MA Off-peak is dying

[MrRiplEy[H]]

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?

Me being euro I can tell you this: It's bad enough to have low numbers when you log on off-peak. But to have the numbers 50-20-10 really makes gameplay pointless for the side which happens to be the 10 and largely also to the side that is the 20. The 50 horde mindlessly steamrolling fields fighting mostly auto ack while the low numbered players either spend 30 minutes climbing for each sortie and eventually get picked or simply give up and move to gv or field guns. The stupidest part is that it's not even fun for the 50 anymore with so little targets to shoot at. But hey, it makes for a great k/d stat when you always have 10 friends wiping your tail, doesn't it?

The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.

[Lusche]

The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.

Now this is one thing I fully agree with you

And the lower total numbers are, the higher the chances are that they are totally lopsided.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Now this is one thing I fully agree with you

And the lower total numbers are, the higher the chances are that they are totally lopsided.

Cool, so you may see where I'm coming from with my silly ideas on making carrot/stick incentives for players to balance the playing field.

[guncrasher]

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.

lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills.  I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont  fly perk planes or gv's.  so perks are useless for me.  same goes for score points.  if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.

btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights.  you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time.  you get it by picking and vulching.  pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.  

semp

[Lusche]

Cool, so you may see where I'm coming from with my silly ideas on making carrot/stick incentives for players to balance the playing field.

Oh, I fully see where you are coming from, I just don't see most ideas in this thread work very well   

But of course, it doesn't matter, as there's only one guy any of you will have to convince... and that's not me  

[The Fugitive]

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?

whats used to control horde prime time US will help control them prime time Euro. Like MrRipley said 50-20-10 the 50 is STILL a horde. I think the easiest and quickest thing would be going back to the arena switch each day like when we had the split arenas. Using only the smaller maps for Euro time would help playability, but be a bit of a bummer as they would have fewer maps to "roll" through 

lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills.  I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont  fly perk planes or gv's.  so perks are useless for me.  same goes for score points.  if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.

btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights.  you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time.  you get it by picking and vulching.  pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights. 

semp

Again, it's not about you! We all know your very happy with your head in the sand drinking beer and shooting the crap with your buddies. This pertains to the other players who are seeing an issue with game imbalances.

Oh, I fully see where you are coming from, I just don't see most ideas in this thread work very well   

But of course, it doesn't matter, as there's only one guy any of you will have to convince... and that's not me 

Maybe these ideas aren't the best, but it may spark an idea to that one person that you are referring to. 

[guncrasher]

Maybe these ideas aren't the best, but it may spark an idea to that one person that you are referring to. 

so why is it wrong when I give you some reasons why it wouldnt work so you can go back to rethink and come up with a better idea?


semp

[ReVo]

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

I'm not saying every idea is perfect, but at least people are thinking. Saying that you dislike an idea is one thing, but you seem to be in denial that there is a problem at all.

[Gemini]

edit: wrong thread

[pembquist]

Me being euro I can tell you this: It's bad enough to have low numbers when you log on off-peak. But to have the numbers 50-20-10 really makes gameplay pointless for the side which happens to be the 10 and largely also to the side that is the 20. The 50 horde mindlessly steamrolling fields fighting mostly auto ack while the low numbered players either spend 30 minutes climbing for each sortie and eventually get picked or simply give up and move to gv or field guns. The stupidest part is that it's not even fun for the 50 anymore with so little targets to shoot at. But hey, it makes for a great k/d stat when you always have 10 friends wiping your tail, doesn't it?

The lower the numbers, the higher the impact of hordeing is.

Interesting, I did not realize the dynamic was that bad. It sounds like it devolves into a sort of solitaire, where accomplishing the mission of capturing bases is played against the computer. What effect do you think making bases harder to capture for the bigger side would have? If staged missions worked better do you think they could play a role in balancing numbers when the total population is low?

It seems to me though, that hordeing might be considered a symptom of low numbers that is relieved by an increase in population rather than the cause. I recognize there is probably a negative feedback loop with population decline and it sounds like hordeing is one of the stronger mechanisms at work, and yet it also might be responsible for keeping more rather than less people on below some critical number.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills.  I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont  fly perk planes or gv's.  so perks are useless for me.  same goes for score points.  if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.

btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights.  you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time.  you get it by picking and vulching.  pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.  

semp

If a C202 kill will land you 100x points it will mean that people will pwn any easy-mode riders in a jibby.

I know CURRENTLY nobody wants to pick even fights to boost their score. This is why I was suggesting to change the scoring. How come you didn't realize that? LOL.

[MrRiplEy[H]]

Interesting, I did not realize the dynamic was that bad. It sounds like it devolves into a sort of solitaire, where accomplishing the mission of capturing bases is played against the computer.

Yes exactly, most times I played lately I was asking the opfor why don't they log off and play offline if they want to fight auto ack with no opposition. Completely senseless and stupid.

[Golden Dragon]

lol, I fly a pony which gives me like 1 perk point for every 20 kills.  I couldnt care less about the perks, I got thousands that I dont use as I dont  fly perk planes or gv's.  so perks are useless for me.  same goes for score points.  if I really care about score, I wouldnt auger so much just because it's faster than landing the plane to go somewhere else.

btw ripley anybody interested in score will never pick even fights.  you dont get to be #1 rank by actually fighting every single time.  you get it by picking and vulching.  pick any category and you will only be #1 rank if you avoid fights.  

semp

Well said Semp.  I fly exclusively both variants of the pony and I'll never be even top 100 because I'll chase that running rabbit right through his ack and under his twenty foaming at the mouth friends above.  I do enjoy the angry pms I get from top 100 types after I've smoked them.  So many egos it's funny and a little sad.  In fact when I was last on I had one guy angrily accuse me of pulling my cables to avoid a shootdown.  Whatever the heck that means. 

[Lusche]

I think the impact of score on gameplay tends to be significantly overrated. Folks don't horde and grab bases for score, especially not in fighters. Competing with 20 other guys for a single kill doesn't really help your score.
It's just like ENY limits generally never made a significant number of players switch to the outnumbered side (not even when it was 1h), even though they complain a lot about not being able to fly 'their' ride. At worst (best?) they just log off instead or stay in tower waiting for someone else to log.

For many players, contributing to a base capture is their main (and sometimes only) way to get a small share of "victory". They often have little means of winning any other way (Most folks that complain here about hording are way above the average pilot in skill level.) A battle for base that doesn't end with a capture is a lost battle. Flying together increases their chance for a victory. Winning the war is the ultimate victory. Kinda easy to say they should cherish the fight and not the grab when you are not the one dying 9 out of 10 times in regular, 'noble' combat

And defending the base just does not give them the same feel of accomplishment. No big fanfare telling everybody "A44 has been defended by Rooks". Furthermore, defending is reactive, and ppl want to have the initiative. That's why you never read "I'm tired of capturing bases, who wants to defend one with me?", but frequently the opposite.

It's mostly about psychology, and relatively little about score or perks...

[guncrasher]

I'm not saying every idea is perfect, but at least people are thinking. Saying that you dislike an idea is one thing, but you seem to be in denial that there is a problem at all.

I never said I disliked the idea.  but the idea without specifics is just a brain fart.  people need to really think about specifics and how it will affect the game for all. I have pointed out some reasons why that is a bad idea.  you want to look at another idea?  ripley's idea of making the c202 give you 100x points.  do you really think that it's gonna make people up swarms of ew, mw planes in the ma just because it gives you more points?  cause I have some land in the ew and mw arena to sell you.  you already get more points for upping ew and mw planes anyway.

semp