Late war Plane dillema

[CptTrips]

I never said any of those things. I can't even imagine a connection.

I said you can set up a game more like the one you want.

That's already available in AH. The bored players can join you there.

What part of that is hard to understand?

Do you believe nobody will join you?  If that's true what does it mean?

And still no suggestions of your own to improve numbers in AH. 

[FLS]

And still no suggestions of your own to improve numbers in AH. 

If we ever manage a discussion that would be a start.

[CptTrips]

If we ever manage a discussion that would be a start.

Let's start now.

What's your suggestion?  I'm listening.

[Wiley]

That is a false dilemma.  There is a huge design space between the current AH design and WT that could be explored.  It isn't a binary choice. 

That's right, it's not binary.  The orcs are gender fluid.

In BF, if you didn't get kills, and didn't help capture bases, and your team didn't win matches, then I don't believe you earn any point or progress in rank.  I don't believe you get points for time-of-play.  At least I never noticed that.

You realize I wasn't suggesting a rank progression for AH, right?  I was merely trying to answer the question you asked earlier.

I'd be shocked if you can go through an entire round having a heartbeat and not get some kind of points.

Like I said, there's nothing in this game for people to work toward.  That's a major detriment.

The main things I think could be learned from BF that is applicable to AH is:

1. Shortening time-to-action seems to reduce loss aversion and increases pace and cadence of action. 

2.  Proper map-scale:player-count ratio helps facilitate #1.  Grow the player-count or reduce the map-scale. (There spawn mechanism is the other big part of that but I don't think that would work in AH, although, I could see bomber air-starts helping.)

Scaled for 9PM Eastern, or 4AM Eastern?  How are switchover times handled?

Putting bombers up in a position that would significantly improve time to action would pretty much negate defense.  At least the way it's structured now you have a chance to spot them and up in time to get to alt to be effective against them.

3.  Their time-based ticket loss mechanism forces the losing side to act quickly to reverse the balance or inevitably lose even if they hold a stale-mate.  That can create some rather astounding battles of desperation.  And it puts some time limit on the cycle.  That could work in AH without huge changes.  The current victory conditions or a loss of all tickets which ever comes first.  Each country starts with (just making up a number) 250 "morale points".  Each minute a country has a deficit of bases they lose a point.  Nothing concentrates the mind like a deadline.  Say a 4 hour war cycle?  Would that be horrible?

Did you have a different suggestion? 

Don't know.  I don't hate this idea.  Although when the best tactic to win is to roll undefended bases, I'm not sure how much combat that would generate.  And the smaller you make the arena to make that less viable, the less options people have when they're overwhelmed other than to up into the vulch.

IMO one of the bigger points against AH compared to pretty much any other game on the market is the fact that there's nothing for people to work toward.  An arena is provided, do stuff.  And with the pace of map and asset development in AH compared to what people generally seem to expect from other games, I just don't see that improving anytime soon.

...And how does any of this solve the late war plane dilemma?

Wiley.

[FLS]

Let's start now.

What's your suggestion?  I'm listening.

You missed my suggestion?  How'd that happen?

Did you quote it without reading it?

[CptTrips]

That's right, it's not binary.  The orcs are gender fluid.

I'd be shocked if you can go through an entire round having a heartbeat and not get some kind of points.

I'd have to go research that to be sure, but I never heard that. 
Of course it would be hard to go a whole game without doing something.  Dropping ammo for team mates.  Healing as a medic.  Repairing vehicles as an engineer.  Even just sitting in a flag zone helping to capture it. 

I might have to do an experiment and find a hole to hide in and do nothing for a round.  Of course my team needs to lose too. 

Like I said, there's nothing in this game for people to work toward.  That's a major detriment.

*cough* Combat Tour  *cough*  Maybe they canceled that when they realized it was going to be two-sided?

Scaled for 9PM Eastern, or 4AM Eastern?  How are switchover times handled?

Point taken, but in BF, 64 player server sometimes only have 32. 

Of course the advantage of shorter war cycles is it gives you the ability to adjust maps regularly thought the day based on historical player stats. 
So EU guys don't have to play on the same sized map the US prime guys were .

Don't know.  I don't hate this idea.  Although when the best tactic to win is to roll undefended bases, I'm not sure how much combat that would generate. 

Could that be because the map in not scaled well to the number of players?  In BF you have undefended bases that get attacked.  Like I said before.
 You spawn some guys there ASAP and defend.  Or you take one of theirs.  If they are already in a deficit, they take one, you take one, they are still bleeding.  Sometimes because of time and distance they can't make it to an undefended base so you end up with a desperate Armageddon fight over a base they can get to while they still have time.
 

And the smaller you make the arena to make that less viable, the less options people have when they're overwhelmed other than to up into the vulch.

Or spend an hour flying over Hitech's awesome terrain engine looking for some good action somewhere.  But those are both extreme end-points with a good design trade-off somewhere in the balance.

...And how does any of this solve the late war plane dilemma?

Yeah, sorry.  I have totally been hijacking Novice's topic.  I just felt if I told him I didn't like his solution, I was obligated to offer an alternative view and not just snipe from the side-lines.

Peace.  Out.

[CptTrips]

You missed my suggestion?  How'd that happen?

Did you quote it without reading it?

That's your suggestion for increasing numbers in AH?

Or was that your suggestion for cutting off any proposed changes to the Melee?

[FLS]

What does this sentence say?

"If it's popular it would be a better argument for a permanent setup than the usual complaints."

You initially responded with a straw man that ignored what I actually said.

Discussion doesn't mean agree to our assumptions or shut up but there's a lot of that in the thread.

[CptTrips]

What does this sentence say?

That sentence says:

I'm passive-aggressively refusing to entertain any possible suggestion of changes to the main arena ever.  Instead I will strangle your idea in the crib by suggesting you stick it in a side arena that we both know no one will ever go into and so I can then claim it proves it's not popular.     

We've had this argument before (like over 20 pages) and you finally admitted that putting any test in a separate arena is not a fair test because players just reflexively herd into the main.  Whatever is in the main.   If you put two-sided war in the "Melee" and 3-sided off in some side arena call "3-sided war", everyone would herd in to the two-sided "Melee" by reflex; like you admitted before.

The WWI arena is empty because it is not the main.
The EW was empty because it was not the main.
The MW was empty because it was not the main.
Any other "side-area" will usually be empty regardless of merit because it it not the main.

The only exceptions I've seen work are specific, short-term, pre-scheduled curated "events" like FSO, Scenarios, and the very creative AvA events. 
The rest of the time, sadly, the AvA seems empty when I've checked.  Why?  Because it is not the main.  And the player base herds reflexively into the main.

 

Do you have a second suggestion?   


 

[DmonSlyr]

You seem to have missed the point.

People get to play the way they want to. If you find that boring then it is your problem.

The plan to nudge other people in a certain direction with perks and ENY will not change how people choose to fly.
It may even make things worse.

Therefor the only practical option is for the OP to change his behavior since you cannot change other people.

Nice of people to try to help him but he's made it clear he's not listening.

You say everyone else has no proof of their arguement yet say that reducing ENY or perking a few more planes will not change how people fly. Can you prove that claim?

I completely disagree with you. If more players fly less performance planes in a more balanced arena, they would have to fly differently because they would not be able to use lazy tactics if they lose the E advantage. You and Wiley both say that "other planes will take their spots". The counter of that is that those planes aren't as good, so they will be easier to catch if they don't use the BnZ tactics in the correct way. No one is trying to take away tactics. BnZ can be used by most planes. The fallacy is thinking that reducing ENY or perking a really fast plane is taking away someone's style. It's not. It's reducing temptation of using a crutch.

The problem is, if too many leave because of boredom or other reasons. That's hitechs problem. Polls should be implemented to understand the the players in the MA. There is no point in a forum wishlist if only a few players out of hundreds use it because you can always make the arguement that it doesn't take most of the players into consideration. IMO, there is nothing wrong with experimenting with the MA and finding out what players like and don't like (sorta like the radar thing).

I don't understand why we should consider the MA "perfect" when it should always be open to some experimentation. I think bringing in new smaller maps with shorter base distances will go a long way to bringing back more action and less boredom regardless of the planes.

[FLS]

...I don't understand why we should consider the MA "perfect" when it should always be open to some experimentation....

Who is saying the MA is perfect?  Nobody.

Why should it be open to experimentation? 

Hitech is open to ideas and Hitech does make changes but experiments in the MA risk losing customers.

Why not experiment in player arenas? You won't get everybody in there, just the people that want to experiment.

It's something you can do now with no down side.

[novice]

What does this sentence say?

"If it's popular it would be a better argument for a permanent setup than the usual complaints."

You initially responded with a straw man that ignored what I actually said.

Discussion doesn't mean agree to our assumptions or shut up but there's a lot of that in the thread.

Permanet what exactly not being a smart bellybutton just dont understand what you mean by that?

[FLS]

...melt down...

I didn't propose a test. I proposed an alternative to boredom.

Friday squad nights are a thing.

Make another thing. Do something constructive.

[bustr]

I didn't propose a test. I proposed an alternative to boredom.

Friday squad nights are a thing.

Make another thing. Do something constructive.

Doing the steps to engage and support a "thing" is effort and none of them will admit the root of what they want is Hitech to shoulder it all while they pass judgement on the failures of trying new "things" with no skin in the game for the failure. I've never met an "Idea Man" who wanted to get his hands dirty. The AvA crew are doing more than hosting a two sided setup. They are experimenting with "things" and a very tiny number of some "thing" features have ever made it into the MA. When you look at other games, just like AH they have their core "thing" that makes them money. And just like Hitech, very little totality of the architecture change happens to the golden goose while people keep paying for those eggs.

The DA went away, the Match Play arena does not entice much of a following and WO:P, maybe it's still needing time for the right youtuber or streamer to play in there and go Kowbunga this is hot to his followers. Otherwise most of the ideas being thrown up on the wall are just the things from other games these guys like and they are doing their own version of nugetx. At least they are not crossing the credulity line nuget did by telling Hitech to just trust him he knows it will work. They are carefully dancing out of the way of being pinned for that answer or some kind of action just like Idea Men always do. Remember nuget's idea for cropping the best parts of multiple combat games into the MA and totally revamping it would be a success and he wasn't willing to bet anything on it but assurances.

[Wiley]

You say everyone else has no proof of their arguement yet say that reducing ENY or perking a few more planes will not change how people fly. Can you prove that claim?

Pretty easy to see it happen in real time when ENY kicks in.  They move down to the next fastest planes and continue to do what they do, except more conservatively.  One diving pass, run to ack.

Wiley.