Author Topic: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design  (Read 12283 times)

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #30 on: October 10, 2018, 03:01:59 PM »
Good point. I should have suggested Special Events not AvA.

I think that argument is a bit disingenuous.  I think we understand the herd mentality that simply drives everyone to the Main, regardless.

How about we put a 2-sided test in the Main and put 3-sided in the Special Events?  Lets that that scenario and see where people go. :D

A better  test would be to try something in the Main for a week and then later post a logon survey, "Do you ever want us to do that again?"

Or even a logon survey, "Would you like us to try a 2-sided configuration for a week?"  Then even if everyone hates it, you are covered because you only did it because people said they wanted to try.  And if they don't want to try, they'll tell you that too.

If it could be done without having to make code changes, just a test map, then it seems like reasonable experiment.  If nothing else, it at least shows the player base you are not ossified and are willing to try a variation. Maybe it would be fun to just add that option for 1 out of every 3 map rotation.  Or maybe everyone would hate it.

 :salute
« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 03:28:52 PM by CptTrips »
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6437
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #31 on: October 10, 2018, 03:34:26 PM »
It could be done as a proof of concept with a private arena, but people don't want to hear it, instead demanding the MA change.

Wiley.

I'm not making a demand.  It's called a suggestion. 

Opening up a private arena does nothing if the Melee arena is also open at the same time. 

It's about numbers.  People gravitate to where the numbers are, especially when there are so few of them. 

Just like Titanic Tuesday, there was only one LW arena to choose from.  This can't work without giving it a fair trial, which means no competing MA at the same time.

Also it would be for one day of the week, not a regular thing.  If it sucks, HTC could pull the plug after the first night.  If it doesn't, it could be good for the game.


In all the years of this mental exercise to try and convince Hitech to change his business model. Very few offer mechanisms other than the implied "Force of Hitech" to deal with squads, unhappy customers, and side balancing that does not return to "Force of Hitech" to accomplish. The ideas have never touched on how Hitech manages the subscription paying customer base so he does not loose subscriptions and today, not have an empty test arena or, two even more sparsely populated main arenas. Mostly the presentation hopes Hitech will see the wisdom and unique perspective of the poster and wave his magic wand as the result. Almost 20 years and fat chance on his waving that wand.

It took me three MA terrains back to back over two years to bring our low numbers during prime time together as the largest groups possible. The best for this is riftval which has intense combat during prime time on at a minimum one of each country's boarder. And at no time did I resort to "Force of Hitech" as the magic wand to fill in the "blanks" most never bother to attempt when they start this topic up each time.

The "try it and see" is something you don't do to the MA if Hitech wants to keep his doors open even if you don't agree with his current business model. It's easy to flip him off with a cut your own business throat drive by comment, since you don't have skin in his game at his level. So far he has chosen to keep his doors open. The AvA can recreate the MA with two sides and advertise, for a few Monday nights when they did, side imbalances and chronic MA lame play would always screw the pooch each time. It eventually reminded me of the BS at Furball lake in the old DA. It devolved from a limited ride themed Monday night event, into a two sided lame twitch and jerk version of the MA as more and more rides were added in until it was the MA with two sides. At that point people went back to the real MA to be professionally HO'd and ganged.

None of you are willing to do more than hit keys on your keyboard. A few years ago Hitech refused to create something I thought was a good idea. When I created it myself, he helped me distribute it once it worked and passed the HOST error test. Not many used it, though they all loved the idea of it. Since then I've simplified and refined it but, that was after two years of none stop MA terrains to solve the problem of low numbers, three countries, and how to bring the most players together during prime time.

Wanting a two sided MA will first require you to convince Hitech to reduce his customer's freedom of choice. And that forcing them to side balance and adjust their in game relationships of who they associate with each evening will be in his bottom line best interests. Even Fortnite has two types of game play, team work capture the flag and self serving king of the hill. Over the last nearly 20 years, those wanting Hitech to change the MA to two sides have not been very interested in the team work capture the flag side of the game.


HTC has "tried it and see" with a number of changes lately (including AH3 itself) and this would be no different.  Nobody had the option to play in the regular Melee arena while radar testing was ongoing.

Despite you constantly reminding everyone of your map making accomplishments, your opinion of game play issues holds no more weight than mine.

And don't tell me I have no skin in the game.  I've paid HTC $2,197.65 to play his game, not to mention three systems and bunches of joysticks.  That is sunk cost. 

I care about this game and want to keep playing but to completely dismiss my idea because I don't spend my free time making maps for a game I pay for, well bollocks.



I've never met a soul that doesn't make mistakes, yet you defend HTC's every decision as if they are somehow all-knowing and infallible.  The state of the game proves they are not.
"Then out spake brave Horatius, the Captain of the gate:
 To every man upon this earth, death cometh soon or late.
 And how can man die better, than facing fearful odds.
 For the ashes of his fathers and the temples of his Gods."

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #32 on: October 10, 2018, 03:42:24 PM »
I'm not making a demand.  It's called a suggestion. 

And "Two-Sided Tuesday" does kinda sing. :lol
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #33 on: October 10, 2018, 03:54:49 PM »
You do know that the 2-sided arenas (event, AvA, etc) require not only extra effort to set up but baby-sitting and emergency plumbing/damage control if the set up includes a winnable map option (that will pork the arena for much longer than the traditional map rotation in the MA), right? A three sided arena is a fundamental foundation of this game's design.

It's like some of you think the extra work others put in is just a flip of a switch.

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17921
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #34 on: October 10, 2018, 03:56:53 PM »
Well we may have to agree to disagree for now, but I'll continue chewing on it. 

Let me change the topic slightly.

Is an ENY system that annoys a lot of people yet is still incapable of keeping sides balanced preferable to more draconian measures that will also piss people off but will enforce side balance?

The ENY system does work. While a team that is being hit with ENY may be double teamed, it still does what ti was meant to do, slow down the team with a numbers superiority. It also leave open options for players (switch sides, switch front, join a group, lone wolf it, and so on).

Where as if you force players to split in a 2 sided war you taking away some of those options.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #35 on: October 10, 2018, 04:00:20 PM »

Despite you constantly reminding everyone of your map making accomplishments, your opinion of game play issues holds no more weight than mine.


Other than he spent a great deal of effort to put his theories to the test and came out of it with more than a small amount of insight and understanding. If that bothers you as much as, say, 'not having your ideas taken seriously enough on the forum' ... meh.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #36 on: October 10, 2018, 04:03:46 PM »
Other than he spent a great deal of effort to put his theories to the test and came out of it with more than a small amount of insight and understanding. If that bothers you as much as, say, 'not having your ideas taken seriously enough on the forum' ... meh.

I respect the work Bustr has put in.  It's a lot of work, and often thankless.

I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.

We're not holding any hostages.  We are not making any demands.  :D
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #37 on: October 10, 2018, 04:07:57 PM »
I respect the work Bustr has put in.  It's a lot of work, and often thankless.

I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.

We're not holding any hostages.  We are not making any demands.  :D

I see projection. May wanna take a closer look at who gets triggered. Every time Bustr mentions how he gained his insight there are forum members that wet their skivvies. My making notice of that isn't anymore hostile.  :D

Offline Wiley

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8079
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #38 on: October 10, 2018, 04:13:17 PM »
I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.

Not necessarily you in particular, but the general tone when people are discussing this issue is usually in the vein of it being "just this simple".  You can't find a single open world, pure PVP game on this scale that doesn't have 3 sides, or isn't in even worse shape than this one.  There are 3.  Planetside 2, Warbirds, and AH.

Personally, I think a two sided arena would result in more imbalance not less, unless some kind of draconian side balancing was enforced.

Wiley.
If you think you are having a 1v1 in the Main Arena, your SA has failed you.

JG11

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27070
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #39 on: October 10, 2018, 04:14:43 PM »
I love the game. While yall sit around scratchin' you nether regions I am in the arena killin planes.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #40 on: October 10, 2018, 04:15:23 PM »
The ENY system does work. While a team that is being hit with ENY may be double teamed, it still does what ti was meant to do, slow down the team with a numbers superiority. It also leave open options for players (switch sides, switch front, join a group, lone wolf it, and so on).

Where as if you force players to split in a 2 sided war you taking away some of those options.

So I was first thinking that ENY wasn't very successful in getting people to switch to the lower side, but I can see how it would be successful in handicapping people who choose to stay on the larger side.  So I concede that point to you.

But then I think ENY would solve many of the perceived weaknesses of a 2-sided area as well.

As far as your other points of it removing choices, other than the choice of playing for the third team, I just don't see it being any different than when we had higher player/front mileage density due to having 650 players.  Instead of having more players, you are just increasing the density by shortening the front lines. 

You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front.  I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook.  ;)

« Last Edit: October 10, 2018, 04:19:45 PM by CptTrips »
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #41 on: October 10, 2018, 04:16:47 PM »
I love the game. While yall sit around scratchin' you nether regions I am in the arena killin planes.

Then why are you continuing to be drawn to a thread you don't care about, to post and tell us how you don't care about it?

Odd behavior.  :D
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Arlo

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 24759
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #42 on: October 10, 2018, 04:17:48 PM »
I love the game. While yall sit around scratchin' you nether regions I am in the arena killin planes.

Yes, I am indeed jealous. Dammit.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #43 on: October 10, 2018, 04:18:18 PM »
I see projection. May wanna take a closer look at who gets triggered. Every time Bustr mentions how he gained his insight there are forum members that wet their skivvies. My making notice of that isn't anymore hostile.  :D

His post didn't strike you as a little hostile?
Toxic, psychotic, self-aggrandizing drama queens simply aren't worth me spending my time on.

Offline Shuffler

  • Radioactive Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 27070
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #44 on: October 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM »

<snip>
You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front.  I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook.  ;) <snip>

Could be bish or knit that is dropped........

I believe we will not have to worry which will be dropped. That test happened long a go.
80th FS "Headhunters"

S.A.P.P.- Secret Association Of P-38 Pilots (Lightning In A Bottle)