MA Off-peak is dying

[Lusche]

In this thread as well as a few others, the way folks talk would leave one to believe that subscriptions are declining.  I have no way to know if that be true or false. 

Everybody here for some time can compare the number of player's online now & then (especially when you keep notes ), which is actually more of interest for us players and the gameplay than the 'number of subscribers' - the latter thing is a business matter.
You can also see on the stats page the number of kills and deaths per tour, which is mainly a result of player numbers. Furthermore, the stats page give you the number of players in each plane... and last you can simply look at the lowest rank numbers.

Years ago the lowest number of players at off peak time has been around 100. These days they occasionally drop below 40.

[Lusche]

If you did capture a single base you would be tied with all the other players that didn't capture a base and that number use to be in the 5000 area. Now its in the 3000 area.

Simply look at the rank number for any player in 'base captures' in attack mode to see the relative change, as nobody will get any.

[Lusche]

I dont agree so much with this,if all 20 people playing are on the same side and sitting in the tower because the other country is empty,i think plenty will side balance like so often happens in MidWar.

Just did one of my rare forays into MW:



Was totally reminded of old EW, both in overall number as well as the high number country was walking as a single force over the map, with no way to really engage them as a single pilot.  If you really are that great to stop them 1 vs 5-10 (hardly possible), they will strike just elsewhere.
Got a feel of history repeating.

[10thmd]

An idea I've put forward a few times is to reward players for fighting while outnumbered. Every time a player scores a kill a score multiplier would be applied based on the number of red and green icons visible at the time. So more red than green = higher score and vice versa. This punishes those who hide in hordes picking and rewards those who up to defend a field from a horde. It gives the score-obsessed a reason to engage a more numerous enemy and so should mean more combat for everyone.

This idea is amazing.... I am usually surrounded by 3-6 red planes in my Stuka I get one or 2 of them and maybe a tank or 2 but one of them usually gets me in the end.

[Sunka]

Just did one of my rare forays into MW:

(Image removed from quote.)

Was totally reminded of old EW, both in overall number as well as the high number country was walking as a single force over the map, with no way to really engage them as a single pilot.  If you really are that great to stop them 1 vs 5-10 (hardly possible), they will strike just elsewhere.
Got a feel of history repeating.

Like i already stated ,that's where milk runners go,and i can go in later  or at anytime to prove my points as numbers are dynamic. And btw i have stoped 5 and more of em..ask the FF's about me.

[guncrasher]

You make it sound as though I have said something unpleasant about your mother.. If my amusing photograph (Which I feel perfectly illustrates your responses.) has hurt your sensitive feelings I apologize.

Every single time somebody starts a thread suggesting changes you pop up with essentially "Game is fine, nothing wrong. If you aren't having fun quit.", when clearly numbers have dropped enough that a lot of us who are left are concerned about it. I think the new terrain engine is amazing and I think it will lure some new players into the game and hopefully bring some of the old ones back. But I also think that without changes to the game mechanics the terrain engine is just eyecandy and that will only distract players from the things that have caused them to leave the game for so long.

that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better.  for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde".  when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.

for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map).  we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome.  at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation?  if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will?  why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.

and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded?  if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys?  or the other 18 that were defending?  why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?

wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?

semp

[MrRiplEy[H]]

that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better.  for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde".  when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.

for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map).  we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome.  at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation?  if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will?  why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.

and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded?  if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys?  or the other 18 that were defending?  why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?

wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?

semp

No, you would just get mad because you wouldn't get much any points by riding with the horde. And this is how it should be. It would take immediately away the incentive of hording, only noobs would flock in large numbers as a crutch and anyone interested in score would pick even fights instead. Score multiplier could be had also with scoring kills in early war birds vs late war. The eny multiplier and perks are not strong enough, a single kill on C202 should score the same as 10 kills in a tempest.

[kvuo75]

and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded? 

simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range.  10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1

etc.

of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..

[MrRiplEy[H]]

simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range.  10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1

etc.

of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..

Not necessarily. The multiplier should be made so that it REALLY hurts your score to horde. Basically a base capture on a milk run with no defenders would yield you close to zero score. The score would actually be zero unless there were the acks defending the field

[Hap]

What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?

[MrRiplEy[H]]

What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?

No, eliminating unfair gameplay. Most games have 'auto balancers' to prevent all dweebs from joining the larger side in order to rape the smaller side repeatedly untill they decide to quit. The plane point multiplier would be an incentive for players to use early war birds in order to gain score faster. It would balance the game field because 'pro' players would use EW birds for large score gains as they have skills to kill the noobs in the super planes. The noobs then again would need to use the super planes just to survive untill they learn to play good enough to survive with early war birds and gain some real score.

If the scoring would be jilted in a way that the only way to achieve nr 1 rank would be to play using a challenging plane it would both even up the learning curve and add usage to the planeset.

[Tinkles]

Like i already stated ,that's where milk runners go,and i can go in later  or at anytime to prove my points as numbers are dynamic. And btw i have stoped 5 and more of em..ask the FF's about me.

I can only go there now due to the lag I get in the main arena. Other than that is 1 v 1s in the DA 

While I agree some go into EW/MW for perk farming.  Others don't.   

[Gemini]

Another thread with plenty of good suggestions (SMALL MAPS!) getting buried beneath the bad ones, and semp's usual idiocy...

...that will be completely ignored by HTC

 

[The Fugitive]

that's because most ideas are not very well thought out and people dont actually see that perhaps the change wont be for the better.  for example this one about giving extra perks to those who up to defend against a "horde".  when you first look at it it sounds like a great idea. but then when you really think about the specifics about how it will or should be implemented then you realize that it may actually be bad for the game.

for example yesterday we had some really cool furballs around 3 or 4 bases in the northwest corner (cant remember the map).  we kept pushing their fights all the way back to their base furballing the full way till vulch time then they would push us back to our base then vulching back, it was awesome.  at which point would you consider giving extra perks in this situation?  if somebody ups to defend before they enter they dar circle does that mean he wont get extra perks? so some lucky guy that ups 3 seconds after he does will?  why? wont the first guy get mad about how the game is stupid as he didnt get extra perks and comes post a thread that he's quitting.

and how do you expect the definition of a horde to be coaded?  if there's a furball of 20 against 20 and one side kills 18 while losing 5 does that mean it is now a "horde" because it is 15 v 2? so the next guy that ups will get extra perks but what about them two guys?  or the other 18 that were defending?  why should the lucky guy get extra perks for doing nothing other than just waiting in the tower to up at the right time?

wont the other 20 players that were defending get upset? wont it make some people just wait in the tower for the right time to up?

semp

So just because you don't know/understand how the points/perks would be awarded its a bad idea?  

simple, just a perk point multiplier based on enemy / friendlies in range.  10 enemy vs 10 friendly = perks*1.0, 10 enemy vs 5 friendly = perks*2.0, 10 enemy vs 1 friendly = perks*10.0, 1 enemy vs 10 friendly (horde), perks*0.1

etc.

of course it could be tweaked (10x might be a bit excessive)..

...and it would be figured like the perk price/multiplier when you launch. It wouldn't change as the situation changes while your in the air. You launch with even numbers you don't get any multiplier. But lose 75% of your force IF you reup after you land/die you now get a multiplier because your outnumbered.

What's the goal of these ideas: eliminate the possibility of a bunch of guys flying together to take a base?

Not eliminate it, but either make it harder for a larger force to accomplish it's goal, or give more incentive to defend/fight against such a large force.

[pembquist]

MA off peak is dying. This isn't about hordes etc. it is about a critical mass of players that is required for the game to transcend. It may well be that the terrains available now work well with over 100 players but lousy with less. Is there a population number below which you won't bother logging on? Do you think some combination of smaller terrains, easier or harder base capture, two country arena, shut down of all other arenas, in the off peak or when total population numbers pass below a trigger, basically densification of the battle sphere, would improve the experience of playing with a low head count?