Author Topic: What is the objective? (Read 631 times)

TalonX · « **on:** December 10, 2006, 05:26:17 PM »

Just out of curiosity, what is the goal of the changes? Is it believed this is more appealing to new players (something any business needs)?

I'd wager most new players wouldn't know the difference. Of course, all change will bring some whines, it's inevitable. Changing countries would, at first, seem unrealistic for squads. In fact, what's the difference? Change countries for a night. Are you really so married to your chess piece? Ironically, some are. We changed to Rooks long ago, and lost some core members who just couldn't divorce the Bishop chess piece. I never got that.

If we knew the objective, the veterans may be able to help.

skernsk · « **Reply #1 on:** December 10, 2006, 05:30:20 PM »

Been here since Jan 2000, spent two tours of duty on the CM team.

I have no friggin idea what the latest changes are about. I do think that it is just one more nail in the coffin for those in a squad.

HOWEVER,

as a veteran there have been many changes in the past that at first glance were not positively received. In the end they worked ....

SO

I am not jumping ship just yet ... but let's just say I am looking for my life preserver and getting ready to go over the rail.

BlueJ1 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 10, 2006, 05:31:07 PM »

I forgot who it was...but I had a prominent Knight gv players go at me for days on end saying I was less of a man and a person because I said I wasnt loyal to a chess peice, but I am to my squad. Him and his squad got very annoying. Yay for squelch.

Overlag · « **Reply #3 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:11:23 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by skernsk

I am not jumping ship just yet ... but let's just say I am looking for my life preserver and getting ready to go over the rail.

1 change isnt worth jumping for... however this slow, plucking proccess of removing "features" and adding limits is hurting....

pluck · « **Reply #4 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:18:42 PM »

i think some squad will end up having to change countries....while others in will affect very little. i think these changes are made for the long term health of the game, not the short term. squads do change countries from time to time, some more frequent then others. eventually numbers will have to balance out, some squads will move, and some chess pieces may actually find they are in the hunt for the reset instead of getting steam rolled every night. maybe some squads will find and establish homes with certain countries in different arenas. In the long term i would think that those who value their chess pieces may take even more pride in them as a victory is earned. the number game is being replaced by cartoon airplane skill and the ability of others to lead their team/squad to victory....not who can field 100 guys vs. 50.

i think he said he was removing the orange test settings with this new set up so i would guess many issues with that should be falling by the way side. your team can still sneak a base, if no one notices it, then hey, alls fair. just my thoughts.

Simaril · « **Reply #5 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:46:16 PM »

I dunno...the objective seems pretty darn obvious to me.

HT wants a positive, fun play environment FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER of people. As he's said, "the most fun for the most people" is the best way to keep AH healthy.

Based on evidence he called "proprietary" (preumably including retention data, nonsubscribers' reasons for leaving, etc), he sees large arenas as unhealthy. So, we have arenas split with caps at 300 max.

Based on the obvious, games are more fun when everyone has a more or less equal chance of success. Now, when one side outnumbers the two others by a factor of 1.5 to 2, the other two sides are not getting a fair shake. That means that they dont have as much fun.

He did everything but shake his finger at us to get us to shift things around on our own, but too many people franklky didnt care about anyone but themselves (or their squad).

So now he has to enforce what good sportsmanship should have done on its own. We entirely brought this on ourselves.

moneyguy · « **Reply #6 on:** December 10, 2006, 06:49:02 PM »

i switch countries when it is needed to even the sides. most of my squad will do the same. it doesn't matter really who i shoot down or who shoots me down. as long as i'm having fun

Guppy35 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 10, 2006, 07:42:30 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by moneyguy
i switch countries when it is needed to even the sides. most of my squad will do the same. it doesn't matter really who i shoot down or who shoots me down. as long as i'm having fun

Amen to that!

Overlag · « **Reply #8 on:** December 10, 2006, 09:03:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by pluck
i think some squad will end up having to change countries

how will changing countries help?

add the numbers up across arenas and the sides are fine.... the only issue is they are split up.

so if side A doesnt like server 1, they join server B

its very simple.

a squad changing sides wont make a dam bit of difference because more people will just leave server 1...

so basicaly if the 2 arenas are like this:

LW-freedom
A:B:C
120:120:60

LW-dictactorship
A:B:C
60:60:120

you expect A and B to switch to C in freedom and C to switch to A and B in dictactorship? hmm

FiLtH · « **Reply #9 on:** December 11, 2006, 01:08:14 AM »

My opinion, which is just that, is that perhaps with the coming of Combat Tour, and the likely problems squads may have with its design, there may be no clean, painless way to disolve squads. So maybe these gradual changes have been working up to the moment where the players themselves see squads as un-usable. Just my opinion.

Stang · « **Reply #10 on:** December 11, 2006, 01:08:23 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
I dunno...the objective seems pretty darn obvious to me.

HT wants a positive, fun play environment FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER of people. As he's said, "the most fun for the most people" is the best way to keep AH healthy.

Based on evidence he called "proprietary" (preumably including retention data, nonsubscribers' reasons for leaving, etc), he sees large arenas as unhealthy. So, we have arenas split with caps at 300 max.

Based on the obvious, games are more fun when everyone has a more or less equal chance of success. Now, when one side outnumbers the two others by a factor of 1.5 to 2, the other two sides are not getting a fair shake. That means that they dont have as much fun.

He did everything but shake his finger at us to get us to shift things around on our own, but too many people franklky didnt care about anyone but themselves (or their squad).

So now he has to enforce what good sportsmanship should have done on its own. We entirely brought this on ourselves.

Yup.

Now if we can just get Churchill to make that phonecall to Hitler...

Sloehand · « **Reply #11 on:** December 11, 2006, 02:04:42 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
I dunno...the objective seems pretty darn obvious to me.

HT wants a positive, fun play environment FOR THE MAXIMUM NUMBER of people. As he's said, "the most fun for the most people" is the best way to keep AH healthy.

Based on evidence he called "proprietary" (preumably including retention data, nonsubscribers' reasons for leaving, etc), he sees large arenas as unhealthy. So, we have arenas split with caps at 300 max.

Based on the obvious, games are more fun when everyone has a more or less equal chance of success. Now, when one side outnumbers the two others by a factor of 1.5 to 2, the other two sides are not getting a fair shake. That means that they dont have as much fun.

He did everything but shake his finger at us to get us to shift things around on our own, but too many people franklky didnt care about anyone but themselves (or their squad).

So now he has to enforce what good sportsmanship should have done on its own. We entirely brought this on ourselves.

Geez, Simaril. You know I generally respect you, but isn't that pony dead yet?!!

You're starting to remind me of tree-huggers and "can't-we-just-all-get-along anti-war types.

Bet WITH human nature, not against it, and you'll never lose.

BlauK · « **Reply #12 on:** December 11, 2006, 03:10:20 AM »

Simaril,
you are defining fun exclusively as "winning bases" or "winning a map". I can tell you that there ARE people who actually have much more fun being underdogs in a target rich environment, losing bases, but scoring much more skills than those in the larger attacking force who must compeate with their country mates to get even a single kill. However, they obviously are a small minority

IIRC, the unhealth of the single large MA had to do with player behaviour on ch 200... which I hardly ever even tune to. I dont remember anyone stating lack of fun as a reason.

BugsBunny · « **Reply #13 on:** December 11, 2006, 08:20:57 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Overlag
1 change isnt worth jumping for...

1?

Simaril · « **Reply #14 on:** December 11, 2006, 10:27:54 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BlauK
Simaril,
you are defining fun exclusively as "winning bases" or "winning a map". I can tell you that there ARE people who actually have much more fun being underdogs in a target rich environment, losing bases, but scoring much more skills than those in the larger attacking force who must compeate with their country mates to get even a single kill. However, they obviously are a small minority

IIRC, the unhealth of the single large MA had to do with player behaviour on ch 200... which I hardly ever even tune to. I dont remember anyone stating lack of fun as a reason.

Not at all defining by base capture...in fact, my fun is mostly in the air to air department.

But, for players at or below my moderate skill level, having twice as many bad guys as friendlies means ending up dead before getting to have much fun. I've stopped trying to "help" the gang-ees, since it just wasnt any fun getting slaughtered. I like being mildly to moderately outnumbered....

But for many, they dont like it at all. And for those people -- the vets of tomorrow -- there ought to be some semblance of equality, so they have a chance to get better and nurture the addiction.