Changes to come.

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by indy007
That's a pretty narrow viewpoint.

It's not about fixing the numbers. Imbalances are a symptom of the greater problem, and not the problem itself. The problem itself is the players.

The only effective way to modify the behavior of players to create a fair & balanced game environment is to use draconian measures. Honestly, I believe HTC has gone way too easy on everybody the entire time. I'd personally go with an against-your-will autobalancer. Once all the crybabies quit, you'd have a fresh group of newbies coming in who simply wouldn't know better. They'd accept it as the way it is, and probably generate a crop of better pilots. Yes, I know all about side balancing in games. I've done it as a job for paintball scenario events (200 to 1000+ players @ a given event). I also created the rosters that led to some of the best, and closest scoring games ever. I've told quite a few people "Sorry, creates a skill imbalance, your team can't play with that team for this event."

The difference is, paintball players got over it immediately. No cries, no whines. Everybody recognized it was for the best. I wish that could be here, but there's alot of very vocal, and very selfish AH players.

Good analogy, one problem -
It's the same with English, Scottish in fact all Worldwide football (soccer) leagues.
There is more than one division. with the top teams being in the top division, and in the case of the English league 3 more divisions that contain the next best, the next next best etc.

Thats something that hasn't been addressed in AH, said it before and I'll say it again -
Equal numbers doesn't guarentee fair/balanced gameplay.

[hitech]

indy007: I do not quite see it that way. Currently I see the current situaltion as follows.

When each country as aprox the same amount of fields, things are staying balanced.

When one country is getting down to there last fields they start getting swamped. And hence are not having much fun.

Now the players in that country start looking for fun else where. Hence they change arenas. Once the numbers get to imbalanced we are stuck in a dead lock. Players do not want to be on the lower side because they feel like they do not have a chance to fight back.

Note I in no way assign any blame to anyone, it is just human nature to respond this way.

____________________
The solution. Provide a way that even if you are loosing the "War" i.e. short on fields, your still having fun.

One thing that will help is having some fields that can not be captured, so you can still fight back.

2nd thing that will help is a change to the victory condition, so instead of the low on field country still getting hit, the winning country is forced to attack the other country.


HiTech

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by hitech
indy007: I do not quite see it that way. Currently I see the current situaltion as follows.

When each country as aprox the same amount of fields, things are staying balanced.

When one country is getting down to there last fields they start getting swamped. And hence are not having much fun.

Now the players in that country start looking for fun else where. Hence they change arenas. Once the numbers get to imbalanced we are stuck in a dead lock. Players do not want to be on the lower side because they feel like they do not have a chance to fight back.

Note I in no way assign any blame to anyone, it is just human nature to respond this way.

____________________
The solution. Provide a way that even if you are loosing the "War" i.e. short on fields, your still having fun.

One thing that will help is having some fields that can not be captured, so you can still fight back.

2nd thing that will help is a change to the victory condition, so instead of the low on field country still getting hit, the winning country is forced to attack the other country.


HiTech

Don't see how making them uncapturable helps at all.
The other country just goes to the field(s) that is capturable instead.

So you pork the uncapturable one so they can't use it to take anything, and smack the other one down, result is the same.

Instead of going to another arena they just log off, result, still same imbalance.
Only it now penalises the country who has done the hard work to get close to the reset.

There is nothing you can do that will make people on the losing side stay, now they might not be able to swap arenas, they'll just log off until after the reset.
This used to happen prior to the arena split, will become the popular choice again.

In all honesty the way your going you may as well do away with the reset totally.

[MWL]

Greetings,

Ok, here is the question:

Why can we not have an arena for the "G" (gamers) and an arena for the "W" (war gamers)?

The "G" arena could just be one country and no way to blow stuff up or whatever, or how ever they want it set it up so that they can furball themselves silly. The "W" arena can be structured similar to the original MA for war combat games.

  I just have to ask, didn't / don't we have this?  Dueling Arena, AvA and MA in the past.  With DA, AvA, and multiple MAs defined by time period and numbers?

  It seems that there was a structure in place to make everyone happy.  Problem was there weren't enough numbers in the dueling arena / AvA for the furballers to find targets.  So, they are drawn to the Wargame areana to find their 'prey'  - and to complain on 200 when other people don't follow their 'code of conduct'.

Regards,

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Don't see how making them uncapturable helps at all.
The other country just goes to the field(s) that is capturable instead.

So you pork the uncapturable one so they can't use it to take anything, and smack the other one down, result is the same.

Instead of going to another arena they just log off, result, still same imbalance.
Only it now penalises the country who has done the hard work to get close to the reset.

So I guess teamwork gets penalised once again.

No but making one side capture 50% of the 2 opposing sides will stop the 2:1 gang bang.
I know I see it every time one side is low on bases.
Gentlemen the race to reset light is now lit. Start your engines.
The 2 countries with the most bases may now tag team the low side.

By havening to fight on 2 fronts you no longer can just steam roll the low side.
You would now have to defend what you have taken AND take territory from the side you have been sending token fights .

I think HT has said he is planning something like this .
I for one think it's brilliant.


Bronk

[MWL]

Greetings,

Side balance - two simple words that bring so much moaning and gnashing of teeth. Many ways to do this:

Some we are currently trying:
Raw Numbers - Restricting numbers on a particular side
ENY - Restricting planes available to a particular side
Reduction in cost of perk planes - Making higher performing planes available to a particular side
Lines of advance (on hold for now - but do have potential!) - Focusing the attack to enable the limited numbers of defenders to mass.

3 of the 4 are obvious to the player and a direct impact on his options.

Some to consider -
Variable Ack accuracy / density at bases - Defending country dedicates more resources to defense
Not enabling planes / vehicles / ack at recently captured bases - Reflecting difficulty of getting logistical structure in place at recently captured fields.
Further restrict side switchin to once a day/week instead of once and hour - to reduce people joining the 'winning' side
Increase the number of troops required to take a field the closer it is to the City - Reflect the difficulties associated with entering enemy home territory
Reduce availability of quality aviation fuel for over balanced side(s) - reflecting the over demand on production capability
Reduce ordance availability on the over balanced side(s) - Reflecting the demand exceeding the available resupply rate.
Establish/Increase the wait time prior to launch after a crash or landing - Reflecting shortage of maint personnel / repair parts / fuel.
Increase the size of the towns associated with a field the 'deeper' an enemy gets into the home territory - Reflecting the higher level of difficulty of taking territory in the opponents home territory.
Increase the hardening of the hangers the deeper a field is in friendly territory - Reflecting an increase if defensive structures.

Just some thoughts.

Regards,

[MWL]

Greetings,

No but making one side capture 50% of the 2 opposing sides will stop the 2:1 gang bang.



You would now have to defend what you have taken AND take territory from the side you have been sending token fights .

I think HT has said he is planning something like this .
I for one think it's brilliant.

I agree!

Regards,

[Kev367th]

Originally posted by Bronk
No but making one side capture 50% of the 2 opposing sides will stop the 2:1 gang bang.
I know I see it every time one side is low on bases.
Gentlemen the race to reset light is now lit. Start your engines.
The 2 countries with the most bases may now tag team the low side.

By havening to fight on 2 fronts you no longer can just steam roll the low side.
You would now have to defend what you have taken AND take territory from the side you have been sending token fights .

I think HT has said he is planning something like this .
I for one think it's brilliant.


Bronk

Like I said - may as well do away with the reset completely.

The more changes are made, the more problems it causes, and you end up chasing your tail around.
This should be obvious to anyone by now.

[Bronk]

Originally posted by MWL
Greetings,

Ok, here is the question:

Why can we not have an arena for the "G" (gamers) and an arena for the "W" (war gamers)?

The "G" arena could just be one country and no way to blow stuff up or whatever, or how ever they want it set it up so that they can furball themselves silly. The "W" arena can be structured similar to the original MA for war combat games.

  I just have to ask, didn't / don't we have this?  Dueling Arena, AvA and MA in the past.  With DA, AvA, and multiple MAs defined by time period and numbers?

  It seems that there was a structure in place to make everyone happy.  Problem was there weren't enough numbers in the dueling arena / AvA for the furballers to find targets.  So, they are drawn to the Wargame areana to find their 'prey'  - and to complain on 200 when other people to follow their 'code of conduct'.

Regards,

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT Wrong

Dueling arena is just what implies. A place to fight one on one.

HT will not make a specific play type arenas.  IE gv , furball, and toolsheder arenas.
It goes against what he wants. Which  I believe is for us to play together.


I could be wrong but I doubt it.


Bronk

[Bronk]

Originally posted by Kev367th
Like I said - may as well do away with the reset completely.

The more changes are made, the more problems it causes, and you end up chasing your tail around.
This should be obvious to anyone by now.

Kev I threw  50% out just for a number. I'm actually thinking of a number between 30%-40%.

But I believe a lower number is doable. Remember it applies to all not just one side.


Bronk

[hitech]

he more changes are made, the more problems it causes, and you end up chasing your tail around.
This should be obvious to anyone by now.

Kev: Once again you are just completly full of it. If we took your view, AH could not exist today.

Does changing stuff create different issues? Absolutely.
But make no mistake about it ,changes have to happen if AH is to continue to grow.

But you just seem to want to completely ignore all the issues that existed before the split arenas.

[Overlag]

Originally posted by hitech
Kev: Once again you are just completly full of it. If we took your view, AH could not exist today.

Does changing stuff create different issues? Absolutely.
But make no mistake about it ,changes have to happen if AH is to continue to grow.

But you just seem to want to completely ignore all the issues that existed before the split arenas.

but what is it going to grow into? its a mess right now... any new player is going to see this mess, and play like it. or rather not bother at all.



keeping current subscribers is easier and cheaper than gaining new.....

[hitech]

keeping current subscribers is easier and cheaper than gaining new....

That is not 100% accurate when it comes to games.

And do not view that statment as "I do not care about existing customers".

It is really just a simple truth that very few people play the same game forever.

HiTech

[indy007]

Originally posted by hitech
The solution. Provide a way that even if you are loosing the "War" i.e. short on fields, your still having fun.

One thing that will help is having some fields that can not be captured, so you can still fight back.

2nd thing that will help is a change to the victory condition, so instead of the low on field country still getting hit, the winning country is forced to attack the other country.


HiTech

Oh yeah, I think it will work. I'm just used to more dictatorial style autobalancers like on Counter-Strike. I also think that it might get you to, say, 75% of your goal for balance (by whatever metric you're using). A step further I would like to see it go is to track population by their actual area, and not just the entire arena. Cap any particular side from gaining more than say.. a 5:3 advantage. Put it on a short timer to allow squads to up together.

It would add encouragement to fight on multiple fronts instead of just grind away at one.

[MWL]

Greetings,

Dueling arena is just what implies. A place to fight one on one.


  Okay, but I seem to remember a Inter-Squad 4 on 4 there.

HT will not make a specific play type arenas. IE gv , furball, and toolsheder arenas.

 That may be true, however he already has - arenas limited by Time Period, Plane Set and Dueling.  As far as wanting us to play together, I think he just wants us to play nice.  (Jeeze, sounds like me talking to my children    )

Regards,