Changes to come.

[68Ripper]

See Rule #5

[Excaliber]

Originally posted by LTARstud
A lot of changes in a short period of time. I liked it better when there was just one main arena.

I think there was less dilution and less potential to horde with one MA. I think the forest is not being seen for the trees...

[pluck]

Originally posted by Mystic2
Lately I have found myself playing alot in the EW and MW arenas, and when I am usually on, Bish are 99% of the time outnumbered...... saturday morning I spent almost 2 hours by myself against a total of 14 or more of the other 2 countries... so its usually us against the hordes.... which to be honest, it has been better with only 3 or 4 attacking 1 base......so the fights have been fun... I just dont like the idea of being told how I should play this game...

i appreciate your reply.  i guess when all the cards fall and we are all blue in the face, it just comes down to some will like it and some will not.  i will say it is unfortunate that guys who were not part of the imbalances might not like the changes, as they, imho are the innocent bystanders.  such is life, people who are not contributing to the problem may be affected by the solution.  for me, i am excited about the prospect of not having to fend off a huge horde with only a couple of guys night after night.

as for the issue of changes creating more need for changes i submit this.

multiple MA's where not the solution to number balances, it was an attempt to add peer pressure back into the community......with hopes it would improve the atmosphere.  imho, the atmosphere is better than the old MA.  number imbalance has been an issue for a long time.  it existed in the MA, all one needs to go is go back and revisit all of the many threads about how someones country has no numbers to compete with.  it is the very reason why eny was created.

the next change was aimed at the imbalances, only being able to attack a certain field, gave the team that was outnumbered direction.  forces would have to be concentrated, so in affect you could still be overwhelmed, you would not have to worry about defending 2x as many fields against 2x as many attackers.

with the MA split, number imbalances, imho did get worse, but that change was not aimed at fixing numbers.  so new solutions had to be worked out.  i think it is unrealistic to expect HTC to foresee all problems created.  i have a feeling he expected the community to settle in and make things competitive on their own for the health of the game.  obviouslyl that didn't happen.  i think the reason why more changes are needed is because HTC overestimated that response of the community....in that it would balance itself.  it did not, and some still resist every attempt to have a somewhat fair playing field for everyone.  after all it's about the best team winning right? not just the one that can completely overwhelm the opposition....

[Max]

[Donzo]

What would be the negative effects of putting things back the way they were?

[HomeBoy]

Originally posted by 96Delta
I concur completely.

    quote:Originally posted by FiLtH
    It was bound to happen if the Combat Tour is to work.

    Myself, I prefer a squad system, because its the backbone of the game for me. I'm not sure if the game itself is strong enough to hold my interest, as flying with my friends I've flown with so long is the fun for me.

    I'm willing to see how it goes. But I have a feeling if I end up not flying with my closest friends, or not able to conduct things like Bomb Wing, there won't be much here to keep me.

    Each time I've quit, I've come back. Why I ask myself. Because of my friends. It is'nt the game that keeps me coming back..its my friends. Friends made 10 years ago, in another game.

    Like I said, I'll give it a chance.

I concur with that concursion!

I think the key phrase is "the squad is the backbone of the game" and I would add that the squad is the key element to this balancing issue.  Therefore, IMHO, the "balancing algorithm" needs to be done at the squad level, not the player level.  We need to be about balancing the squads across the three countries rather than balancing players.  HT has all the numbers about the squads so the balancing decisions can be dynamic enough so as to produce good accuracy.  Here is my idea of a balancing scheme:

1.  Using the statistics of how many squads there are, how many players in those squads are actually active, and how often they play, etc., assign each squad to a particular country for the next campaign based on what would balance the countries the best.  If that's too long a period then maybe you drop it to a week or a day, etc.  Good analysis of the squads and the behavior of its players is key to assigning a squad to a country.  When a squad member logs on, he is offered the option of joining his squad or going "freelance" (in which point #2 applies).

2. Use the freelancers (those not in squads) as "balance tweekers."  When they log into an arena, they are automatically assigned to a country so as to help the balance.

If the statistics are managed carefully, the balance will always be pretty reasonable and over time, the system would tend to stabilize.  Obviously, this will not make everyone happy but it does keep squads together which accounts for the majority of the players.

[Edbert]

Originally posted by HomeBoy
Here is my idea of a balancing scheme:

Summary:
"Make people other than myself adjust."

[BugsBunny]

See Rule #5

[HomeBoy]

Originally posted by Edbert
Summary:
"Make people other than myself adjust."

How so?  Am I not a part of the scheme as well?

[doc1kelley]

Originally posted by ZZ3
Sir I respect your point. I simply dont see the need to make the game play artificially balanced.
Imbalance is a part of warfare. Imbalance in this game has effected all countries at some point.
I am simply against the idea of being forced into a situation, of that I mean switching sides, or being forced to wait because I dont want to switch countries. It does'nt make me right, wrong, or unwilling to switch. It is simply a choice which I want to make for my self. If I see fit to do it.
Whats wrong with that?

Thank you,
ZZ3
479th Raiders

ZZ3

If everything pans out right with the artificial balance, it would ultimately creat the ultimate stalemate, and that my friends would lead to stagnation.  I have found myself playing less and less of late as I'm just not motivated to record my favorite programs on TV and play instead.  The whole experience is going downhill for me at this rate.  Warfare in itself is fluid and when we start to put restrictions on it, well we saw how that worked in Vietnam didn't we?

All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1

[Mr No Name]

See Rules #5, #2

[Edbert]

Originally posted by HomeBoy
How so?  Am I not a part of the scheme as well?

Not according to what I read...

You basically said that those who were in squads would be able to bypass the side-balancing mechanisms if they wanted to and the mechanism should only affect those not in squads or those in squads who didn't care.

Seems pretty clear to me that you want others to be impacted by this while exempting yourself. If I am reading that wrong please indicate how a forced mechanism can be effective while being optional for anyone who chooses to exempt themselves.

[Hades55]

Deleted

[Simaril]

Originally posted by thndregg
Hey Sim, sir!

As far as I know from my limited time on, we've been doing our best to accomodate that overall.

Back at ya.


Never meant to BOP-bash....my post was specifically in response to Falc's.

Originally posted by Excaliber

My thoughts exactly...fix tweak...fix tweak....fix fix fix. How about putting some energy is a bigger server.

May want to read a little about the original changes....they have absolutely nothing to do with server capacity, or technical issues in general.

Despite persistant urban myth to the contrary, the 300 max arena changes came because the MA "wasnt healthy" as measured by HTC's hard data analysis (ie not by soft impressions or opinions).

It's idiotic to belive that HT (or any business owner) would deliberately poison his product to "force" people to do something differently.

The formula's pretty simple -- "the most fun for the most people equals the biggest profits."

[pluck]

Originally posted by doc1kelley
ZZ3

If everything pans out right with the artificial balance, it would ultimately creat the ultimate stalemate, and that my friends would lead to stagnation.  I have found myself playing less and less of late as I'm just not motivated to record my favorite programs on TV and play instead.  The whole experience is going downhill for me at this rate.  Warfare in itself is fluid and when we start to put restrictions on it, well we saw how that worked in Vietnam didn't we?

All the Best...
Jay
awDoc1

so, the only way to take bases and win the war is to have overwhelming numbers.  that is the generally strategy.  sounds like fun.

i think we need to move away from comparing an online game to real war.  obviously in war you want every advantage there is.  we are talking life and death.  this is an online game.  there is no life and death....the only purpose for it's being is the exact opposite of war.....to have fun.  games generally run by having the best team win.  if you can't have fun without having large number advantage, and can't devise a strategy to compete fairly, then i might submit you are not a strat guy, you are just something else.