HT I have a better way for arena transitions.

[hitech]

Trust me, your not

HiTech if anyone knows that the split fixed one problem but created another. It's a temporary fix.

Are you sure? I wouldn't be.

LOL! No way dude.

Temporary fix that has been in place for 3 or 4 years?

HiTech

[Wiley]

A split would only happen when total number is at 400 or more. You're clinging on worst case scenario once in a million issues that will never in reality happen. You have to think of better arguments than that.

You see those three battles I described every night, on one front or another.  Explain if it went that way why they wouldn't act as I described.  It's ok, I know you can't.

All sides get equally broken up, nothing will change.

I just illustrated how an 'equal' breaking up can completely unbalance what's going on in the arena.  You've shown nothing that disproves that.  You've instead given an assertion that 'it wouldn't happen', and basically clapped your hands over your ears and repeatedly shouted 'No No No No No'.

I'm sorry, no. You're totally clinging to every negative aspect you can think of and fail to see the huge benefit.

No I'm not.  The 3 battles I just described are going on every night, country names may change.  I've given you a specific example that makes your system fall apart.  A system like this needs to be able to deal with contingencies.  If it's this easy to show how it could be broken, it's not a good system, Ripley.  The situation I described above is not uncommon, the peoples' reactions are not uncommon to what goes on in the arenas, your handwaving aside.

True and this would be a problem indeed if there was 100 player squads. Now you see a local change that's temporary at most. Arena is like a sea - where ever a hole is formed it's soon filled with new players.

And where are they going to log into?  The first server.

What's laughable is your false assumption that large amounts of people would for some imaginary reason want to switch sides when they see no difference in the new or old side after the split.

I just showed you a scenario that happens every night.  Explain why those people wouldn't be unhappy when their fight vanished before their eyes.  That is not an imaginary reason, Ripley.  Then explain why the effect wouldn't snowball as people relogged back to the first arena.

Wiley.

[Lusche]

Temporary fix that has been in place for 3 or 4 years?

tempus fugit... 

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Temporary fix that has been in place for 3 or 4 years?

HiTech

Temporary can be stretched I guess. So are you saying in your opinnion the current setup is flawless and no development is going to be made on it?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

You see those three battles I described every night, on one front or another.  Explain if it went that way why they wouldn't act as I described.  It's ok, I know you can't.

Your examples were based on worst case scenarios you imagined. Zero truth.

I just illustrated how an 'equal' breaking up can completely unbalance what's going on in the arena.  You've shown nothing that disproves that.  You've instead given an assertion that 'it wouldn't happen', and basically clapped your hands over your ears and repeatedly shouted 'No No No No No'.

Your example had no basis in any reality.

No I'm not.  The 3 battles I just described are going on every night, country names may change.  I've given you a specific example that makes your system fall apart.  A system like this needs to be able to deal with contingencies.  If it's this easy to show how it could be broken, it's not a good system, Ripley.  The situation I described above is not uncommon, the peoples' reactions are not uncommon to what goes on in the arenas, your handwaving aside.

A single battle will soon be replaced with another. A whole server closing isn't.

And where are they going to log into?  The first server.

When you have two 200 player servers to choose from, what makes you pick one or another? The only motivation is if theres large number indifference or your squaddies are on one side.

I just showed you a scenario that happens every night.  Explain why those people wouldn't be unhappy when their fight vanished before their eyes.  That is not an imaginary reason, Ripley.  Then explain why the effect wouldn't snowball as people relogged back to the first arena.

Wiley.

It's 100% imaginary as AH at its current state never develops two equally full arenas, just two empty arenas that start to get populated from scratch. If you have a pool with 20 naked women and 2 naked women, which one are you going to jump to? How about two pools both filled with 20 naked women? Or will you run away?

[Wiley]

Your examples were based on worst case scenarios you imagined. Zero truth.

So you're saying every battle in the arena is even?  Sides are always even?  Cool!  I must be imagining it when one side outnumbers the other 3:1 in a sector and my perk multiplier goes above 1.5.

When you have two 200 player servers to choose from, what makes you pick one or another? The only motivation is if theres large number indifference or your squaddies are on one side.

People pick the top one.  That's been shown time and again in this game.

It's 100% imaginary

As is your argument.  People don't act rationally here, you can see that time and again if you just log into one of the Main Arenas.  You're positing a system that requires the people to stay where they are completely of their own accord.  That won't happen, I'm sorry, but it won't.

just two empty arenas that start to get populated from scratch. If you have a pool with 20 naked women and 2 naked women, which one are you going to jump to? How about two pools both filled with 20 naked women? Or will you run away?

It's ok, Ripley.  I accept your concession.  I won't bother refuting your idea further, as I've already shown it's a demonstrably bad idea, your irrelevant handwaving aside, anyone who realizes people rarely do what you want them to can see why it won't work.  Cheers. 

Wiley.

[AWwrgwy]

I have a suggestion then. Next time the large arena gets capped you and your entire squad will move to the empty arena so I can get in with my friends. Deal? I see it's not a problem for YOU Sir <S> your help is greatly appreciated!

So the answer is no, you would not move to join a squad mate in an open arena.


wrongway

[bustr]

Wouldn't it be easier for the coading involved and the subsiquent forum complaint fests if you got a simple "accept or decline" message that ports you to the tower in the new arena or dumps you out of the game?

What is more important to many players in the face of the fact that the arenas will change over to the late night arena?

1. Yes, that it never happens in the first place and kills their enjoyment. That Hitech goes back to ONE arena forever and forever.
2. Have a simple one click vehical to port you along with all of your friends?
3. Knowing the simple vehical is porting enough players to have action to join into at the destination?

Over the last month I've stayed on late for the change over. Sometimes quite a few players reenter the new arena and the fun picks back up. Many other times my own squad mates have said they would see me there and never log back in. Along with that the late night arena never really seems to repopulate back to the numbers who were playing just a few minutes earlier. This last sentance is a perceptual observation. But, the observation in itself shows a lessening of what I wanted to perceive in the "FUN" I was seeking. I venture it is an effect many experience during the arena change.

Ask yourselves just how much "Gamus Interruptus" pulls the cork on your enthusiasm. Interruption of the time and emotional capitol you invest into your personal enjoyment is a tangable quantity which can be observed, measured, and influenced by external sources. At times many of you vote your "Gamus Interruptus" by not choosing to enter the new arena. That is a predictable response to the sudden stoppage of your brains enjoyment of it's "FUN" chemicals. That sudden feeling of mild depression and lack of insparation when the plug gets pulled.

A way to lessen this is by the presence of a simple future "FUN" expectation choice. A popup that gives you two simple choices which yourself and your friends can respond to as a "FUN" seeking group. It gives you control over some amount of the lost "FUN" expectation by knowing you can click yes and be in the new tower with all of your freinds.

It may not seem rational to quit out of the game in the simplicty of the arena choice menu and using your mouse to click back into the late night arena. When the disconnect GUI pops up and boots you from the game, it was not your choice to get booted from your "FUN". In essence the game is rejecting you. You cannot be blamed for responding by leaving for the night. You paid your $14.95. A simple popup giving you the choice of moving directly to the new arena or being ejected in it's simplicity is very powerful because you do not perceive the game rejecting you. Now you have the choice to leave on your terms or, seek more "FUN".

[CAP1]

this new feature could be added for transitions to after hours and for transitions to blue and orange and titanic teusday main arenas to eliminate all transition problems. making the move to the new arena could be toggled as a accept decline window or somthing as well.

the buff pilots would like it. you could port squads en mass to either arena whichever needed a block of pilots.

its pretty seamless. might take abit of Coad though.

------

complex? hard to coad? so is a realistic ww2 flight/combat sim but ht did that so heres a technical curveball.

1. coaded to port only when new arena opens. no ones going to be at the enemies bases yet anyway.

2. if you accept the port you get landed credit on your current sortie and your sortie after the port is new. or you could perhaps null out the previous sortie and have it not count or scored at all the way it happens with current host connection lost sorties when the server closes.

3. you would not have a choice where you get ported. its all the needs of the arena.

4. it theoretically can be coaded to have groups of pilots by squad name ported to the same arenas numbers permitting.

5. none of this is neccessary. however the biggest group arena switches hurt is the long range strat targetting buff crowd. having an option to port back to a starting point would make it less frustrating.

see this here? while i think it's kinda weird......at least he is posting an idea....not just crying.....

[MrRiplEy[H]]

So you're saying every battle in the arena is even?  Sides are always even?  Cool!  I must be imagining it when one side outnumbers the other 3:1 in a sector and my perk multiplier goes above 1.5.

You're pretty unbelievable. A 50% split does not alter the balance of the arena by definition. A split will occur only when each side has minimum of 200 players, single squads don't mean diddly squat.

You're trying desperately to dig up 'examples' of scenarios where 'fight 1' has no defenders left by a bizarre coincidence of a fight consisting of only squad members that are all relocated and at the same time at the same arena 'fight 2' would have ALL the rooks in one place and nobody would move to defend the now empty field in the by definition impossible event of all squads moving away. Just one example how you destroy your own case.

So are you saying that right now when a field gets NOE attacked and nobody is already there, attackers end up fighting an empty field? Your examples seem to include the small inconvenience of nobody moving to other fields at any time

[MrRiplEy[H]]

So the answer is no, you would not move to join a squad mate in an open arena.


wrongway

You're missing the real question. It's not about moving 1 player from the occupied side, but exactly the opposite.

[Wiley]

Ugh... didn't... want... to... reply... but nope... gotta do it.

You're trying desperately to dig up 'examples' of scenarios where 'fight 1' has no defenders left by a bizarre coincidence of a fight consisting of only squad members that are all relocated

Why couldn't it happen?  The arena is taking 50% of the people that are in it away, and keeping squads together.  3 squads fighting in an area is not an uncommon scenario.  What is preventing it from happening?  Under your system, 50% of the people from each country go away, and squads are kept together.  That battle satisfies those two conditions.

and at the same time at the same arena

There is only one arena, where else are they going to be?

'fight 2' would have ALL the rooks in one place and nobody would move to defend the now empty field

Because of an arena split, the fight they were just involved in evaporated in front of their eyes.  Are you saying their first reaction is going to be 'find another fight' versus 'go back to the good one they were just having fun in'?

in the by definition impossible event of all squads moving away. Just one example how you destroy your own case.

Why is it by definition impossible?  Please enlighten me.

You're pretty unbelievable. A 50% split does not alter the balance of the arena by definition.

Nope, but it can sure play havoc with what's going on in different areas of the map, which is all people are looking at when they're fighting.  Your assumption is when those local imbalances occur, people will go, 'Gee, I'm going to go find another fight now.' instead of the far more likely 'WTF?  Where did the enemy go?  ...oh, the arena split.  Right. Orange is where the good fights are.  I'm going to log back in there.'

A split will occur only when each side has minimum of 200 players, single squads don't mean diddly squat.

Well, why not save all the coding and just have 1 arena, since 600 players on at once never happens. 

Wiley.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Ugh... didn't... want... to... reply... but nope... gotta do it.

Why couldn't it happen?  The arena is taking 50% of the people that are in it away, and keeping squads together.  3 squads fighting in an area is not an uncommon scenario.  What is preventing it from happening?  Under your system, 50% of the people from each country go away, and squads are kept together.  That battle satisfies those two conditions.

A fight consisting of only squad members and all 3 of them ending up to other side despite only 50% of squads are moved? Astronomically far fetched.

There is only one arena, where else are they going to be?

After the split duh

Because of an arena split, the fight they were just involved in evaporated in front of their eyes.  Are you saying their first reaction is going to be 'find another fight' versus 'go back to the good one they were just having fun in'?

Oh right so you think right now when ppl stop upping a capped field and another field gets attacked, nobody will move to defend? Really?

Youre constantly forgetting that people would just see enemies disappear as if friendlies did them away the traditional way. You think theyd land, log off and move to other side just to see the fight already moved on there too?

Why is it by definition impossible?  Please enlighten me.

Because only half of the squads move. Would be very unlikely to all move away at once. And the fights almost never contain only squad members or even more rarely members of only 1 squad. The more variance the less likely it is to see a shift in balance. A single fight typically consists of members of 5-6 different squads and non sqd members mixed up. Small fights can be 1 squad but get a grip its 1 time a day event that is fixed by moving to next field for crying out loud.

And even if they did wth one FIGHT vs shutdown of the Whole arena???

Nope, but it can sure play havoc with what's going on in different areas of the map, which is all people are looking at when they're fighting.  Your assumption is when those local imbalances occur, people will go, 'Gee, I'm going to go find another fight now.' instead of the far more likely 'WTF?  Where did the enemy go?  ...oh, the arena split.  Right. Orange is where the good fights are.  I'm going to log back in there.'

You dont get it lol! With an even split no side will have a "better" fight. Your way of thinking is solidly stuck on the current setup where the two arenas have a totally different numbers and state of war. Im sorry but it seems you do not know how to think out of the box.

Well, why not save all the coding and just have 1 arena, since 600 players on at once never happens.  

Wiley.

The last quote sums it up. Only 2 sides to a split - ive repeated the 400 treshold 5 times already and you still missed the Mark.

[Wiley]

A fight consisting of only squad members and all 3 of them ending up to other side despite only 50% of squads are moved? Astronomically far fetched.

'Astronomical'?  Hardly, Ripley.  Ok, it doesn't even have to be all squaddies.  Say 10 of them are individuals.  What's preventing all 10 of them from being moved to the second arena?  Answer?  'It's unlikely'.  Go to any system designer anywhere, Ripley.  Find out how far 'Oh, that's unlikely to happen' gets with them.  If it can happen, it has to be accounted for.

Oh right so you think right now when ppl stop upping a capped field and another field gets attacked, nobody will move to defend? Really?

That's not what happened, though.  The entire enemy force just vanished in front of them.  They know they're still doing their thing in Arena 1.  Why are they not going to go back there?

Because only half of the squads move. Would be very unlikely to all move away at once.

I reiterate, unlikely != impossible.  If it happens, what are people going to do?  Answer, go to the arena they just left.  There's nothing stopping them.

You dont get it lol! With an even split no side will have a "better" fight.

I just showed it kill 2 fights.  Your system does nothing to prevent those circumstances from happening.  There is no more to say to that.

Your way of thinking is solidly stuck on the current setup where the two arenas have a totally different numbers and state of war. Im sorry but it seems you do not know how to think out of the box.

No it isn't.  I'm envisioning the arena as it looks on any given night, with local number imbalances across all fronts.  Your way of thinking is assuming that all numbers are equal in every battle on the map, and that after the split, through sheer luck, both sides will have retained enough people in all areas to continue the fight they were involved in, and people will be ok with it.  The shortsighted optimism is staggering.  Again, go to a system designer, ask him how far 'it's unlikely' gets you.

The last quote sums it up. Only 2 sides to a split - ive repeated the 400 treshold 5 times already and you still missed the Mark.

I'd been operating off of an arena of 400, you then said 200 to 'a side', I thought you meant 'per country' which was different from what you'd been on about before.  That's why I asked for clarification.

Wiley.

[AWwrgwy]

You're missing the real question. It's not about moving 1 player from the occupied side, but exactly the opposite.

You're missing my point.

The solution to your "problem" is within your own hands to fix but apparently each individual in the group is unwilling to do so.

The idea being presented is you forcibly move people. Wasn't there an "accept/decline" box? Why would anyone accept?

The means to fly with your squad are available in game now. It's up to the squad to all get together.

The next question has to be, what is more important, where you fly or with whom do you fly?

Life is hard sometimes. It requires thinking for one's self and making decisions.

But, whining is so much easier.


wrongway