Kill the huge maps in off hours . . . PLEASE

[The Fugitive]

psst, I'm not paying for a game to code for it as well. Besides, I don't know the first thing about building a map and certainly am not about to learn as a requirement to give a company money for a monthly service. Lastly, as has been noted up thread numerous times, you don't need new maps, and more smaller ones thrown into the current rotation changes little. The large, hard-to-conquer maps will still dominate.

The entirety of your post has nothing of merit or value, which itself is quite the accomplishment for such a rant.

No your paying to play in the sandbox HTC has provided. Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.

so do you just switch maps, and have no winner? then go on to a new map? all the perk farmers would go ballistic. unless they recode something, theres no way to save points and settings and then come back to it. so to end the fight, to switch to a smaller map, then switch back in the morning when there are "more players on"? it would be alot of coding. not that i even have a clue how to do something like that.

assuming that you can just tell a game to do something and it will do it, just isn't realistic. it takes hours of code changes, testing and more testing, to get it right.

or do you change map, and winners are based on the highest percentage of bases captured at the time of the switch?? ok its 12am EST, sorry folks, time for a map change to a smaller one. you guys flying the b-29's for 45 minutes to get to a target, dont worry, we'll save your spot, but oh, if you dont come back, you lose all those perkies. ok carry on and by all means, have fun!!

the variables are endless...

They could set it up like they had it when the 2 mains didn't work well for the Euro crowd. They had the "single" arena for their prime time and then it switched to the "dual arenas" for US prime time. In stead of switching to a dual arena setup they could switch to a normal map rotation and for the Euro prime time switch to a small map only rotation of maps.

[BnZs]

so do you just switch maps, and have no winner?

There are no "winners" pal. It is not a real war, just a pretext to foster combat. If the combat is at low idle the "war" isn't doing its joy. Also, sorties get cut short whenever the war is "won", so what? I've flown till arena dump many a time, what's the big deal?

[BnZs]

Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.

Again, this is an argument devoid of reason because small maps already exist.

[The Fugitive]

Again, this is an argument devoid of reason because small maps already exist.

It isn't "devoid of reason" as it is strait to the point. We all pay to play in HTC sandbox. This includes large and small maps. If all large maps were removed, then the cries of prime time US would be deafening. This is why we have both map sizes. At this point the real answer would be to make medium size maps. Use the large size format that we have now, but only use the center area leaving the outside edges empty. This would concentrate the bases in a smaller area with out being a small map.

Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time. Either way, we are in the sandbox we are paying for. Should some players build a bunch of maps to replace those "horrible" large maps  I'm sure HTC would have a problem using them to replace the large ones.   

[Lusche]

It isn't "devoid of reason" as it is strait to the point. We all pay to play in HTC sandbox. This includes large and small maps. If all large maps were removed, then the cries of prime time US would be deafening. This is why we have both map sizes.

We now have both small & large maps in a single LW arena, just like had in AH II (when it was actually still called so) in 2004-2006.
The main difference is, we have vastly less players in the air these days. Compared to how many players were online at US prime time on a large map back then (not to speak of small maps), the small maps wouldn't be anywhere near crowded today.

By the way, after the arena split in 2006 we often had twice as many players than today in two arenas, in other words: The same number of players in one LW arena as we do have now. And we had only small maps for a year back then...

Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time. Either way, we are in the sandbox we are paying for. Should some players build a bunch of maps to replace those "horrible" large maps   I'm sure HTC would have a problem using them to replace the large ones.    

We have 10 small maps in the rotation, I don't see any reason why it would have to be mandatory to replace the large maps with additional small ones. Additionally, I don't see how paying palyers would be oblieged to put that much work due to a simple arena setting issue. It's not about disliking the maps per se (I lobbied hard to get them back in 2006-2007), it's about finding their size problematic for the player numbers these days...

[BnZs]

Use the large size format that we have now, but only use the center area leaving the outside edges empty. This would concentrate the bases in a smaller area with out being a small map.

So you're saying make a new map that has all the bases concentrated in a small area, but go ahead and leave plenty of empty wasteland all around it? Fugi, did you run this idea through your head at least twice before you posted it man? 

Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time.

Building new maps is beside the point, as plenty of small maps *already #&*!@^%^^ing EXIST!!!!". It is putting these maps into use during low number hours that is needed to make a difference.

[Easyscor]

Hey Lusche,

I have no horse in this races as I don't have time to dedicate to the MAs on top of my other activities.

As you may know, there are arena settings for how many Airfields, and Total Bases at which point the arena resets. So it might be that a utility could be built to capture user numbers and adjust the Airfields* and Total bases numbers on a sliding scale depending on the terrain. Maybe it could even display text messages in the buffer when the settings change.

The effect would allow a reset with fewer base captures needed.

Do you think it might be helpful for off hours?

*ResetAirFieldCnt
ResetTotalFieldCnt

[Lusche]

Hey Lusche,

I have no horse in this races as I don't have time to dedicate to the MAs on top of my other activities.

My horse is just a pony in here. I'm not actually lobbying for small maps only, but I absolutely wouldn't object to it. 

As you may know, there are arena settings for how many Airfields, and Total Bases at which point the arena resets. So it might be that a utility could be built to capture user numbers and adjust the Airfields* and Total bases numbers on a sliding scale depending on the terrain. Maybe it could even display text messages in the buffer when the settings change.

The effect would allow a reset with fewer base captures needed.

Do you think it might be helpful for off hours?

*ResetAirFieldCnt
ResetTotalFieldCnt

It's not about the problem of winning the war. It's about the lack of combat activity ("battles") resulting from having way too much space for too few players. If you have too much room, there's a natural tendency to spread out all over the map and much avoiding the enemy.  And you can't just change that (aka "start a fight"). Of course this is much more a problem at off hours, 30 (euro noon) to 100 players on a large map (early euro evening) creates very much different gameplay than 300 to (if lucky) 400 on US prime time.

[Vortex]

No your paying to play in the sandbox HTC has provided. Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.

Its not an absence of small maps at issue. Its the existence of a couple HUGE maps that throws everything out of wack. We need to remove, not add.

...and insofar as moving along goes, yes, indeed, that's certainly an option. I just came back to the game a few months ago and haven't flown actively for probably 5 years +. Moving on is no problem, if there isn't value there, it only makes sense. I'd prefer to keep giving HTC a monthly subscription, hence why I bother to post on this issue. But right you are, that may not be in the cards.  *shrug*

[The Fugitive]

So you're saying make a new map that has all the bases concentrated in a small area, but go ahead and leave plenty of empty wasteland all around it? Fugi, did you run this idea through your head at least twice before you posted it man? 
Building new maps is beside the point, as plenty of small maps *already #&*!@^%^^ing EXIST!!!!". It is putting these maps into use during low number hours that is needed to make a difference.

And did you take the time to think through what I said? Here, I know some people work better with pictures.



The red circles represent the base coverage. As you can see the bases aren't as spread out on the "medium" size map, nor is it as concentrated as they are on the small maps.

We now have both small & large maps in a single LW arena, just like had in AH II (when it was actually still called so) in 2004-2006.
The main difference is, we have vastly less players in the air these days. Compared to how many players were online at US prime time on a large map back then (not to speak of small maps), the small maps wouldn't be anywhere near crowded today.

By the way, after the arena split in 2006 we often had twice as many players than today in two arenas, in other words: The same number of players in one LW arena as we do have now. And we had only small maps for a year back then...

We have 10 small maps in the rotation, I don't see any reason why it would have to be mandatory to replace the large maps with additional small ones. Additionally, I don't see how paying palyers would be oblieged to put that much work due to a simple arena setting issue. It's not about disliking the maps per se (I lobbied hard to get them back in 2006-2007), it's about finding their size problematic for the player numbers these days...

I thought there was only 6, but will bow to your knowledge. 10 wouldn't be a bad rotation, but 14 is better. Of those 10 many don't see them often as they are won so quickly. Why are those maps won so quickly?

Could it be they are small and the horde has a much better chance of rolling over them? Defenders don't like to defend against the horde. The quickness of the attacks of the horde due to the closeness/density of the bases makes them easy pickings. Spacing out those bases on a medium size map would give more warning to those who wish to defend against the horde. It would also give those players looking to avoid the horde from either side more room to avoid it.

US prime time and a small map while not as bad as it was before can become cramped. It does force the hordes to fight each other more often, but finding smaller fights along the edges is almost impossible due to not having any edges.

If they switched to small maps only I think we would have a ton of people crying about it.... view trinity as an example. I think the adjustable win the war percentage has a lot of merit. It may take a bit of tweaking to adjust to keep a map up a couple days before the win percentage was hit, but that would make all the maps run long enough for everyone to get a chance to fly on it, but not so long as to get everyone frustrated by being stuck on a map.

[Lusche]

I thought there was only 6, but will bow to your knowledge. 10 wouldn't be a bad rotation, but 14 is better. Of those 10 many don't see them often as they are won so quickly. Why are those maps won so quickly?

Small maps have generally less bases, but the % needed for victory is still the same. It takes many more bases, and thus much more time to win a huge map. And the more bases/time you need, the less likely it is you can keep the momentum and both other teams at bay.

[Vortex]

If they switched to small maps only I think we would have a ton of people crying about it.... view trinity as an example. I think the adjustable win the war percentage has a lot of merit. It may take a bit of tweaking to adjust to keep a map up a couple days before the win percentage was hit, but that would make all the maps run long enough for everyone to get a chance to fly on it, but not so long as to get everyone frustrated by being stuck on a map.

It is probably best to start trying different things to see what works. There have been numerous ideas floated in this thread that are worth further consideration, and perhaps simple trials to see what works and what doesn't.

Large maps, although much fewer in number, significantly dominate the play environment.  I would guess, about 80% of the overall map time (but that is an entirely subjective number). That is a problem. In any game the envinronment within which you play is absolutely critical as it dictates play optins, styles, etc. AH is no different, and the maps are the tools by which our gaming options ebb and flow. They are, far and away, the single most important factor regarding how this game functions, and how we function within it.

We have seen that size of map is extremely important in determining play options and game flow. That is simply irrefutable and I do not think anyone in this thread would dispute that basic truism. The intent should be to find a format that simply does not allow a couple maps to dominate the vast majority of the rotation time and thereby promote a very specific set of play options and game flow.

This is the root of it. The intent should be for balance. Small/medium maps, and their related play options and game flow, are simply not getting represented proportionately.So the goal should be at the very least, to balance this. To put it the simplest way, if one took the average time that a small/medium map was active and simply capped the huge maps so they would flip after that same average amount of time, we would be on a positive track. We would be looking to some semblance of balance in the play environment that is presented to the customer. Simple options like this are what should be attempted imo.

Moreover, in doing this you immediately address the lower population concerns for off hours. Smaller maps would see more of the relative map time, and thus help lessen that feeling of emptiness one gets when the huge map is in place for a week...because it simply wouldn't be allowed to do that anymore. Now, I have no idea whether or not this is even possible from a programing point of view, but the intent here os to move forward the idea. The details of implementation are for those far smarter than I.

[Lusche]

I would guess, about 80% of the overall map time (but that is an entirely subjective number).

In the past 3 months, the three large maps have been up approximately 50% of the time (we have 3+10 maps total in rotation) 

[Vortex]

In the past 3 months, the three large maps have been up approximately 50% of the time (we have 3+10 maps total in rotation) 

Ok, thanks for that. Disproportionately high % still, but not the 80% range I had mentioned.

[Tinkles]

Small maps have generally less bases, but the % needed for victory is still the same. It takes many more bases, and thus much more time to win a huge map. And the more bases/time you need, the less likely it is you can keep the momentum and both other teams at bay.

It has been asked before that smaller maps have increased capture % to win the war.  I think for the larger maps either keep it how it is (20%) or lower it to 15-18%. 

But I think that for the smaller maps the reason why they go so quickly is because they are the same percentage as large maps (20%) and I think that should change.  What I find interesting is the capture percentage in mid-war is 33% IIRC.  Which I wouldn't mind seeing 33% being the base requirement to 'win the war' for small maps. Maybe 25-30% for medium maps and 20% for large maps.

That way we get to see some of these smaller maps more often, potentially during off-peak hours. That way those who want to see smaller maps during off peak hours have a better chance to, and larger maps aren't see as much. SO we get to enjoy these smaller maps more often, even if it is for slightly longer time periods.

Just a thought.

<<S>>

P.S. And it wouldn't require much work (that I know of) on HTC's part