict "flights" per side as HTC has said or restrict the option of "bailing" from one late war arena to another.  Personally I advocate doing away with one of the late war arenas.  

An alternative would be to keep both Late war arenas but having a 1 hour restriction from swapping from one late war to the other.  No restriction on going to Early or Mid or even back to your original Late war arena.  Thus stopping PASSIVE imbalance.

Hubs note the original concept above    "Be still" indeed!  Tusk

From Simaril
I had to chuckle at your patriotic (and self righteous) "I PAY TO FLY FOR ROOKS" though....If that's the case, why ever did you send money to HT for all the years you flew for Bish?

Oh, how sweet!.  Let me phrase it thus.  In a not so "self righteous way

Irrespective of what side I play for for I HAVE CHOSEN to fly for that side.  In my case nearly 3 straight years as Rook.  As a "Rook" player I don't see why I should change to Bishop, for example, because they've taken a beating and some of the Bishops have quite to go next door.  Whats me 15 bucks for ?  To make you happy "filling in" or to make me happy.  Now, I don't need to grab you by the nose and lead you to that answer do I ?  

[hubsonfire]

Lynx, I couldn't care less about your rationale, or why you think the numbers are imbalanced. I merely used your statements as an example of the type of mindset people now possess. ie, "I'm now loyal to the chesspiece with more numbers. **** those other guys".

HT has allowed people to do what they want, with regards to where and who they fly for, but it's still people like yourself that have taken that opportunity and caused the problem we have.

[TexInVa]

Wow....

No offense, guys, but you're over complicating things from the players stand point.

I fly rooks because I've flown bishops. I've switched over to the bishops a couple of times, trying to balance the numbers. They frustrated me to no end, so I would go back to being a rook.

I like being a rook. I like the team work and camaraderie I've found with the rooks, after flying for the bishops for a year. I miss the communication and team work when I've "side balanced".

For those that say that there's no difference between countries, I beg to differ.

Maybe I'll try flying for the knights for a few days and see if they're any different.

Either way, like Lynx said, I pay to be happy and have fun. I GET PAID[/b] to be frustrated and annoyed.

[LYNX]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
Lynx, I couldn't care less about your rationale, or why you think the numbers are imbalanced. I merely used your statements as an example of the type of mindset people now possess. ie, "I'm now loyal to the chesspiece with more numbers. **** those other guys".

HT has allowed people to do what they want, with regards to where and who they fly for, but it's still people like yourself that have taken that opportunity and caused the problem we have .

I don't want to question your abilities to rationalise either but you just ain't doing yourself justice.  Your making me look bright.

Have you taken on board what I wrote... Err no you haven't.  You asked HTC the question about imbalance.  I said Two late war arenas allows / promotes imbalance.  I also submitted 2 idea to stop Passive imbalances.

You can swap sides all bloody night mate but bounce this around your cavern... I ain't here to "FILL IN"  for a bunch of arena jumpers.  If you see that as "and caused the problem we have" then I suggest you are either 1) deliberately avoiding my suggestion for limiting arena jumps 2) avoiding my suggestion for JUST ONE late War arenas  3) have nothing to submit yourself 4) can't bring yourself to agree with me. 5) just spoiling......oh forget it.  

It's way late here... enjoy allocating blame at any bodies feet except your own.

[RedTop]

Hubs,

I'm sure your right about people heading to the most numbers. Or , staying there no matter what. As I said I have been on the side with the numbers. (Cant for the life of me remember when that was tho. But Im sure I have been). It wasn't then and sure won't ever be becausee of loyalty to a "Chess" piece. If my squad wanted to go to Rooks for a while I would be fine with that. No problem at all actually.

It's more for the comraderie of flying with the guys you become friends with over winning the war. At least for the squad I fly with anyway. Yes there are times when we are so out numbered that it gets a lil frustrating. But the most frusrtating part is listening to the generals yell and scream on range or flood the country channel with rants of how we all suk because we lost a base.

I just know for me , and the squaddies , we fly for US and the laughs and jokes. Not the shess piece. I certainly won't advocate making anyone fly someplace just to "Balance" the teams.

I don't have numbers to back this next statement at all. Nor will I look it all up or research it. But my gut says...that each side as squads that are pretty much even in numbers. Squad size wise. Its the people that fly along with those squads when they are doing something that thurns it into a huge horde.

It's also , and again no data , the ones that like to win the war that tend to flock together more than people like my squad who are just wanting a fight. The fighters go looking for something to shoot. Even when outgunned they go. The horders just go toshut things down and keep it down , vulch , and move on to the next.

I'm sure I will hear a flame or 2 , but this is just an opinion.

Whether or not the numbers are on the side I happen to be on or not , I simply want to fly with my squadmates. And getting everyone to change countries is more of a hassel that trying to earn or save perkies.

[E25280]

Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.

1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.

2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.

3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.

Surprised no one has yet pointed out, you list three thoughts.  

Had some power outage issues so I wasn't able to get on this past weekend to see for myself how this works.  But it seems to me that before implementing any more changes, you should wait a month or so to see how the current changes have or have not evened things out.  Changes have been coming fairly quickly lately, so there hasn't been a lot of time to adjust before the landscape changes again.

I can see the possibility that with choke points / restricted avenues of advance, some players will develop into defense specialists.  It should be possible now for outnumbered sides to stop the opponents' advances at these choke points.  The player base just needs time to figure this out and adjust before the next big change throws them back into a mindset of "find what is most familiar and keep doing that."

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Simaril


Whether the vocal minority likes it or not, large arenas are gone. According to HT (Mr. "I Dream of 500 arenas with 300 people in each"), they're gone forever.

Not according to this.

 
We are testing out a new field capture system
in the LW Orange today.

This system should allow us to use large maps
with lower populations. - HT Himself

http://hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193413

only the populations are lower. not the arena.

[E25280]

Originally posted by RedTop
Make the side with lowest numbers get double the perks when they land kills. Triple even. Make resets worth much less. I mean how many perks do we get for a reset? 75? Most of the guys I fly with make that in a squad night. And LOSE the war!!!!!!

Krusty's Idea was pretty good. . .



Your giving perks for a reset....and I for one have 17000+ fighter perks and could care less about em.

Crazy suggestion to add on to those that think modifying the perk system will help balance sides . . .

It might -- If (here's the crazy part) everyone's perks are reset to zero at the end of every tour.  (Too brilliant to not have been suggested before -- surely someone has).

If you start a tour with zero perks, and perk rides are your thing, then you have an incentive to fly for the lowest side to first gain the perks and then spend the minimal amount to use them.  This may also mean that the lower sides not only benefit from ENY restrictions on the high sides, but they also attract those that like the perk rides, exponentially increasing their technology advantage.

But, the only way this definitely works is if you would also make resets worth ZERO perks.  The reset and "winning the war" as a goal should be enough incentive for those that are goal oriented.  Perks for resets are redundant IMO.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not according to this.

 
We are testing out a new field capture system
in the LW Orange today.

This system should allow us to use large maps
with lower populations. - HT Himself

http://hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193413

only the populations are lower. not the arena.

large arenas are gone in the sence of players... thats what he ment.... stop being picky

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Simaril


The old MA was hardly ever the perfectly balanced haven you imply we'd see, if only HT would agree with you and return to a single arena. When we had only one arena, the Nits had been low side for 4-5 months, consistently, and with a meaningful imbalance.

These hide-in-a-crowd fliers used to log off or switch countries "the wrong way", but now they stay on and just move to an arena that meets their needs.

 

I dont think we can ever expect perfect balance. Its just not acheivable.
Well I guess it is but I dont think thats what anyone REALLY wants.
What I think alot of people including myself really want to see is at least some sort of reasonable balance.

People would like to feel as though they at least have a reasonable chance when they play.
I know I do.

When you log on and you see more enemy planes at one feild then your entire side has.
You know you dont have any kind of reasonable chance

When you log on and see numbers like
Red team 95
Blue team 40
Green Team 35
which is pretty close to what I saw last night when I logged on to Orange
You know you dont have any kind of reasonable chance.

Now it may be fun for players of Red team when the only competition you have is against your own side and who can get the kill first.

But if your blue or Green. Seeing how long you can stay alive before you get obliterated  by one of the 14 guys chasing you only stays fun for a little while.
Then it gets old real fast.
Then whats the point of upping?

As I said in another thread I've never been a fan of ENY. When your facing those kind of numbers it doesnt matter if its 90 LA7's or 90 P40's.
When you outnumber your opponents 3-4 to 1
 A horde is a horde is a horde.
Doesnt matter the type of plane

That being said I dont agree with the ones that complain about Eny either.
There are plenty of capable planes that rarely if ever get effected by Eny.
For example
I have had what I consider at the very least reasonable success with the 109F. And I dont ever remember that plane being effected by Eny.

I proposed having some sort of Zone limit as to how many planes a base could have airborne at any given time.

This would accurately simulate the real world as no base couldnt nor can one currently support an infinate number of planes at once.

It would also force the mob to spread out a bit so that you dont end up with everyone in the same place at the same time

The players would have two choices. If they wanted to enter that particular fray they could up from a different area farther away and fly there.

Those that really want to be in that particular fight would spend the time needed to do that.

If they didnt want to do that. they could simply fight in a different area where it wasnt so crowded

You could still have your furballs. Landgrabbers could still land grab and everyone still gets to fly whatever plane they want whenever they want.
the difference it it would be more spread out as opposed to everyone from one side steamrolling one base from the opposing side

We could combine this with the new base capture system and set the Arena number limit so that it would max out with each forward base

To keep the sides relitivly even we can use much the same formula as ENY only use it as a side limiter instead of a plane limiter.

I think this would work particularly well inasmuch as we now have more then one MA and squadmates have the ability to contact each other from one arena to the next.

"ok Orange arena is full tonight. squad ops will be held in Blue instead"

Nobody is anchored to one arena
And nobody is forced to change sides.
You can be as loyal or disloyal to whatever chess peice you want.

I dont really see the arguement there either.
If you want ot be loyal to a chess peice great. if not. thats great too.
Personally for me I stay loyal to the Knits
Not out of any dislike of the other sides.
but simply because it adds to the immersion factor.

by the same token I have no problem with those that dont feel that way.
If you want to change sides. be my guest. I dont really care and I certainly wont hold it against you.
I'll try and kill you just as hard as I tried to save you when you were on my side. and when you come back. I'll still try just as hard to save you just as if you never left.

Its all about whats fun for you

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Overlag
large arenas are gone in the sence of players... thats what he ment.... stop being picky

Well you know me.

People keep telling me I shoulda been a lawyer.

then I could argue the meaning of "is"

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by E25280
Crazy suggestion to add on to those that think modifying the perk system will help balance sides . . .

It might -- If (here's the crazy part) everyone's perks are reset to zero at the end of every tour.  (Too brilliant to not have been suggested before -- surely someone has).

If you start a tour with zero perks, and perk rides are your thing, then you have an incentive to fly for the lowest side to first gain the perks and then spend the minimal amount to use them.  This may also mean that the lower sides not only benefit from ENY restrictions on the high sides, but they also attract those that like the perk rides, exponentially increasing their technology advantage.

But, the only way this definitely works is if you would also make resets worth ZERO perks.  The reset and "winning the war" as a goal should be enough incentive for those that are goal oriented.  Perks for resets are redundant IMO.

Yanno thats not a half bad idea.

I had felt that your perks should be side oriented
That is whatever perks you earn can only be used on the side you earned them.
this would prevent people frm jumping to the side with higher numbrs just to have numbers.
undortunately the folly to this is it would also deter anyone from switching to the side with less numbers as well.
Unless...........

Hmmm now here is an idea to go with yours. Or by itself
To continue

Unless you got some sort of per bonus or award for switching to the lower side. Like say 100 perks per catagory Both AC and GV.

Now that might be an incentive to switch.

Hmmm I like that idea. Even with thew way things are set now. Offer a perk reward for switching to a side with lower numbers.
the side with the lowest numbers gives you the greatest perk award

Say 75 perks per catagory for the next lowest numbered and 100 for the country with the least number.

bribe em off
Hey. works in government. Why not here?