Changes to come.

[HomeBoy]

Originally posted by Edbert
Not according to what I read...

Edbert, you're reading "motive" in my proposal that is simply not there.  Ok, I do say the squad member is given a "chance" to circumvent the automatic assignment but that was not an intentional "bypass" of the system.  It was an attempt to "soften the rules" so as to give the player some flexibility while still maintaining the objective.  Lighten up a little here  man.  I'm just trying to offer something constructive.

I had thought of editing what I proposed (before you even replied) to include a method where the freelancer could choose to wait for a spot to open up in the country of his choice or something like that but figured everyone would get the basic gist of what I was saying and decided not to.  I had no idea anyone would "read in" a motive on my part.  Trust me, I have no motive here.  I just, as I presume you as well, want to see something workable come out of all this.

[FiLtH]

Homeboy thats the route I'd take. It would require a little research,and input from all the COs and squads being redeployed to another team, but atleast they could stay intact.

   Edbert, for those people who arent in squads, and who side switch often, and fly lone wolf, the recent change means little. They have no squad to miss. So if Homeboy's idea was used and the people who arent in squads were managed by the game as to who they flew for that day, what would change for them?

[killnu]

What do you mean, "We"? I self-regulate nearly everyday, sometimes twice a day. And, I haven't gone blind yet.

Now here is someone that maturity and good manners has permanently avoided at all costs.

Still think the children should be removed from the game, no matter what their age. LOL

[pluck]

Originally posted by FiLtH
Edbert, for those people who arent in squads, and who side switch often, and fly lone wolf, the recent change means little. They have no squad to miss. So if Homeboy's idea was used and the people who arent in squads were managed by the game as to who they flew for that day, what would change for them?

but clearly there are not enough people who switch sides as it is, otherwise there would not be large number imbalances.  also, some guys, even a couple i remember seeing posting, do not belong in a squad, but won't switch countries.  do you really think squads who won't switch of there own free will, and those saying they have no freedom are going to accept flying for a different country?  at least this way, they still have the choice to continue to fly for their country....if they want to wait, if they want to change areans, or if their country isn't holding a big numerical advantage.  just my thoughts.

[hubsonfire]

It's still an attempt to make the balancing effect only other people, while giving those who never wanted to help out an exemption. That's partial to those types who have contributed to the situation that HT felt he needed to correct. That wouldn't seem like a good idea to me.

Why are you guys so hung up on this idea of switching? You didn't know **** about the country you started out with, and you didn't know most of the people on it. Somehow, despite this overwhelming adversity, you met people, and formed squads, and had fun. Why can't you do this now?

[HomeBoy]

I think the biggest problem we have is the lack of understanding of exactly what the problem is!

HT obviously sees a problem and is going about solving it by splitting the arenas, the "orange experiment", and now the latest ENY adjustments.  From everything I've read of what he as said, there are two problems that need to be solved:

1.  Too many players in a single arena which creates a "slum" effect (hordes, milkruns, etc).
2.  Imbalance between the countries.

From everything I've read of the response from the community, my conclusion is that the majority of players are concerned with staying together with their squads.

I would love to see us begin to reach consensus as to what we are trying to solve.  When I read things like "why not put things back the way they were?" then it becomes clear to me that we are not understanding the problem or that maybe the problem is not what we think it is.  I worry sometimes that HT is listening to particular groups of players and getting an understanding of the "problem" that not neccessarily reality but then realize that he is a pretty sharp guy and should be able to see through that sort of thing.

Compound all of this with the natural tendency (especially among men) to resist change.

If someone would clarify exactly what problem we are trying to solve I would appreciate it.

Have a great day!

[Edbert]

Originally posted by HomeBoy
Edbert, you're reading "motive" in my proposal that is simply not there.  

Fair enough

Glad to see another old hand posting here too. Since you've been around since the beginnings of AH perhaps you are as amused by those who see "sudden changes" to the game? This game has been tweaked/modified/changed/fixed/broken/repaired hundreds of times fellas, only exception was a relatively staid period of around 2-3 years where TOD was at the forfront of HTC programming efforts, other than that period, change has been a constant. And immediately following almost every significant change was a bevy of panic, hurt feelings, gnashing of teeth, and threats of quitting, but the game continued to grow and evolve.

That said, I can see how someone could join in 2004/2005, or early 2006 and see the game as remaining a constant. I also notice that a majority of the detractors of this change seem to have joined in that time frame, maybe me, maybe coincidence, not claiming to have seen the hard-data.

[DadRabit]

sorry,

but i never saw a problem.  in the old days ht fixed bugs, graphics, not the "herds".  

in the old days we flew and fought each other and had fun doing it.  now all i see is complaining.  i miss wednesdays when skuzzy would come on and we give him crap (all in good fun).

where did those days go?  

[4deck]

My only Question to HITECH is...

Why cant we have One Areana untouched, with a cap of say 600, No rules or regs, No ENY, with Only BIG Maps, and do whatever you want to the other areans.??

This is not for anyone else to answer, but the developing team. Thanx in advance.

[Lusche]

Originally posted by 4deck

This is not for anyone else to answer, but the developing team. Thanx in advance.

Why do you post it on a public forum then? If you wanna talk to developers, talk to developers.. Email, phone, personal visit...

[BugsBunny]

Originally posted by 4deck
My only Question to HITECH is...

Why cant we have One Areana untouched, with a cap of say 600, No rules or regs, No ENY, with Only BIG Maps, and do whatever you want to the other areans.??

This is not for anyone else to answer, but the developing team. Thanx in advance.

Because everyone will just go in that arena.  Sorry, I am a developer

[Torcher]

Just rename them Az, Bz and Cz. Ehh, on second thought, people would gripe about that, too.

Ahh, the days of a Cz Mossie raid on the Az scum's spit factory.

[DadRabit]

(Obi Wan)  "I've not heard the term spit factory in a long time.........a long time."

[lagger86]

Originally posted by BugsBunny
Because everyone will just go in that arena.  Sorry, I am a developer

well doesn't that say something right there?

[FALCONWING]

Originally posted by Simaril
OK Falc....I'm really trying to understand what you're saying, but I cant quite see your perspective.

How exactly is having roughly equal numbers a bad thing?

We get to select our arenas and countries; how is it HT's fault if we choose imbalance?

To put it another way, if the Rooks have a 2:1 advantge in Blue, and are underdogs in Orange, why are you so rigidly demanding that Rooks be freely allowed to keep joining the horde? It just doesnt make sense to me, I dont see the connection -- how is this imbalance NOT our fault? All we have to do is shift arenas, and it helps EVERYONE.

If the BOPS want to fly together, why cant they pick the arena where Bish are low instead of the one where the Bish are high? Wouldnt that work out for EVERYONE'S best interest?




What I hear you saying is that your freedom to choose country and arena should outweigh any negative effects on the rest of the game. And that's why I see "caring about themselves more than the game" as a core issue. You think that's rubbish, apparently, but I cannot fathom the logic. If I'm wrong about this, them ...please explain your position so I can understand it. If I've misinterpreted, I'll apologise to you for any insult.

i believe i was making two points simaril....

1) it is rubbish to continue to try and assign blame to anyone paying $15/month for a service for the fact that the game is "broken".  If players can stay within the designed rules of the game and it can not be "fair" then i blame the programmer (rule maker)...not the players.  (the often used "basketball" reference doesnt fly because noone is playing 10 vs 5...see the rules only allow 5 v 5...so 10 v 5 would be breaking the rules.)

so please stop saying that WE are at fault...let me reexamine my objectives for this game....

1. Have fun
2.  Laugh and chat with guys whose company i enjoy

the rest is trivial..an excuse to be hanging out...thats why so many folks dont put  alot of time and energy into switching etc...they really dont care...i know i dont...get banged or bang ...all the same to me.

so for my second point...

2) i dont care if it turns out we have to jump countries to fly together...i just know (as anyone who plays does) that numbers vary dramatically and who wants to play "jump countries til all the squaddies who happen to be on right at this moment can be the same country...but whoops 30 minutes later 2 have logged and 3 new ones are stuck having to play another country??)  

i see the latest brash change as yet another poorly thought out plan whose results have not been properly anticipated.

(honestly sim...could your 5 yo kid not have forseen that limiting frontline bases available for capture would promote "hording" and " country gangbanging"  can you honestly tell me that that was thought out at all??)

and why the rush...even if you want limited frontline bases capturable..why not design a map that will work for it instead of turning out a mediocre result by sticking it on top of an established map????

and why design 4 arenas and have less maps that can work for them then you had before???  why werent new maps designed in advance???

so NO Sim i dont think im gonna let folks like you try to make me feel small for not "doing our part"...its time the leadership around here took some responsibility and quit releasing more wild horses from their barns.

so far you have supported them completely...have all their moves been superb then or can you only see that the community is the problem?