Are Bigger arenas always better?

[Vortex]

Assuming the hardware can handle the load, it would be nice to see one large terrain that is basically split into several different smaller ones. What I mean by that is you would have, say, the island terrain we have presently and then 15 or so sectors of open water to the west you have a small sector or two furball area with 3 bases. 15 or so sectors to the south of that you have a sector or two of GV terrain and VH bases. You can use whatever main MA terrain you like with this format. That helps in keeping everyone in the same MA arena but allows for lots of different play options.

Something to that effect anyway. Leave CT as it is and let it evolve into an possible alternative to the MA.

Just  athought anyway.

Vortex

[lazs2]

jab... i thought the guy was talking about "bigger" meaning more people.  thje map sizes have not changed.   All that has changed is the nuber of players.  it appears that he whants to have mre arenas to thin out the population.   That is what I am against.
lazs

[Yeager]

Terrain size is not as important as terrain layout.

We could have a larger terrain (512x512 miles) but with continental geographies and a mulitiude of strategic qualitites layed out in a manner that gives wide opportunity for gameplay yet allows the community to stay in one large arena.

Visualize, if you will, a very condensed area within the terrain encompassing many elements (basically a small arena) and larger, flater areas with fewer but far more important (strategically)
elements.

Speciall places in the terrain designed especially for GV warfare.

Coastlines especially suited for Amphibious attacks against strategic assets.

Water Straights with passages to important regions
deep within the terrain.

As long as there is a small area of the terrain well suited to fast and furious dogfights (with assets hard to hit, protecting quick access to gameplay) then people who desire more planning and have time to execute intricate missions can share the same space with dogfighters.

The possibilities from a designers perspective are intriguing.  

Y

[Sikboy]

Originally posted by lazs2
jab... i thought the guy was talking about "bigger" meaning more people.  thje map sizes have not changed.   All that has changed is the nuber of players.  it appears that he whants to have mre arenas to thin out the population.   That is what I am against.

I think I'm the guy reffered to here, and let me clarify. The term "Bigger" was meant to refer to both the size in quadrants, as well as the number of players. I mean, there seems to always be a corresponding increase in one whenever there is a change in the other. Bigger maps almost always=more capacity. I could be totally off base here, and I'm sure that someone can find some exceptions to this. But you're very right, decreasing the number of people allowed in the existing mapset probably wouldn't be the best, although, and correct me if I'm wrong here, these maps worked fine in the days before the Pre-AWdeath population boom.

-Sikboy

[lazs2]

Ok... I don't want to thin out the population or increase the size of the maps.   If anything I want the fields to be closer together.
lazs

[J_A_B]

I see now what you were saying Lazs....you were talking more about population density than physical size.  

J_A_B