Author Topic: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design  (Read 12291 times)

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17921
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #15 on: October 09, 2018, 10:16:53 PM »
Except those 100 are split across two fronts.  Since you can't be in two places at one time, you are only facing 50 of them at one time.  As opposed to 75 in 2-sided.

The point is that 3 side gives you options. You can either fight THIS 50 player, or THAT 50 players.... in RODBUSTR's post. That is the whole idea, is to leave MORE options for players.

As far as the ENY/perk idea, If you are not on the winning team for 12 hours you dont get the "perks" for the win. However, being on the underdog team EARNS you a bigger perk bonus. This means in a 3 sided war there is a team that will add more perk bonus than the other two, or one in a 2 sided war. It maybe something some players look for.

I think the ENY system has some flaws. As many others have said, a "zone ENY" system would work much better at slowing a team with a big numbers advantage in a certain area. This would help when two teams are ganging one that has to fight under an ENY penalty while being out numbered.

A 2 sided war will still have far too many problems in a MA configuration than we have with a 3 sided one.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #16 on: October 09, 2018, 10:36:18 PM »
A 2 sided war will still have far too many problems in a MA configuration than we have with a 3 sided one.

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?

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

Offline 1stpar3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3719
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #17 on: October 09, 2018, 11:39:49 PM »
ENY only gets to me when we have 20% in tower for hours on end. I have had it explained.."Well they put in 2 hours and we were close to winning, but the had to do such and such.".Something along those lines,any way. I just wish folk would think of fellow countrymen and log out. It can get pretty bad. I have no issue in flying high ENY planes..it bothers ME because it hurts the TEAM, and is unnecessary if folk would think of others. YES I KNOW good luck with that  :rofl
"Life is short,break the rules,forgive quickly,kiss slowly,love truly,laugh uncontrollably,and never regret anything that made you smile."  “The two most important days in your life are the day you are born and the day you find out why.”- Mark Twain

Offline ccvi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2074
      • http://www.carl-eike-hofmeister.de/
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #18 on: October 10, 2018, 02:42:57 AM »
20% in tower? More often than not it seems to be 30 to 40%.

Offline FESS67

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1051
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #19 on: October 10, 2018, 03:34:15 AM »
2 sides or 3 sides.....they are solutions.

What is the problem?

Define the problem correctly and then explore solutions.  For me, the problem is sparse, infrequent combat.

Root causes:
  • Population density
  • Player preferences in fight styles

There may be many other root causes and obviously a plethora of possible solutions.

My preferred solution: Compress the action zone to place players in direct conflict with each other.

2 sides is an option.  Only have front bases active for fighters is an option.  Smaller maps is an option.......etc etc

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #20 on: October 10, 2018, 05:22:31 AM »
Perhaps I am misunderstanding.  However, I believe "every player has two other players as his enemy" is pretty much a direct quote from Hitech from a previous thread years ago. 

If sides have equal numbers, is a 2-sided arena fine?

I believe Hitech is describing opportunity not behavior.

Forcing equal numbers is also a problem.

Offline Max

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7766
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #21 on: October 10, 2018, 06:40:24 AM »
It doesn't matter how many sides there are. Just eliminate Bish Land and all will be well.

Bish are POO!  :old:

Offline The Fugitive

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 17921
      • Fugi's Aces Help
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #22 on: October 10, 2018, 11:15:13 AM »
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?

But ENY does work. It may be a bit harsh when the team with the ENY penalty is getting handed by the other two teams, but it works I. slowing down the team with a numerical advantage.

Remember,  HTC is about options. with ENY you still have options, forcing a 2 sided war and controlling population by assigning players to one side or another as they log in removes options for players

Offline caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6437
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #23 on: October 10, 2018, 01:53:35 PM »
"Two Side Tuesdays":  use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country.  The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY.
Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018.  Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.
"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 FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #24 on: October 10, 2018, 01:58:16 PM »
Or just go the AvA arena on Tuesdays, show HTC how many people join you.

Offline caldera

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6437
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #25 on: October 10, 2018, 02:00:44 PM »
Or just go the AvA arena on Tuesdays, show HTC how many people join you.

You mean flying restricted plane sets without icons?  No thanks.
"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 Wiley

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8079
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #26 on: October 10, 2018, 02:19:16 PM »
"Two Side Tuesdays":  use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country.  The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY.
Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018.  Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.

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

JG11

Offline FLS

  • AH Training Corps
  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11617
      • Trainer's Website
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #27 on: October 10, 2018, 02:37:18 PM »
You mean flying restricted plane sets without icons?  No thanks.

Good point. I should have suggested Special Events not AvA.

Offline bustr

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 12436
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #28 on: October 10, 2018, 02:46:06 PM »
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.
bustr - POTW 1st Wing


This is like the old joke that voters are harsher to their beer brewer if he has an outage, than their politicians after raising their taxes. Death and taxes are certain but, fun and sex is only now.

Offline CptTrips

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 8269
Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2018, 02:50:27 PM »
"Two Side Tuesdays":  use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country.  The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY.
Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018.  Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.


:aok

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