Off hours-- or should that be low population WARNING>>RANT

[Brooke]

Action is related to how much space is available to fight in.

In my opinion, it would be better to have active area related to how many people are online, with off hours having a much smaller area of conflict.

[Vraciu]

I have been here since tour 21 I believe. In that time the numbers have gone from what we have now, to in the 600 range on a WEEKNIGHT (hitting 1000 players a few times on the weekend)back down to where we are now. 3 countries worked well all that time.

Two countries would bring MAJOR ganging. Players would jump to the higher count side and run over the lower side for the quick easy win. The only way to stop this would be to assign players to one side and lock it there. The problem there is you can't count on the same number of players to show ALL the time on both teams with no option to equalize sides by switching. It would be possible for one team to have a numbers advantage for weeks at a time.... ya that sounds like fun.

Having three sides gives each team the choice of fighting against either one of two other teams, not to mention the ability to force more than one front against either or BOTH teams. The issue isn't that we have too many teams, it is the type of play the majority of players seem to like to play.

What is needed is a carrot that HTC can add in to entice players to want to fight for bases, ships, kills. Once it becomes worth while to more players to fight, you'll have more fights.

Yeah, because we don't have ganging now.   

We never had that problem in WBs.  People side-switched for balance all the time.

There are ways to minimize ganging.

Three-sided war is boring.  Static fronts.  Zzzzzzzzzzzz.

Your last sentence I agree with, however.

[Vraciu]

Action is related to how much space is available to fight in.

In my opinion, it would be better to have active area related to how many people are online, with off hours having a much smaller area of conflict.

That's the easiest solution if we are wedded to three sides.

[Vudak]

I wonder if it would be possible to have two daily maps.  An "off hours" and a "prime time" map, but have these two maps "save" each time they are changed, meaning that if you had captured base 1,2,3 in off hours, and then the map changed to the prime time map, the next day you'd still have control of bases 1,2,3 on the off hours map.

If this were possible you could have small maps in the off hours, larger maps in prime time, and the people who enjoy trying to win the war would still get to do this, and the people who enjoy being able to find a fight would also be able to do this.

It might actually make things more fun for the squads who like to win the war because they could take a screen shot of the map prior to the change and come up with plans or missions for the next day.  It would definitely make things more fun for people who play in off hours who want to find something to shoot.

[Slade]

I wonder if it would be possible to have two daily maps.  An "off hours" and a "prime time" map

+1

[Lusche]

I wonder if it would be possible to have two daily maps.  An "off hours" and a "prime time" map, but have these two maps "save" each time

That would be possible, because AH had a very similar setup from tour 130 to tour 137 - Single off hours map and a dual split prime time arena. By the way, it was a direct result of a wishlist thread.

The downside is that the change between two modes can be pretty much disruptive to online numbers, in particular when switching back to the 'off hours' setup (Many players just don't come back after reset). I#d figure this disruption being much more sever even now with low overall numbers.

[DmonSlyr]

Could the best solution be to have rotating CM mods who can deactivate bases in the back of the maps in order to shrink the overall size of the area to fight in based on the population of say <100 and bases that are being captured so the map can still be won?

[Vudak]

Is depth causing the issue though, or width?

[VuduVee]

the game blows because of the players. the players are running people off left and right. there is so much dirty play in the game, that soon, it will only be a bunch of runner/ganger/hiders playing. its practically that now.

[Tumor]

the game blows because of the players. the players are running people off left and right. there is so much dirty play in the game, that soon, it will only be a bunch of runner/ganger/hiders playing. its practically that now.

   The only thing that blows about AH, is the closed mindedness of individual players.  They create their own misery... we see it all the time.  Kinda like the definition of "doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome".  It's a wargame.  The possibilities are endless.  Use your head, or collective heads.  Come up with an idea (the 49'rs had this part down, then took it to the realm of the ridiculous).  Do something different.

Don't like runners?  Don't get fixated.  Don't like gangers?  Have some SA.  Don't like the horde?  Make it difficult for them to horde.  I don't know what a hider is.   There are clear alternatives to becoming victim of any of the above, and you can have oodles of FUN countering them.   Anyway, I'm not pickin on ya Vudu... just sayin.  Players of AH suffer from paradigms in a big big nasty way.  Change it up and make the game difficult for THEM.

[Vraciu]

Could the best solution be to have rotating CM mods who can deactivate bases in the back of the maps in order to shrink the overall size of the area to fight in based on the population of say <100 and bases that are being captured so the map can still be won?

Or some type of unlocking feature if territory is actually gained. 

But your idea is the most elegant.  Funnel the fight. 

[VuduVee]

   The only thing that blows about AH, is the closed mindedness of individual players.  They create their own misery... we see it all the time.  Kinda like the definition of "doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different outcome".  It's a wargame.  The possibilities are endless.  Use your head, or collective heads.  Come up with an idea (the 49'rs had this part down, then took it to the realm of the ridiculous).  Do something different.

Don't like runners?  Don't get fixated.  Don't like gangers?  Have some SA.  Don't like the horde?  Make it difficult for them to horde.  I don't know what a hider is.   There are clear alternatives to becoming victim of any of the above, and you can have oodles of FUN countering them.   Anyway, I'm not pickin on ya Vudu... just sayin.  Players of AH suffer from paradigms in a big big nasty way.  Change it up and make the game difficult for THEM.

the one and only way to counter those things is to quit paying 15 a month. probably 8 out of 10 players are runner/ganger/hiders. theyre the majority and when you try to change that, you become the bad guy and hated. believe me, its mutual.

[715]

Or some type of unlocking feature if territory is actually gained. 

Didn't AH have something kind of like that in the distant past?  Some kind of capture order or something (I admit, I never really understood it).

[Wiley]

Didn't AH have something kind of like that in the distant past?  Some kind of capture order or something (I admit, I never really understood it).

Some kind of order to attempt to funnel the action, yes.  From what I heard about it, it created horrible problems.

Wiley.

[DmonSlyr]

Well, I just mean that if a base is captured and the game has to go beyond the intended range of deactivated bases, then 4-5 new bases will be open for capture so that at least players know where some of the action is but it's not 100% funneled to one base. In real war you have to push back fronts in order to gain territory. You could have the same concept when <100 players are in the arena so that everyone for the most part is fighting in the same 5-6 cubic squares.