Frustrated

[BaldEagl]

Originally posted by hubsonfire
I've been listening to ENY and arena split whines since the days they were introduced, and screaming is an appropriate descriptive.
 
I don't have any suggestions for you folks other than learning to be a little more flexible, and a little less demanding, because I don't see a problem with either ENY or split arenas. If you can't fly with the horde/your squad/your favorite plane, adapt a little bit. This "fix this crap HT i payz my money i sayz what goes around here" mindset doesn't earn the slightest bit of sympathy from me, and that's really how I view all of these types of threads.

Sorry I can't be more supportive, but I think the problem is your mindset, not the game.

I've been listening to them too.  Until the other night it really never bothered me much.

I don't mind the ENY system but, as I've stated on many occasions, I think it should be localized within the map to a front or a given square area (say 9 sectors) rather than applied arena-wide.

I also don't mind the arena splits and forsee that a third LWA may be needed in the future (although I would like to see the big maps return now that these are filling up) but if/when it is the imbalance problems are just going to get worse if nothings done.  

I don't think I was being demanding in my first post and I certainly never said anthing even remotly like "fix this crap HT i payz my money i sayz what goes around here".  I did however suggest that there must be a better way of achieving the same objectives (balanced play and fun for all).

Lusche,  I don't think allowing players to join the arena where their country is outnumbered significantly is restrictive to anyone.  I also like to fly for the underdog country at times just as I wanted to the night I posted this (well, plus I wanted to fly the Yak).  Even if this were allowed I'd bet that most nights you could find a front or a field where you were the underdog.  The only reason it might be upsetting at that point is the perk modifier is no longer so far in your favor.  Maybe there's a hard stop, where if the "losing" country is within x% then the free entry stops.

Personally, I think for every "whine" (other than xyz HO'd me or vulched me or...) if all of us put together our collective brainpower we could come up with a reasonable solution to end it.  Then it's up to HT to decide if he thinks it's viable for his business from a subscriber retention and from a development standpoint.

To date, the only way to raise the visibility of what some considered to be issues was to post another thread and to keep doing it until something was done.  This puts the onus on HT and staff while trying to also develop planes, terraines, maps, etc.  If we, as a community, worked on these things together rather than fighting each other we could limit this to about 3-4 on-going threads until a resolution is achieved for HT to consider.  I have to believe we probably even have a programmer or two in the crowd who could advise us as to development feasability.  Personally, I'd find this much more stimulating and fun than bickering and we'd all end up with a better gaming experience (imagine it being even better ).

[yanksfan]

Originally posted by BaldEagl
I've been listening to them too.  Until the other night it really never bothered me much.

I don't mind the ENY system but, as I've stated on many occasions, I think it should be localized within the map to a front or a given square area (say 9 sectors) rather than applied arena-wide.

I also don't mind the arena splits and forsee that a third LWA may be needed in the future (although I would like to see the big maps return now that these are filling up) but if/when it is the imbalance problems are just going to get worse if nothings done.  

I don't think I was being demanding in my first post and I certainly never said anthing even remotly like "fix this crap HT i payz my money i sayz what goes around here".  I did however suggest that there must be a better way of achieving the same objectives (balanced play and fun for all).

Lusche,  I don't think allowing players to join the arena where their country is outnumbered significantly is restrictive to anyone.  I also like to fly for the underdog country at times just as I wanted to the night I posted this (well, plus I wanted to fly the Yak).  Even if this were allowed I'd bet that most nights you could find a front or a field where you were the underdog.  The only reason it might be upsetting at that point is the perk modifier is no longer so far in your favor.  Maybe there's a hard stop, where if the "losing" country is within x% then the free entry stops.

Personally, I think for every "whine" (other than xyz HO'd me or vulched me or...) if all of us put together our collective brainpower we could come up with a reasonable solution to end it.  Then it's up to HT to decide if he thinks it's viable for his business from a subscriber retention and from a development standpoint.

To date, the only way to raise the visibility of what some considered to be issues was to post another thread and to keep doing it until something was done.  This puts the onus on HT and staff while trying to also develop planes, terraines, maps, etc.  If we, as a community, worked on these things together rather than fighting each other we could limit this to about 3-4 on-going threads until a resolution is achieved for HT to consider.  I have to believe we probably even have a programmer or two in the crowd who could advise us as to development feasability.  Personally, I'd find this much more stimulating and fun than bickering and we'd all end up with a better gaming experience (imagine it being even better ).

Very well said, "S", I agree completely.

If eveyone took a tone of respect, ideas would flow in and would have a place to be modified and grow into something useful. I think we can come up with some Ideas to improve game play for everyone.
Anytime opinions are repressed growth stops. keep the ideas coming.  I think a "balanced arena entry system" is the best idea i have heard and would love to see it developed here.

[croduh]

Where do you guys get all the energy for all this useless discussions?
Amazes me.

[SlapShot]

Solution: Always allow someone to log into the arena if they have squad-mates already logged in, regardless of whether the arena is "full" or not.

So squads get preferential treatment ? Kinda bolsters VERTEX's point. What if all the BOPs wanted to log into one arena ... for one country ... and that country already has a huge numbers advantage. This would only add fuel to the fire.

Squads already have the ability to "balance" ... but for the most part, they don't.

Solution: Always allow someone into the arena if their country is out-manned, regardless of whether the arena is "full" or not.

This has been brought forth in the past. This is truly the only viable solution.

Solution: Restrict access to arenas (except as noted above) if it will significantly increase a county imbalance.

Yes this does fit the solution above ... except you want squads to be able to circumvent this ... what is good for one ... is good for the other.

Solution: Return to 24 hours before being able to change countries. This might not eliminate this but it will at least make them think twice before commiting.

In the scheme of things ... CV hijacking is such small potatoes ... allowing people, who try to balance the arena(s) to change every is much more important.

Want to get into the full arena? Pay for it with perks. The price goes up the more over-filled it is.

The price would have to be pretty steep and the cost would, IMO, have to be applied to ALL categories ... so why do it at all ?

So people can change their whining about locked arena(s) to "I can't believe that it costs X persk to get into X arena". HT you better change that or I am going to quit"

Want to fly what you want to fly? Pay for it with perks in some proportion to where ENY is at.

Again, the price would have to be pretty steep ... so why do it at all ?

So people can change their whining about ENY to "I can't believe that X plane costs X perks". HT you better change that or I am going to quit"

Can't fault you for trying BaldEagl, but from what I can see, some suggestions just move the problem from one area to another area and never ever solving the problem.

The one and only true solution would be to allow people to join a "full" arena only if they chose one of the lower populated countries ... but guess what ... people would still piss 'n moan about that too.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by yanksfan
OK, now that hubs is done, how would an arena entry system work to keep sides balanced.

allow low side countrys to enter until sides even?

This is what I posted back in September of last year that addresses this point ... as hub pointed out ... some of us have been reading the whining and crying since September.

Originally posted by SlapShot
Let's say that the arena max population is 300 in LW1 for example.

Current counts ...

Rooks have 150
Bish have 80
Knights have 70

So if I choose LW1 I am presented with a popup that provides me a selective choice to join either the Bish or the Knights ... Rooks are not available due to their superior numbers.

Would this not help some people who want to fly in that arena, who really don't care what country that they fly for and at the same time direct people to help create a balance ... if they want to fly in that particular arena ?

This would allow the arena max to be surpassed, but also persuade others to balance.

So when someone chooses the arena you do ...

If current_arena_pop >= arena_max ... display country choice panel

The country choice panel would display, in this case, Bish or Knights.

Now in the instance when all countries have equal numbers or equality in numbers with say +/- 10 people ... then the popup would not appear and they would go to the country that they last flew for in the arena.

Rooks have 110
Bish have 90
Knights have 100

This would not produce the popup and the player would just directly join the last country that they flew for.

Would this not make the joining of a particular arena fluid and dynamic and at the same time allow the population max to dynamically change if people choose to do the right thing ?

HiTech's response ...

Originally posted by hitech
SlapShot:

My thoughts.

I would change one thing, I wouldn't do it only at max, but wrather anytime ENY is 5 or above.

Im fairly certain the idea would work to maintain balanced sides.

It is also more restrictive than the current system.

Im fairly sure even more would complain about it vs the current system.

One thing to rember about the ENY system.

If you rember when it was implemented, it took a while for things to balance out, I view it as a wave dampener, with the change we did last week we threw one big rock in a pool,and waves are bouncing back and forth from the sides,it is going to take a while for the waves to disipate.

I.E. Im not realy sure anything needs to change yet, just need to wait for the waves to become very small riples.

HiTech

My following response ...

Originally posted by SlapShot
Applying the logic to ENY and/or MAX ... wouldn't that make it more restrictive ?

No need to apply it to ENY. Giving people the choice to join the less populated countries would, by default, fix the ENY as numbers approached "balance".

Why would this be more restrictive ? ... One of the goals is to surpass the MAX parameter that is currently being used, which is what I have seen/hear from alot of the posts that I have read is a restriction causing much angst ... lots want into the LW arena, but are being refused because MAX has been reached ... with this, MAX can be surpassed dynamically, as long as balance (within a +/-) is maintained ... which is less restrictive I would think ... no ?

I understand the concept of the big rock in the pond thing ... as I too develop a software product and have thrown quite a few rocks too.

I didn't spend hours thinking about it ... it just hit me and considering whats going on at the moment I briefly fleshed it out as I wrote it (just like writing coad).

Maybe as the waves decrease in size, it might not be appropriate ... just trying to help.

[SlapShot]

Originally posted by Emu
I have a problem with the way you are thinking.  Surely, people can adapt to anything.  You can adapt to getting a 50% pay cut, living under a bridge, driving a Pinto, eating rice for every meal, every day.  But, if you could avoid all of that, I am sure you would.  I dont see the problem with highlighting issues and perhaps involve the community in maybe working out at least a roadmap to address some of them.  What you are describing in your post is conformism.  We know what happens to businesses who get too comfortable and stop improving (or "improve" the wrong things): they get eaten by the competition.  Happens all the time.  Taking the time to post and bring out issues is a good thing.  We obviously enjoy this game, and only care to make it better.  Sure, HiTech can't cater for everyone, but if something is clearly not working as well as it perhaps should, such as this issue, then whats the harm in discussing it and bringing new ideas?  Its in our best interest, and HiTech's best interest, to keep on improving the game and the user experience.  I am happy to be patient and remain a customer of HiTech's while things are improved, but it is nice to know that working on issues the community experience is at least in the roadmap.

Emu

This problem has all been fleshed out in great detail ...

800+ posts

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194277&highlight=arena+balance

1000+ posts

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187226&highlight=arena+balance

My post that I quoted above ...

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187937&highlight=arena+balance

A simple search using ... "arena balance" will give you more reading and discussion on this topic that would keep you busy for quite some time.

[SlapShot]

I did however suggest that there must be a better way of achieving the same objectives (balanced play and fun for all).

You would be more successful getting blood from a stone.

Maybe ... balanced play and fun for most.

[Kev367th]

About the only thing I can think of -

ENY in it's current form is NOT working:

a) It's not encouraging people to switch sides in enough numbers to make a great deal of difference.

b) The waves are as big as they were at the start, in fact ENY limits are worse than under a single arena.

c) Arena switching is contributing to it.

d) ENY limits swing wildly in very short spaces of time.

e) It's obvious by now the MAJORITY won't switch.

So take it from there.

[edit] On the face of it allowing people to log into a capped arena on the low numbers country sounds good ----- BUT

1) There still isn't enough willing to switch sides in the first place.

2) Would need a way of stopping them immediately swapping to the higher side once in.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Kev367th

[edit] On the face of it allowing people to log into a capped arena on the low numbers country sounds good ----- BUT

1) There still isn't enough willing to switch sides in the first place.

2) Would need a way of stopping them immediately swapping to the higher side once in.

100% agreement.

Also, limiting them from switching sides then prevents the minority who does try to create some balance from doing so, which gives you the same problem you had in the first place.

[The Fugitive]

ENY wasn't designed to "force" people to switch sides, it was to give the more populated side a handycap. Switching sides is just an option for those who can't handle flying the older, less uber rides.

I think the idea of letting people log into the under populated countries has merit. Switching countries once in the arena would have to be turned off. Using the same hour limit, you could log out of the arena, then back in getting the choice of which under populated country there was again to switch.

As it stands now, once an arena hits it cap, the numbers are stagnet till the other arenas population gets high enough to open more room. This doesn't really allow any "evening of the sides" as it were.

 There will still be those that will cry that they can't get into the arena to fly with there squads, but it may help to even up the side which in the end would take care of the ENY whines.

[Mr No Name]

Originally posted by VERTEX
We need simplification, not more complexity. Get rid of squads.

If squads are eliminated players will not worry as much about which arena they are in.


 

Squads are what kept the lights on in the early days here.  They are also the reason most players stay in the game.  I am rejoining to help my 12 year old nephew learn this game after leaving for 6 months over the arena caps after playing here 5 years.

I have been in the same squad for many years (LONG before we moved to this game)  If I cant fly with them when I want to without switching to a barren arena, no point in paying to play the game.

Squads are the biggest reason for player retention, if they are eliminated, you can start looking for another game to play because we will move elsewhere.

[DaPup]

Originally posted by SlapShot
This problem has all been fleshed out in great detail ...

800+ posts

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=194277&highlight=arena+balance

1000+ posts

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187226&highlight=arena+balance

My post that I quoted above ...

http://forums.hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=187937&highlight=arena+balance

A simple search using ... "arena balance" will give you more reading and discussion on this topic that would keep you busy for quite some time.

Of course if all the posts of people calling others whiners were removed they would have been about 2/3 shorter in length  

I can't help but laugh at all the people who whine about whiners, this bbs has definitely gone way downhill in the last few years....you get one posted complaint (whine to some) and then 10 posts from the bbs police telling them to stop whining or that the door is ------> that way.....priceless

[Ghastly]

After thinking it over, I think I'd suggest making a few changes (additions) to the current cap/eny system.

The first addition I would make would be to allow each squadron leader to choose a single home arena and a default side for the squadron.  The arena chosen would never deny the squadron members entry, regardless of current arena caps, and would always start the player on the default side without any side change penalty or bonus as described below (unless they've recently switched, in which case they remain on the country recently switched to).  To prevent gaming it, this setting could only be changed once a day or perhaps even less frequently.  For all practical purposes at this time it would realistically only be applicable to the late war arenas since you are never locked out of any of the other arenas due to cap restrictions, but should that change in the future each squadron commander could choose something other than one of the 2 LW arenas to guarantee his squadron can always join up in their particular "home" arena.  Yes, this caters to the squadrons, but in a pretty limited fashion.

The second addition I would make is to add two multipliers to the arena settings.  The first is a side switch bonus, where if a player changes sides TO the weakest side, they are given a perk point bonus of current ENY times this MULTIPLIER.  I'd set this MULTIPLIER to 2 to start. (Eny of 25 means a 50 point bonus for changing to the weakest side).

The second multiplier is the inverse of the first - if a player wants to change AWAY from the weakest side, they are CHARGED ENY times this second multiplier to do so.  I'd set this to half. (ENY of 25 means a charge of 12.5 to change away from the weakest side).

The reason you need the bonus and charge to be asymetrical is that if it's not, there is much less incentive for people to change to the weaker side.  If I know the squad is flying in an hour and half, I might endure player suspicions and change to the weakest side if it gave me perk points - but wouldn't if I knew it might cost me just as many - or perhaps more - to change back later to join with the squad if the numbers are still out of whack.

The third addition I'd make is to add another 2 arena settings to be used for determining Inactive status.  Any player who's vehicle has not moved (or is in the tower) and who has not pressed a key or moved the mouse for the length of the first timer should be rostered as "Inactive".  Inactive player's should be subtracted from ENY calculations.  Additionally, any player who has been inactive and is not "in flight"  for longer than the second timer should be dropped from the arena.  I'd set these to 5 minutes for the first, and 10 minutes for the second, allowing a player to camp in the tower for a total of 15 minutes AFK before they are autologged.   Using Inactive status as defined above would make it very hard to game unlike either the current methodology where total users per country are used or the oft requested  " use "in flight" only for ENY calculations".

[The Fugitive]

For smaller squads, having a "home" country/arena, might be ok, but lets take the BOPs as an example. They are Bishops, they choose "orange" as their arena. Now you have 300 folk in orange, and its BOP squad night. If a good number of them show, it will show a big jump in the arena numbers. Those "having" to log into blue are now all over the BBS whining about how the numbers are over the cap, and BOPs can get in but they can't, not to mention all the other squads they have done much the same. You get three or four squads logging into orange at the same time and forget it.

Perk points are only important to newbies. After 6 months here you learn how to "perk farm", and after a few jet rides you figure out that they aren't that big a deal. Only perk ride I like is the C hog, and I have enough perk to fly it for weeks, even the way I fly !  LOL!!

I think its already been mentioned that "timers" to kick people OUT of the game isn't something HTC wants to do, after all they work very hard trying to get them IN to play the game.

[hubsonfire]

Originally posted by Ghastly
 Yes, this caters to the squadrons, but in a pretty limited fashion.

 

It is zero restriction for any and all squads. All you have to make a squad is name it and send an invite. You are then a squad, and free from any all arena restrictions.

This is not catering to them in a limited fashion. It is just like Baldeagl's initial suggestion- "make if affect anyone but us".

As far as perks, we already have perk multipliers that greatly increase the perks earned, and decreases perk costs for the underdogs, and does the opposite for the horde. Such things will not change player behaviors, beyond being a slight reward, or a slight penalty. You can look at the current situations and see that for yourself. It might limit a few noobs who aren't really going to have an upsetting effect on gameplay to begin with, but for the vets with years old accounts, banks of tens of thousands of perks mean they aren't affected at all.

I'm not a huge fan of the timers to kick people out either. Regardless of their effects on ENY, there's no way of knowing that they're AFK, or how long they will be, and they pay for unlimited access to the servers, just like everyone else. It would be, in my mind, a huge mistake from a business perspective.