Forty eight people in the main on Saturday ??

[ACE]

Agreed.  The endless action in the arena back in 2000 is what got my hooked. 

Now I log in a couple days a week if lucky, and end up normally country hopping to find a decent fight. Usually due to the current map being TOO BIG!

The good Ol days. Hopped in the other night and it was ndisle. Best map ever made plenty of action. Day before 0 action on a huge map.

[ACE]

Players bomb the strats as much for score as other players shoot down fighters for it.

Doesn’t take much to see that one produces action and the other doesn’t really do much.

[Lusche]

Doesn’t take much to see that one produces action and the other doesn’t really do much.

At times, this can be very much true. However, this has nothing to do with score. For the most part, players do not go on long strat runs for score, just as they don't shoot down enemy fighters 'just for score'. In fact, long strat runs are very inefficient for bomber score, there's other stuff to bomb if you are after that.

It's just a sad tradition of this game, that everything that people don't like to see other players doing, is simply attributed to "score"

[whiteman]

The guys i know that bomb the strats will hit that before making runs on bases. Makes sense to take down a factory or city strat then hit the corresponding base element. Long down times keep the enemy busy resupplying or fighting at a disadvantage longer at that base.

[nrshida]

Perhaps I'm remembering this incorrectly but when the MA was divided into Blue and Orange wasn't there a different 'Off Peak' map with all maps having their states recorded as they stood at the time of switch over?

[Lusche]

Perhaps I'm remembering this incorrectly but when the MA was divided into Blue and Orange wasn't there a different 'Off Peak' map with all maps having their states recorded as they stood at the time of switch over?

That was the last iteration of the LWB/LWO concept: https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,292342.msg3722701.html#msg3722701

[Eagler]

Weird, I  do not have a reply button on these posts anymore though I do not think I am banned as my watched status is only 79%

Looking at my posts on the 30th trying to determine why I can't post I have this reply button I am testing here...

Eagler

[ZE]

Can the map change automatically base on the number of players??? maybe when more than 50 players use small maps ?

[Lazerr]

Can the map change automatically base on the number of players??? maybe when more than 50 players use small maps ?

I think that would piss off the win the war guys that spent 8 hours of their day rolling hardly defending bases.

[CptTrips]

In Battlefield, they had a nice map voting feature that could be turned on by server admin.

During a war on a current map, you could submit a vote for the upcoming map.

I could see something like this working well in AH. 

At logon a notice, or periodically an arena msg:

“Vote for the next map in rotation:
1. Buzzsaw,
2. CraterMA
3. NDIsles
4. etc….”
Players could vote with a dot command:  “.votemap 3”.


This would have several advantages:

1.  It would solve a lot of the map whining.  At the very least it weakens the argument against any map with the fact that it was what the active players wanted.  If they never want to play Buzzsaw again, they don’t have to vote for it.  If they want to play NDIsles 50 times in a row, fine.  Let them.  If they didn’t vote, then they can take what ever the ones who did, prefer.

2.  It seems like it would be a reasonable straight forward feature.  No 3D modeling or art assets needed.  Just some logic processing which would be HT’s prime zone.

3.  It is also a very interesting way to get direct feedback on which maps truly are liked or disliked.  It is then worth looking at what the differences are.  Could be a really good hard feedback signal for map makers.

4.  It is equitable.  One player one vote.  It gives you a cleaner view of the player base desire than being swayed by a louder voice on channel or forum.  Noones voice would be any louder than anyonelse’s. They just get their one vote.

It would be hard to argue that wouldn’t be fair. 

If you don’t vote then you must not care.

If you did vote, you may not get your choice, but are faced with the fact that it was not what the
majority of other players wanted.

If you have 7 maps and they all suck but one, there is no gain in forcing players to play a map they don’t want to.  For their own good?  It’s not like making a kid eat their vegetables.

[DmonSlyr]

In Battlefield, they had a nice map voting feature that could be turned on by server admin.

During a war on a current map, you could submit a vote for the upcoming map.

I could see something like this working well in AH. 

At logon a notice, or periodically an arena msg:

“Vote for the next map in rotation:
1. Buzzsaw,
2. CraterMA
3. NDIsles
4. etc….”
Players could vote with a dot command:  “.votemap 3”.


This would have several advantages:

1.  It would solve a lot of the map whining.  At the very least it weakens the argument against any map with the fact that it was what the active players wanted.  If they never want to play Buzzsaw again, they don’t have to vote for it.  If they want to play NDIsles 50 times in a row, fine.  Let them.  If they didn’t vote, then they can take what ever the ones who did, prefer.

2.  It seems like it would be a reasonable straight forward feature.  No 3D modeling or art assets needed.  Just some logic processing which would be HT’s prime zone.

3.  It is also a very interesting way to get direct feedback on which maps truly are liked or disliked.  It is then worth looking at what the differences are.  Could be a really good hard feedback signal for map makers.

4.  It is equitable.  One player one vote.  It gives you a cleaner view of the player base desire than being swayed by a louder voice on channel or forum.  Noones voice would be any louder than anyonelse’s. They just get their one vote.

It would be hard to argue that wouldn’t be fair. 

If you don’t vote then you must not care.

If you did vote, you may not get your choice, but are faced with the fact that it was not what the
majority of other players wanted.

If you have 7 maps and they all suck but one, there is no gain in forcing players to play a map they don’t want to.  For their own good?  It’s not like making a kid eat their vegetables.

I think it wouldn't hurt to give it a try.

[TequilaChaser]

In Battlefield, they had a nice map voting feature that could be turned on by server admin.

During a war on a current map, you could submit a vote for the upcoming map.

I could see something like this working well in AH. 

At logon a notice, or periodically an arena msg:

“Vote for the next map in rotation:
1. Buzzsaw,
2. CraterMA
3. NDIsles
4. etc….”
Players could vote with a dot command:  “.votemap 3”.


This would have several advantages:

1.  It would solve a lot of the map whining.  At the very least it weakens the argument against any map with the fact that it was what the active players wanted.  If they never want to play Buzzsaw again, they don’t have to vote for it.  If they want to play NDIsles 50 times in a row, fine.  Let them.  If they didn’t vote, then they can take what ever the ones who did, prefer.

2.  It seems like it would be a reasonable straight forward feature.  No 3D modeling or art assets needed.  Just some logic processing which would be HT’s prime zone.

3.  It is also a very interesting way to get direct feedback on which maps truly are liked or disliked.  It is then worth looking at what the differences are.  Could be a really good hard feedback signal for map makers.

4.  It is equitable.  One player one vote.  It gives you a cleaner view of the player base desire than being swayed by a louder voice on channel or forum.  Noones voice would be any louder than anyonelse’s. They just get their one vote.

It would be hard to argue that wouldn’t be fair. 

If you don’t vote then you must not care.

If you did vote, you may not get your choice, but are faced with the fact that it was not what the
majority of other players wanted.

If you have 7 maps and they all suck but one, there is no gain in forcing players to play a map they don’t want to.  For their own good?  It’s not like making a kid eat their vegetables.

Sounds reasonable...

[Eagler]

Or put a timer on the maps...

It is isn't won in a number of hours (48?)..a countdown now like we get when a map is won would start stating a new map will start in x minutes (120?) and countdown every 15min from then..

Anything to let us who want a new map when it gets stuck that a change is on its way

Last night switched to knights and there wasn't a fight as rooks and bishop were playing by themselves...

I think going down to 2 sides is also a possibility for concentrating the action as the numbers don't support 3 imo

Eagler

[CptTrips]

I think going down to 2 sides is also a possibility for concentrating the action as the numbers don't support 3 imo

I agree, but that would almost certainly require new maps, a lot more logic changes to the win-the-war logic, and HT has deemed that option as not open for consideration.

[lunatic1]

Maps are in a set rotation, Hitachi don't have time to sit around
To sit around and change maps to which ever one you'll want.