2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design

[CptTrips]

this whole conversation reminds me of when hitech set up the pink arena.  people would just jump to the arena with the most numbers regardless of the name.

you guys are wishing for an arena that we already have.  a 2 sided war that is almost empty every day.  if you people would only try to see if a 2 country arena would work go to the ava. 

You realize you just argued against your point, right?

The AvA is empty because it is not the Main. 
The Early War was empty because it wasn't the Main.
Mid-War was empty because it wasn't the Main.
MatchPlay is empty because it isn't the Main.
WWI is empty because it isn't the Main.

And if we put a 2-Side in the Main and the 3-Side in the SE, then the 3-side would be empty because it isn't the Main.

[flippz]

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.

no see bustr that where you are wrong, there is a lot a WHOLE lot that players do.  I own a business and I don't let the customers load there cars, they are not allowed to rig there cars.  I have absolutely no customer involvement in my business.  here fso is done by players, scenarios are done by players skins are done by players maps are done by players mods are done by players. I haven't been involved in a lot of games in my life but this is the only one I have seen to date that players have to create maps, skins extra scenarios and so on. 

you have to adjust with the times and what people want.  in the 6 yrs my business has been opened my business model has changed 3 times, all due to customer input and watching what people ask for.  have they all been a great success? no have they all failed? no.  I take what works and get rid of what doesn't. 

 I am a huge believer in the 2 sided war, is it gonna work I don't know?  I also look at it through different glasses as I like to fight in fighters and could careless the map out come winner.  I can tell you my little over 2 years in here I have seen a lot of people leave and very few come in.  you can take 100 people and divide them by 50 if you want but that don't create action.  now you take a 100 people and divide them by 2 and give them a closer area of involvement then you create action.  maps can be made to where the "open sandbox" is still applicable.  have close tight bases up front and rearward base for the bombers guys and make strats available for defense and bombing.  make a sprawling landscape for the 30 gvers that want to up and pound the crap out of each other.  if a owner wants to sit on the laurels and refuse to change with time and customers then the world passes by.

[flippz]

oh ENY does, but a team is under ENY only now and then. In a two sided war it would be under ENY almost all the time. Can you imagine the cries?  LOL!!! discuss all you want. Hitech is the only one that matters in this discussion and we all know what his views are.

why cant the side switch time be lowered to say a hour?  there is a lot of guys that would switch if it wasn't 6 hrs. 

and eliminate all countries just go to colors say fuchsia and magenta.  maybe creep eny with numbers. 

I think it is well worth a try to just see what happens. 

[ccvi]

here fso is done by players, scenarios are done by players skins are done by players maps are done by players mods are done by players. I haven't been involved in a lot of games in my life but this is the only one I have seen to date that players have to create maps, skins extra scenarios and so on.

You may know counter strike. It was created by: players. Modifying/extending existing games is something that isn't too uncommon. Players don't "have to", but some seem to enjoy it.

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.

This list is slightly short.

[CptTrips]

You may know counter strike. It was created by: players. Modifying/extending existing games is something that isn't too uncommon. Players don't "have to", but some seem to enjoy it.

This list is slightly short.

And two in that list were literally, LITERALLY, designed in a previous century.

Look, I understand the design goals of a 3-sided war.  I have nothing against it in principle.  It never bothered me personally.  It has advantages and disadvantages as a game design. 

It's main goal was to provide a self-balancing mechanism.  However, it was so inferior in that role, that HTC had to design and implement an ENY system to do the job better.  That is a superior mechanism for self-balancing.  And with that, the argument that you MUST have a 3-sided war is greatly undermined.  AW never had an ENY system that I remember.  It had to resort to the inferior mechanism of 3-sides.  HTC no longer has that constraint.  They have a better tool now.

While the 3-sided design was not sufficiently effective as a self-balancing mechanism, by happy accident, it was very useful when we had 650 players in the arena because it tended to self-distribute the action.  It was an elegant way to create more frontage surface area for a given map size and thin things out.  However, that may now be working against HTC's interests, when you only have 160 players on the best of nights.

A 2-sided design would have the opposite effect.  It would tend shorten the available frontage surface area for a given map size and increase player density along the front and create more action and a higher cadence of activity.  At the same time, ENY provides the self-balancing mechanism to mitigate the degenerate tendencies a 2-sided design might devolve to.

The assumption that you MUST only have a 3-sided war was formed in a previous century, when HTC didn't have the self-balancing mechanisms it now has at their disposal.  It might be worth honestly challenging whether those previous assumptions still apply in a new century, with a different size player base, with new, superior mechanisms for balance available to you.

The day a company starts refusing to constantly challenge their previous assumptions in an intellectually honest way, is the day it takes its first foot steps on the road to obsolescence.

[Wiley]

This list is slightly short.

What other ones are there?

Wiley.

[FLS]

Last century. Ok. This is not a serious discussion.

The notion that 3 sides is to create side balance is incorrect. The 3 sides help to limit imbalances. Not the same thing.

[CptTrips]

Last century. Ok. This is not a serious discussion.

The notion that 3 sides is to create side balance is incorrect. The 3 sides help to limit imbalances. Not the same thing.

 

[Wiley]

And two in that list were literally, LITERALLY, designed in a previous century.

Which invalidates the design... how exactly?

Look, I understand the design goals of a 3-sided war.  I have nothing against it in principle.  It never bothered me personally.  It has advantages and disadvantages as a game design. 

It's main goal was to provide a self-balancing mechanism.

What is that comment based on?

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

Which invalidates the design... how exactly?

It simply means that assumption was formed a long time ago before other advances like the development of an ENY system that wasn't available at the time a 3-Sided design was chosen.  And certainly long enough ago to justify reexamining those assumptions.

What is that comment based on?

If you prefer FLS' definition of "limiting imbalance" instead of achieving balance, I'm OK with that.  It's a distinction without much difference. If you sufficiently limit imbalance, you have balance.  As you tend away from imbalance, you tend towards balance.  FLS is just quibbling over phrasing because he is out of any other ideas.

In any case, if ENY can "limit imbalance" in a 3-sided war, it can do so in a 2-sided war.

[Wiley]

It simply means that assumption was formed a long time ago before other advances like the development of an ENY system that wasn't available at the time a 3-Sided design was chosen.  And certainly long enough ago to justify reexamining those assumptions.


If you prefer FLS' definition of "limiting imbalance" instead of achieving balance, I'm OK with that.  It's a distinction without much difference. If you sufficiently limit imbalance, you have balance.  As you tend away from imbalance, you tend towards balance.  FLS is just quibbling words because he is out of any other ideas.

No, what makes you think the 3 sided war had anything to do with side balancing?  You're basing this entire line of thought on the idea that the 3 sided war was there primarily to promote side balance.  Based on what?

Wiley.

[CptTrips]

No, what makes you think the 3 sided war had anything to do with side balancing?  You're basing this entire line of thought on the idea that the 3 sided war was there primarily to promote side balance.  Based on what?

According to FLS "it helps to limit imbalances."  Apparently, it does it so well they had to go design an ENY system.

[guncrasher]

You realize you just argued against your point, right?

The AvA is empty because it is not the Main. 
The Early War was empty because it wasn't the Main.
Mid-War was empty because it wasn't the Main.
MatchPlay is empty because it isn't the Main.
WWI is empty because it isn't the Main.

And if we put a 2-Side in the Main and the 3-Side in the SE, then the 3-side would be empty because it isn't the Main.

you do realize that the calling something the main arena is just a name.  you can change the ava name to the main arena or melee arena and the current main arena the 3 sided war.

you want to force people to fly in a 2 two side war when most people prefer a 3 side war.  you know how I know that is going to fail, it's easy, the  2 sided war arena is empty while the 3 sided war arena has the most people.


semp

[CptTrips]

you do realize that the calling something the main arena is just a name.  you can change the ava name to the main arena or melee arena and the current main arena the 3 sided war.

you want to force people to fly in a 2 two side war when most people prefer a 3 side war.  you know how I know that is going to fail, it's easy, the  2 sided war arena is empty while the 3 sided war arena has the most people.


semp

So you agree that putting a 2-sided war in the current "Melee" arena and putting the 3-sided war in the Special Events arena should be no problem?  Since those arenas are just "names"?

So I don't see how anyone is being forced to do anything.  The 3-sided war would be right there in the arena "named" Special Events.  All they have to do is click on it.  How would they be "forced" to play in the 2-sided war?
 

[Arlo]

The 'so you agree' mindmeld hypnosis attempts can get rather tiresome.