Second Night Reflections

[Trukk]

*** Warning, random long winded post follows ***

General Observations

1. When the bases are the focus of the map, the action naturally gravitates to a base and often turns into a vulch fest (because they are also the spawn points).

2. The AvA doesn't have the player numbers to support tasks that require more than a few guys to coordinate well together.

3. One thing the BoA did well was move the focus away from the fields (ie spawn points), making for "en route", moving engagements.

4. One thing the BoA didn't do well was restrict the valid targets so that too much time was spent doing the "whack a mole" thing, chasing guys all over the map.

5.  Although we are tying to simulate a war, in reality it is a game/competition and because of this the side losing round 1, shouldn't be penalized in round two.  All this does is further imbalance the game/competition, driving players away.  It'd be like the loser of the first game of the World Series being forced to use inferior bats on the second game, or having fewer outs, etc.

Bombers

I'm not into furballing or land grabbing so I won't comment on what arena/campaign settings work or don't work for that but what I do like to do is fly realistic missions (mostly escorting bombers).  Right now the setup does not promote level bombing.  We had a couple of guys in bombers last night and really the only thing we could do that would affect the war was to bomb a single V-Base radar that was close to our front line field.

What I'd like to see is an expanded role for level bombers.  Something where they could fly their missions, have a decent chance of getting at least one bomber home and have an affect on the war (but not a disproportionate one).

Proposal (I've no idea if the arena settings will support this)

Harden a base object so that it takes ~2000lbs of bombs to take it down and add a long rebuild time (fuel for example).  Then pick three bases where destroying these objects counts towards winning the war (and announce it in the MOTD).  The three bases chosen should be close enough together that the defender has a good chance of intercepting the bombers before they drop, but the bombers also have a good chance of at least getting to target.

The three bases should be chosen by the campaign designer to reflect the relative capabilities of the opposing sides.  So if one side has B-17s and the other Ju-88s, the targets for the B-17 would be further back and either close together or very separated.  Their placement would change on a weekly basis depending on frontline movements and introduction of more capable aircraft.

At some time on a daily basis check the targets and tally the points.  The points would count towards winning the campaign, but no more so (and probably less) than the land grab component.

[sldered]

I think we need do try and "recruit" more numbers into the AVA.

[Trukk]

Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.

[Anaxogoras]

Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.

Like Spixteens, Nikis and P-51s?

[Trukk]

No, like good gameplay that caters to a broad audience.  What does "Like Spixteens, Nikis and P-51s?" have to do with this thread?

[Anaxogoras]

You mentioned attracting more players.  The most effective way to do that would be to add the Spixteen, Niki and P-51.  The base capture and strategy differences between the MA and AvA only partially accounts for the small numbers in the AvA arena.

[Damionte]

At the same time, flying the LW rdes does have the most appeal. More than anything else it is the limited plane sets that have pushed people away from the AvA.

The AvA is like being stuck in the same FSO event for a month at a time. The FSO's are tolerable because you're only stuck in a plane or situation you don't really want to be in for a few hours on a single night of the week. More than anything people want to do what THEY want to do, and when THEY want to do it. The AvA doesn't allow this which is why no one is in here.

For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.

[Trukk]

You mentioned attracting more players.

Where exactly do I say that?

[Trukk]

For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.

That's what the MAs a for, anything you do to try to add some more depth is by definition going to add some sort of restriction.  Otherwise it's just a small MA.

[Anaxogoras]

Where exactly do I say that?

Hard to recruit if you don't have something that attracts them.

My jab about Spixteens wasn't aimed at you trukk.

[Chemdawg]

I agree. The point of a separate arena from the MA's would be so that it is different in some way shape or form. The are obviously some problems right now but obviously is going to get better. Each week the planesets change thereby negating the boredom of only one planeset per "month". Which, according to this thread is the reason numbers are down in the AvA. And last but not least, you have to remember that it was one of us, the players that came up with this very in-depth idea. So give him a little leeway. Just give him suggestions instead of bashing the arena. I know someone is going to say "I didn't say that". just read this thread and you'll realize the tone it's taken...or I have had too many beers for lunch.

A big   to TheBug!!

[TheBug]

For every restriction we put in that is one more type of player that turns away.

This is actually a very true statement.  But as Trukk mentions, if we fully follow this edict we might as well just pull the plug on the AvA and head to the MA.  The AvA does not need 300 players to succeed.  A good goal would be to achieve a 70-100 active player base.  The secret is to find the recipe of "restrictions" that attracts enough people, but does not force the AvA to lose it's historical based nature.  In what other arena has the player input been placed in such high regard??  SEA for sure, but that is not a 24/7 arena.  In no other arena is there the opportunity for players to build something of their own.  I am positive that there are enough players out their that would much prefer an AvA over the MA.  We have to keep advertising and keep working on the good points.  If we build it they will come.  

Of course there are issues with this setup, I would of been a liar if I said I wouldn't of anticipated such.  But I'm observing, learning and trying to make changes.  So let's be patient, keep discussing and keep thinking our way to a better arena.  First and foremost though, let's make them jealous of our community.  

[Chemdawg]

let's make them jealous of our community.

 

[Trukk]

Which, according to this thread is the reason numbers are down in the AvA.

This thread is about giving bomber pilots something to do where they can fly realistic missions that contribute in some small way to the campaign.

[Chemdawg]

I apologize Trukk. I must have misread what you were saying in the first post.