Post by: zack1234 on December 11, 2019, 06:51:08 AM
I am on Knights for years i would opt to get rid of this side as they are on the hole rubbish in game.
Post by: AKKuya on December 11, 2019, 07:44:27 AM
Post by: whiteman on December 11, 2019, 08:08:13 AM
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 08:16:08 AM
They do have a two sided arena. It's called Axis vs Allies. Have you seen the mass number of players there?
Apples to oranges. They are not directly comparable.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 08:17:07 AM
Hero’s and Generals had a two sided war for years, 1 side won every war for 2 straight years because every player flocked to that side. Wasn’t till soviet side was added that the streak was broke up.
Sounds just like here, where one side is generally ignored.
Post by: TWCAxew on December 11, 2019, 09:12:00 AM
It saddens me that i feel this way about AH right now, since there is nothing more than love from me for this game and players.
I would be in favor of 2 sides if that brings some action back into the EU timezone. I always preferred the 3 sides, i thought it was cool and it worked pretty wel. But no longer.
I used to play this game 40 to 60 hours a week for years and i want to have a reason to do this again.
I am still around for scenario's before anyone says i don't play and have no right to talk. Scenario's are still pretty dope :aok
Dutch
EDIT: i always seem to be stuck on the wrong country, that doesn't help either. #1hoursideswitchtimer!!
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 09:13:05 AM
They do have a two sided arena. It's called Axis vs Allies. Have you seen the mass number of players there?
I don't see mass numbers in the 3-sided either. Less and less every day, actually.
I do think 3-sides was perfect back when we had 400-600 players. So, I'm not against 3-sides.
:salute
[Zack, I'd think the owner of Aces High would have better things to do than troll the BBS! :rofl]
Post by: guncrasher on December 11, 2019, 09:21:03 AM
semp
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 09:32:14 AM
Hero’s and Generals had a two sided war for years, 1 side won every war for 2 straight years because every player flocked to that side. Wasn’t till soviet side was added that the streak was broke up.
That's impossible. I have been assured ad nauseum that this would never happen with a two sided war in a game similar to AH.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 09:39:51 AM
That's impossible. I have been assured ad nauseum that this would never happen with a two sided war in a game similar to AH.
As much as having 3-sides is the most perfect configuration that never becomes unbalanced and will draw hundreds of players from across the internet when they hear rumor that we have 3 chess pieces fighting it out!
Of course no one ever said that, but if we are going to start throwing around strawman arguments, equal time is only fair. :D
:salute
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 09:45:34 AM
As much as having 3-sides is the most perfect configuration that never becomes unbalanced and will draw hundreds of players from across the internet when they hear rumor that we have 3 chess pieces fighting it out!
Of course no one ever said that, but if we are going to start throwing around strawman arguments, equal time is only fair. :D
:salute
Where's the strawman? I've said all along that going to two sides would produce similar results to what happened in H and G. That's infinity percent more examples than have been provided of 3 sides going to 2 not producing it.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 09:54:56 AM
Where's the strawman? I've said all along that going to two sides would produce similar results to what happened in H and G. That's infinity percent more examples than have been provided of 3 sides going to 2 not producing it.
Wiley.
The strawman was your attempt to imply someone claimed 2-sides would magically never have side balancing issues that need to be managed.
The argument has always been that 2-sides will have no worse side-balancing issues that 3-sides.
3-sides has virtually no effect on side balancing. It was so ineffective at it that the ENY system had to be designed. ENY is a more powerful balancing mechanism than 3-sides. ENY can function just as well with 2-sides.
2-sides would tend to concentrate the fights, which is what you need with anemic numbers. Shorter frontage which every point can be accessed by all players.
3-sides spread the fight out, which is useful to avoid cluster-fks when you have 600 players.
:salute
Post by: atlau on December 11, 2019, 09:55:58 AM
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 09:57:40 AM
The strawman was your attempt to imply someone claimed 2-sides would magically never have side balancing issues that need to be managed.Quote
Not at all what I said. What I've been saying all along is you'd wind up with constant one-sided battles with one side being the "winners" and the other side being the "losers". Oddly similar to what happened with H and G.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 09:58:38 AM
I think they should go to a single side! Then we can roll maps really quickly!
I think we should go 8 sides!!!!!
(https://i.pinimg.com/345x/2c/11/2b/2c112b55ab6284b7ca9f9f786d46e700.jpg)
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 10:00:03 AM
The strawman was your attempt to imply someone claimed 2-sides would magically never have side balancing issues that need to be managed.
Not at all what I said. What I've been saying all along is you'd wind up with constant one-sided battles with one side being the "winners" and the other side being the "losers". Oddly similar to what happened with H and G.
Wiley.
Does 3-sides ever have side balance issues?
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 10:04:44 AM
I think they should go to a single side! Then we can roll maps really quickly!
Turn it into a co-op vs AI game so we can have a token resistance as we roll each base and all the human players win. :banana:
Does 3-sides ever have side balance issues?
We both know the answer to that. Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped? When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 10:14:25 AM
We both know the answer to that. Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped?
Are you saying similar has never happened with 3-sides?
When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.
You'll have to provide a direct quote for that. I've never said that. 2-sides has the same side balancing issues as 3-sides. No more, no less.
Having a third side have virtually no effect. ENY is the proper mechanism.
Does ENY not work with 2-sides?
I would suggest ENY encouraging side balancing up to a point, and at some extreme point (like BF) then new players can't enter the high side or switch to the high side.
3-sides would have no advantage over that. And balanced sides doesn't promise there won't be rolling anyway. I've been in plenty of BF matches perfectly balanced numerically where one side was still steam-rolling the other. War is Hell.
:salute
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 10:22:20 AM
Are you saying similar has never happened with 3-sides?
No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map. Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.
Quote
You'll have to provide a direct quote for that. I've never said that. 2-sides has the same side balancing issues as 3-sides. No more, no less.
Having a third side have virtually no effect. ENY is the proper mechanism.
Does ENY not work with 2-sides?
Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now? I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?
Quote
I would suggest ENY encouraging side balancing up to a point, and at some extreme point (like BF) then new players can't enter the high side or switch to the high side.
Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?
Quote
3-sides would have no advantage over that. And balanced sides doesn't promise there won't be rolling anyway. I've been in plenty of BF matches perfectly balanced numerically where one side was still steam-rolling the other. War is Hell.
:salute
Nope. But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:30:38 AM
That's impossible. I have been assured ad nauseum that this would never happen with a two sided war in a game similar to AH.
Wiley.
It can be easily mitigated in a way that's more effective than what we have now which is a de facto two-sided war where a third of the players are completely ignored.
THIS DOESN'T WORK ANY MORE.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:33:27 AM
Turn it into a co-op vs AI game so we can have a token resistance as we roll each base and all the human players win. :banana:
We both know the answer to that. Now, is it better to have one side constantly facerolling the entire map on a regular basis while the other side gets constantly stomped? When it's come up, those in favor of 2 sides have said repeatedly that won't happen.
Wiley.
If they want to roll the map in P-40Bs more power to them. I'm always happy to club baby seals outnumbered ten to one. Bring it.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:35:05 AM
No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map. Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.
Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now? I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?
Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?
Nope. But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.
Wiley.
Three sides allows one side to be ignored by the others.
Two sides allow EVERYONE to meet the point of attack.
Post by: snugar109 on December 11, 2019, 10:37:41 AM
I think we should go 8 sides!!!!!
I prefer 6 really since we are in a chess theme to start with
(http://www.thechesspiece.com/proddetail.asp?prod=Virgo)
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 10:42:07 AM
If they want to roll the map in P-40Bs more power to them. I'm always happy to club baby seals outnumbered ten to one. Bring it.
They'll do it. 1v10 odds don't result in a victory regardless of plane type unless the 10 are monumentally dim.
it will focus those 10v1 odds as the only fight on the map, so you either get to be one of the horde winners, or you get to be one of the losers. I think you guys vastly overestimate the people who will sign up to be the losers.
Wiley.
Post by: perdue3 on December 11, 2019, 10:42:21 AM
Two sides could potentially remedy the problem. However, I fear the same problem would exist but on a more severe scale. One side would always dominate and if you force folks to join the low side they simply won't play. Thus, one side will essentially never be able to fly P-51D's and the other will never win a map.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:46:53 AM
It is applicable because it is a two sided war versus a three sided war. Sure, the games are different, but the concepts are the same. Heroes and Generals had a two sided war unlike Aces High. It was hardly balanced. Then, they switched to a three sided war which is now much better, but still with problems. I am not sure how you find the two not directly comparable unless you are merely looking at game type.
AvA is empty because of other reasons, not side numbers.
And if we keep going like this we will have an empty three-sided arena to go with it.
We had a popular AvA in WBs that for some strange reason became empty overnight and in its place the two-sided Main became the go-to arena. It was a blast. We never had any of these apocalyptic problems everyone on here uses an excuse to stick with something that doesn't work at current levels.
You can blast me all you like, but the fact remains that an arena with three-sides now causes more problems than it solves.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:49:36 AM
They'll do it. 1v10 odds don't result in a victory regardless of plane type unless the 10 are monumentally dim.
it will focus those 10v1 odds as the only fight on the map, so you either get to be one of the horde winners, or you get to be one of the losers. I think you guys vastly overestimate the people who will sign up to be the losers.
Wiley.
I would rather have 10:1 than 0:1.
And Captain Trips already explained why your doom and gloom argument will not happen. Hitech has all the tools necessary to make sides balance in a two-country war.
Keep doing it this way and it will be academic all too soon.
Post by: perdue3 on December 11, 2019, 10:51:10 AM
AvA is empty because of other reasons, not side numbers.
And if we keep going like this we will have an empty three-sided arena to go with it.
We had a popular AvA in WBs that for some strange reason became empty overnight and in its place the two-sided Main became the go-to arena. It was a blast. We never had any of these apocalyptic problems everyone on here uses an excuse to stick with something that doesn't work at current levels.
You can blast me all you like, but the fact remains that an arena with three-sides now causes more problems than it solves.
I misread dude. I thought you were talking about H&G being not directly comparable. I went back and read it, removed my post and got back on topic. My bad.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:51:51 AM
Two sides usually have more problems than three. Luckily, we have a system in place to balance. The problem with that system is it does not really work with the terribly low numbers we now have in the MA. If your side outnumbers the rest of the arena, you have to fly weak aircraft, switch sides, or log off. I think that is fair. It is not fair if your side has 8 players, and the other two combine to 4. The system was designed to deal with hundreds of players, not a dozen. The ENY system needs to amended or adjusted, not abolished.
Two sides could potentially remedy the problem. However, I fear the same problem would exist but on a more severe scale. One side would always dominate and if you force folks to join the low side they simply won't play. Thus, one side will essentially never be able to fly P-51D's and the other will never win a map.
Well, we never had these issues in WB. Maps ebbed and flowed. People switched for balance. It was a dynamic environment. I also don't think we even had ENY, either.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:52:39 AM
I misread dude. I thought you were talking about H&G being not directly comparable. I went back and read it, removed my post and got back on topic. My bad.
No worries, bro. :cheers:
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 10:54:46 AM
AvA is empty because of other reasons, not side numbers.
And if we keep going like this we will have an empty three-sided arena to go with it.
We had a popular AvA in WBs that for some strange reason became empty overnight and in its place the two-sided Main became the go-to arena. It was a blast. We never had any of these apocalyptic problems everyone on here uses an excuse to stick with something that doesn't work at current levels.
You can blast me all you like, but the fact remains that an arena with three-sides now causes more problems than it solves.
And we've got an example where 2 sides had the problem I've been stating all along, and that problem was alleviated by 3 sides.
How many people are in that 2 sided WBs arena these days? Does it get above 10? That was what I saw when I checked their arena counter last during prime time. Are you proposing to follow their practices at this point? Or do you figure like Archie once they rewrite the game again in another engine they'll be back on top again?
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 10:57:45 AM
And we've got an example where 2 sides had the problem I've been stating all along, and that problem was alleviated by 3 sides.
How many people are in that 2 sided WBs arena these days? Does it get above 10? That was what I saw when I checked their arena counter last during prime time. Are you proposing to follow their practices at this point? Or do you figure like Archie once they rewrite the game again in another engine they'll be back on top again?
Wiley.
Numbers then were double at least what we have here now.
I predicted the slide here and told you all what would happen. Three sides are simply going to accelerate the falloff because a third of the players can be ignored.
You effectively have two sides now. They ignore the third side which is causing people to leave. Boredom is not a motivator. With two actual sides at least that ignored group can find a fight.
Ignore this at your peril.
Post by: perdue3 on December 11, 2019, 10:58:07 AM
Well, we never had these issues in WB. Maps ebbed and flowed. People switched for balance. It was a dynamic environment. I also don't think we even had ENY, either.
Understandable. But, people DO NOT switch for balance in Aces High. Rightfully so in many ways, the wait time to switch again is brutal. ENY is meant to help the low side by either leveling the playing field or convincing people on the high side to switch or log off. Sadly, it just does not work when there are very few people on.
This current system used to work, but doesn't now. The reasons why it no longer works are numerous. Most of the reasons can be traced back to a very small population. 1 hour switch time meant that switching was essentially risk-free. I used to switch just because I saw a good furball or wanted to run with ghi in missions. But now, switching is basically a daily commitment. If I logged on right now and switched, I can't switch again until the evening. Just so happens I am not working today, so in an ordinary situation I could switch once for I only have about 6 hours to play anyway.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 11:02:06 AM
Understandable. But, people DO NOT switch for balance in Aces High. Rightfully so in many ways, the wait time to switch again is brutal. ENY is meant to help the low side by either leveling the playing field or convincing people on the high side to switch or log off. Sadly, it just does not work when there are very few people on.
This current system used to work, but doesn't now. The reasons why it no longer works are numerous. Most of the reasons can be traced back to a very small population. 1 hour switch time meant that switching was essentially risk-free. I used to switch just because I saw a good furball or wanted to run with ghi in missions. But now, switching is basically a daily commitment. If I logged on right now and switched, I can't switch again until the evening. Just so happens I am not working today, so in an ordinary situation I could switch once for I only have about 6 hours to play anyway.
You are correct. Side switch time limits work in opposition to ENY. They will definitely need to be modified.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 11:09:27 AM
Numbers then were double at least what we have here now.
I predicted the slide here and told you all what would happen. Three sides are simply going to accelerate the falloff because a third of the players can be ignored.
You effectively have two sides now. They ignore the third side which is causing people to leave. Boredom is not a motivator. With two actual sides at least that ignored group can find a fight.
Ignore this at your peril.
Yep. You've been saying doom all along. By the look of things 2 sides didn't seem to do much to stop the slide over there. Where's the proof of benefit to 2 sides again?
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 11:15:19 AM
Yep. You've been saying doom all along. By the look of things 2 sides didn't seem to do much to stop the slide over there. Where's the proof of benefit to 2 sides again?
Wiley.
And I've been right.
The issues with that place had nothing to do with two sides and you know it.
This is a waste of time. Hitech is going to use three sides until he closes the doors so I see no point discussing it further. At this point, unless we figure out the new-player-retention issue three sides only exacerbates the problem we see unfolding before our eyes. The latter issue (retention) is the ultimate salvation for the game and I don't have an answer.
Post by: SPKmes on December 11, 2019, 11:19:28 AM
(https://66.media.tumblr.com/caca88b1a22fec07762a27cc05cda8c4/tumblr_outh3rjooU1qe8lb8o1_400.gifv)
and then from the first reply
(https://media1.tenor.com/images/6da677859815a62c82a215f515cdd90e/tenor.gif?itemid=5118563)
(http://www.evolvemediagroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/too-easy-gif-6.gif)
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 11:21:55 AM
And I've been right.
The issues with that place had nothing to do with two sides and you know it.
Say doom long enough, eventually you'll be right. Congratulations, water is wet. I'm trying to remember what arena numbers were like when I left around 2010... I remember the thought process at the time among other things was numbers here were much better.
Quote
This is a waste of time. Hitech is going to use three sides until he closes the doors so I see no point discussing it further. At this point, unless we figure out the new-player-retention issue three sides only exacerbates the problem we see unfolding before our eyes. This latter issue is the ultimate salvation for the game and I don't have an answer.
Yup on all counts. And while going to 2 sides might help, as I've said all along, citation needed. So far it's 1-0 for 3 sides alleviating the problem I stated elsewhere. Going to 2 sides helping is not as clear-cut and obvious as it's been presented, and I don't see anything to indicate that ENY would work any better than it does now with 2 sides. People don't move, they log.
Wiley.
Post by: yipi on December 11, 2019, 11:28:45 AM
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 11:30:19 AM
Where's the proof of benefit to 2 sides again?
Where's the proof of benefit to 3 sided again?
The current numbers trend? Any more of that benefit and Hitech will need 16x16 mi terrains. ;)
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 11:32:51 AM
This current system used to work, but doesn't now.
Mic drop.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 11:37:16 AM
Where's the proof of benefit to 3 sided again?
H&G. Planetside 2 has 3 sides and seems to work decently, although their numbers went down from launch similarly to what's going on in AH, IMO for similar reasons that have little to do with 2 or 3 sides. Open FFA side based PVP is still a niche within a niche.
Quote
The current numbers trend? Any more of that benefit and Hitech will need 16x16 mi terrains. ;)
Again, would you rather play in an arena where you've got the "winners" and "losers" side versus what we have now? I wouldn't. Also regarding your comment about sometimes getting rolled in BF. Yeah, for one what, 30 minute round? Then it resets.
WT clone or dating simulator. That is the path forward.
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 11:44:32 AM
Say doom long enough, eventually you'll be right. Congratulations, water is wet. I'm trying to remember what arena numbers were like when I left around 2010... I remember the thought process at the time among other things was numbers here were much better.
Yup on all counts. And while going to 2 sides might help, as I've said all along, citation needed. So far it's 1-0 for 3 sides alleviating the problem I stated elsewhere. Going to 2 sides helping is not as clear-cut and obvious as it's been presented, and I don't see anything to indicate that ENY would work any better than it does now with 2 sides. People don't move, they log.
Wiley.
It's not about saying doom long enough. It's about looking down the tracks and seeing the train coming. I was hit by it once. I know exactly what it looks like.
AH has a benefit of no direct competitor in terms of open-world-persistent-arena but that dog only hunts so long. When a third of your player base is being ignored on the battlefield eventually they quit.
Two sides will alleviate that problem.
Three sides may SEEM to be 1-0 but that's a default judgment based on overflowing arenas. We're not there now. With current numbers any benefit to three sides is easily outweighed by its negative effects.
Any way. People are voting with their feet and an exodus can be a much bigger avalanche than an influx. Time is a wastin' to solve the riddle.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 11:45:53 AM
Where's the proof of benefit to 3 sided again?
The current numbers trend? Any more of that benefit and Hitech will need 16x16 mi terrains. ;)
Mic drop.
Mic drop.
+1
Post by: Bruv119 on December 11, 2019, 11:48:13 AM
Of course USA would roll most maps because of where the game is based but once a team loses all of its airfields they are out until its 2 nations when one of the 2 remaining teams hits 80% then flip the map and start with all 5 again. What it would do is promote people switching teams to fly their favourite aircraft rather than blind chess piece loyalty.
Once Team USA has more and more players their ENY will make them all fly p40s and we can have fun shooting them all down. :)
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 11:49:11 AM
H&G. Planetside 2 has 3 sides and seems to work decently, although their numbers went down from launch similarly to what's going on in AH, IMO for similar reasons that have little to do with 2 or 3 sides. Open FFA side based PVP is still a niche within a niche.
Again, would you rather play in an arena where you've got the "winners" and "losers" side versus what we have now? I wouldn't. Also regarding your comment about sometimes getting rolled in BF. Yeah, for one what, 30 minute round? Then it resets.
WT clone or dating simulator. That is the path forward.
Wiley.
Would you rather play in an arena with PLAYERS vs. PLAYERS or PLAYERS vs. BOREDOM?
I'll take action against odds vs. churning empty air.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 11:53:17 AM
AH has a benefit of no direct competitor in terms of open-world-persistent-arena but that dog only hunts so long. When a third of your player base is being ignored on the battlefield eventually they quit.
Two sides will alleviate that problem.
And likely create the winners-losers problem. Is it a net gain? I don't think so. Where do you see a ton of people who will sign up to be stomped constantly? I do have to admit you'll likely find a ton of people to roll bases with no substantial opposition.
Quote
Three sides may SEEM to be 1-0 but that's a default judgment based on overflowing arenas.
How were H&G's numbers affecting whether one side won every time for 2 years? PS2 doesn't have overflowing arenas.
Quote
We're not there now. With current numbers any benefit to three sides is easily outweighed by its negative effects.
Any way. People are voting with their feet and an exodus can be a much bigger avalanche than an influx. Time is a wastin' to solve the riddle.
Again, why will they stay when it's 2 sides horde or be horded?
Wiley.
Post by: Traveler on December 11, 2019, 11:56:23 AM
Post by: snugar109 on December 11, 2019, 12:00:58 PM
I say go 5 sides, but split into country specific planesets.
Wouldn't work, we have a sqd that flies all sorts of planes from all sorts of countries so now the sqd is split based on their fav plane choice or wanting to take up something new for a scenario to practice in and that won't be good.
Post by: Shuffler on December 11, 2019, 12:05:44 PM
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 12:13:38 PM
And likely create the winners-losers problem. Is it a net gain? I don't think so. Where do you see a ton of people who will sign up to be stomped constantly? I do have to admit you'll likely find a ton of people to roll bases with no substantial opposition.
How were H&G's numbers affecting whether one side won every time for 2 years? PS2 doesn't have overflowing arenas.
Again, why will they stay when it's 2 sides horde or be horded?
Wiley.
Again. This is an apocalyptic prediction that's used as an excuse not a reason.
WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues.
People will get sick of being stomped in their horde of P-40Bs and switch sides. In the meantime the outnumbered side will enjoy feeling like gods while slaying these EW bandwagoners in our LW Uber Machines.
Or we can continue to have a third of the players flying around bored taking empty bases until they cancel their subs.
Action > Inaction
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 12:17:27 PM
Smaller maps are the easiest remedy in my opinion.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 12:18:27 PM
140 on last night
Holiday surge.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 12:19:31 PM
No, but what I am saying is the third side gives opportunity for the two sides to work against whichever side has horded up and is rolling the map. Going to 2 sides takes away that opportunity.
Or more likely, The largest side and the next largest simply decide to pick on the weakest side because their bases are easy pickings. Ah the magical powers of 3-sides. :rofl
Given the lack of side switching that goes on here, what aspect of 2 sides would make people do anything other than log off like they do now? I thought the idea was to get more people into the arena?
The goal of a 2-sided configuration would be to concentrate the fights more and to make sure that any good fight that develops organically can be reached by all players in the arena an not keep 1/3 of the players blocked off from access by several sectors.
There are two goals Hitech needs to achieve:
1. He needs to bring in more new players and keep them.
2. He needs to not lose the ones he has, at least until he can replace them. ;)
I think with numbers this low, 3-sides is dysfunctional. I think if numbers got up to 400, 2-sides would be dysfunctional.
The goal would be to improve the quality and quantity of action so it looks like fun to new and old.
Knowing what you know about the playerbase, how popular will that be?
Stawman. That would only kick in in the most extreme cases of imbalance. They would prefer it over mass imbalance, which can just as easily occur with 3-sides.
Nope. But it doesn't seem to result in a 2 year streak of one side winning every single time.
Strawman. There is no evidence there would be a two year long imbalance in AH Melee (Non-AVA where could have tech imbalance). Your imagined doom scenarios are astrawmen.
------------------------------------------------------
Look, I get it. If you just say your personally prefer 3-sides I won't try and argue you out of it. Just don't make up false arguments to justify your preference. I fully respect a personal preference.
I don't have a preference for 2-sides. I just want to see the proper tool used for a given job. I like 3-sides fine too when numbers are higher.
If the argument is that Hitech doesn't like 2-sides and will never do it. <Shrug> OK, that has nothing to do with what is the best approach. Hitech is not a God. He is a dude. Dudes can make good choices and bad choices. I don't begrudge him the choice. It's his paycheck. But I won't grovel and pretend that everything he prefers is the perfect choice just because he made it. If I don't agree, then I don't agree, and I'll state such respectfully.
If the argument is that it would be too much work to change at this point, OK, I get it. Life is hard. Sometimes things are desirable but not feasible. That doesn't mean there are not advantages to 2-sides when numbers are low. Feasibility is a separate issue. Perfectly valid, but separate.
:salute
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 12:20:22 PM
140 on last night
180 on a year ago.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 12:27:53 PM
Again. This is an apocalyptic prediction that's used as an excuse not a reason.
WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues.
Again, where counterexample? We can clearly see from player behavior in AH that they don't switch like they used to in WB.
Quote
People will get sick of being stomped in their horde of P-40Bs and switch sides. In the meantime the outnumbered side will enjoy feeling like gods while slaying these EW bandwagoners in our LW Uber Machines.
Just like they do now. Oh wait...
Quote
Or we can continue to have a third of the players flying around bored taking empty bases until they cancel their subs.
Action > Inaction
Right. As opposed to the vast majority flying around bored taking functionally undefended bases until they cancel their subs. Improvement!
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 12:39:53 PM
Planetside 2 has 3 sides and seems to work decently, although their numbers went down from launch similarly to what's going on in AH, IMO for similar reasons that have little to do with 2 or 3 sides. Open FFA side based PVP is still a niche within a niche.
I just tried PlanetSide the other day. I think it is much more similar to BF than AH. I had to laugh at how many game-play mechanism were direct rip-offs from BF. Which is a good thing. I'm a big fan of ripping-off great ideas and using them.
However BF is 2-sided not 3-sided; and I assure you they make billion$ more than PlanetSide and AH combined.
For the 3-siders it seems to have become a religion.
For me, 2-sides vs 3-sides is merely a design choice. It's like asking me if I think you should user for-loops or while-loops. It depends. They both have advantages and disadvantages. It's best to use which ever one has the most advantages in a given situation depending on your requirements.
If we had 500 players back in the arena and someone was arguing for 2-sided, I would argue against them. I'm not married to 2-sides, I'm just looking for an optimal solution to a design problem.
:salute
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 12:47:02 PM
Quote
Strawman. There is no evidence there would be a two year long imbalance in AH Melee (Non-AVA where could have tech imbalance).
Actually, that's a good point. Tech imbalance was likely a major factor. I still don't see based on current player behavior why it would change anything here.
Quote
------------------------------------------------------
Look, I get it. If you just say your personally prefer 3-sides I won't try and argue you out of it. Just don't make up false arguments to justify your preference. I fully respect a personal preference.
I don't have a preference for 2-sides. I just want to see the proper tool used for a given job. I like 3-sides fine too when numbers are higher.
If the argument is that Hitech doesn't like 2-sides and will never do it. <Shrug> OK, that has nothing to do with what is the best approach. Hitech is not a God. He is a dude. Dudes can make good choices and bad choices. I don't begrudge him the choice. It's his paycheck. But I won't grovel and pretend that everything he prefers is the perfect choice just because he made it. If I don't agree, then I don't agree, and I'll state such respectfully.
If the argument is that it would be too much work to change at this point, OK, I get it. Life is hard. Sometimes things are desirable but not feasible. That doesn't mean there are not advantages to 2-sides when numbers are low. Feasibility is a separate issue. Perfectly valid, but separate.
:salute
The only counterargument that isn't purely based on hope to it causing a winners-losers situation is "it didn't happen in WBs". It also didn't apparently overcome the legion of issues that caused WBs to die.
I too want the right tool for the job. I just think the potential downside that comes with 2 sides outweighs the downside with 3.
Wiley.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 12:50:05 PM
I just tried PlanetSide the other day. I think it is much more similar to BF than AH. I had to laugh at how many game-play mechanism were direct rip-offs from BF. Which is a good thing. I'm a big fan of ripping-off great ideas and using them.
However BF is 2-sided not 3-sided; and I assure you they make billion$ more than PlanetSide and AH combined.
And they're round based, not long term strategic, which is an enormous difference.
Quote
For the 3-siders it seems to have become a religion.
For me, 2-sides vs 3-sides is merely a design choice. It's like asking me if I think you should user for-loops or while-loops. It depends. They both have advantages and disadvantages. It's best to use which ever one has the most advantages in a given situation depending on your requirements.
If we had 500 players back in the arena and someone was arguing for 2-sided, I would argue against them. I'm not married to 2-sides, I'm just looking for an optimal solution to a design problem.
:salute
Everything has potential and observed disadvantages. I just don't see any indication that it would play out any different than how I described, with the only counter example being WB.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 12:58:31 PM
Actually, that's a good point. Tech imbalance was likely a major factor. I still don't see based on current player behavior why it would change anything here.
The only counterargument that isn't purely based on hope to it causing a winners-losers situation is "it didn't happen in WBs". It also didn't apparently overcome the legion of issues that caused WBs to die.
I too want the right tool for the job. I just think the potential downside that comes with 2 sides outweighs the downside with 3.
Wiley.
And 3-sides does not appear to be preventing a population drop in AH.
I just think that when player populations are below 200-300, the downsides of 3 sides outweigh the downsides of 2 sides.
In a perfect world, the code should be configurable to support 2..N countries as needs dictate. To my shock, we don't appear to live in a perfect world.
:salute
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 01:13:27 PM
And they're round based, not long term strategic, which is an enormous difference.
More thoughts....
The main reason BF is 2-sided is because it is AvA.
However, now that I think about it, maybe a reason that works so well is that they are small arena 64 player. (Don't laugh, AH may get there. ;))
If they tried to scatter that with 3-sides they'd probably run into the same problems with fight density and the critical mass for one good battle that 1/3 of the players can't get over to.
:salute
Post by: Shuffler on December 11, 2019, 01:22:00 PM
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 01:26:11 PM
I'll have mashed potatoes and fried okra . Thank you.
Good choice. :D
Post by: yipi on December 11, 2019, 01:38:00 PM
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 01:50:35 PM
I think it's time to change. At least lets do an Experimental Arena to try it out with maybe a Medium size map.
The problem is, that will fail for reasons having nothing to do with 2 vs 3 side.
Players are cattle. Cattle herd into the main arena. They don't even think about it. They just reach up and click the Melee.
If you want to test it, put 2-sided in the Melee and move 3-side off to a side arena and label it "3-Side". :D But that would be equally unfair.
The best way would be to run a "Two-Sided Tuesday" configuration for a month or two in the Melee, then poll to see if people like it.
The real problem though is the code wasn't written to support it, so I guess it's not feasible (Which is a different issue than if it is advantageous. ;)).
:salute
Post by: yipi on December 11, 2019, 01:54:27 PM
Post by: hitech on December 11, 2019, 02:02:03 PM
HiTech
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 02:06:12 PM
Not going to happen.
HiTech
:rofl Well, there you go.
Neither will peace of earth or goodwill towards men. (The two are probably not related. ;))
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 02:07:38 PM
And 3-sides does not appear to be preventing a population drop in AH.
I just think that when player populations are below 200-300, the downsides of 3 sides outweigh the downsides of 2 sides.
In a perfect world, the code should be configurable to support 2..N countries as needs dictate. To my shock, we don't appear to live in a perfect world.
:salute
And I disagree. So here we are.
I just found it funny that what I expected would happen had happened in another game when the possibility had been completely dismissed by some people. Granted, tech imbalance could've been a factor, but I'd expect if it was there, adding a third country wouldn't inherently fix that. Adding a third country seemed to help with whatever was causing one side to go on that streak though.
As with anything, it's REALLY rare that a single factor affects a situation, but it's a better example than WB IMO. For one thing, the market changed significantly between then and now. For another, the community in WB was vastly different from AH.
Like you said about feasibility, if they're going to put in that much effort, "it worked in WBs at a time when 3 would've likely worked as well." and hope isn't a whole lot to recommend it.
More thoughts....
The main reason BF is 2-sided is because it is AvA.
However, now that I think about it, maybe a reason that works so well is that they are small arena 64 player.
That coupled with the fact that a "round" ends in minutes not days. IMO it's just not comparable.
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 02:14:33 PM
Like you said about feasibility, if they're going to put in that much effort, "it worked in WBs at a time when 3 would've likely worked as well." and hope isn't a whole lot to recommend it.
In the real world, feasibility is a reality that can't be ignored.
But the trend line has been consistently downward for a decade, so the thought of just doing-what-you've-always-done seems to have risks as well. Unless you believe in magic.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 02:26:13 PM
In the real world, feasibility is a reality that can't be ignored.
But the trend line has been consistently downward for a decade, so the thought of just doing-what-you've-always-done seems to have risks as well. Unless you believe in magic.
The dating sim is sarcasm. The WT clone is not.
Arena wide strategic combat is not what people are looking for anymore. In the heyday people were tolerating that aspect of the game until someone else came up with something like WT. PS2 vs BF is the same difference. Orders of magnitude difference in demand. People don't want long term strategery.
About the only thing I could see pulling people into current AH style gameplay is if the game looked and played like Flight Simulator 2020. Even then, who knows?
And for some, that arena gameplay when it's good is what we want. Hence why we aren't playing IL2 or WT.
Wiley.
Post by: Traveler on December 11, 2019, 02:44:56 PM
:rofl Well, there you go.I think the correct quote is "peace on earth and goodwill towards men."
Neither will peace of earth or goodwill towards men. (The two are probably not related. ;))
Post by: yipi on December 11, 2019, 02:45:59 PM
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 02:52:36 PM
And for some, that arena gameplay when it's good is what we want.
The Melee isn't the only game-play in AH. Are you saying Scenarios, TFT, FSO aren't fun?
Those are much more similar to BF than they are to the Melee. They have a definable beginning, middle, and end within a fixed time-frame with specified victory conditions. I'd say events are significantly more engaging than the wandering around aimlessly for days picking your nose activity of the Main.
My dream version of AH would be a hybrid mode very similar to BF. (Yeah, I know, hate on me. :neener:)
Balanced, 2-Sided ,1 hour mini-scenarios with defined victory conditions and limit clock. Divide up, choose flights, start the clock, take off, fight like Hell at maximum intensity for a 1 hour max sprint. Boom. Session scoreboard and stats. Winner or loser, beginning, middle, end within a time frame a play can get through in the time that evening they have to play. Swap maps and missions. 10 minute intermission. Again!
You could get more actual combat time in a setup like that in a night as you do in a month in the Melee. You could actually see the fruits of your effort within your evening, instead of always leaving things half finished. Players can run if they want, but they'll be losing within the hour. If they want to win, they'll have to fight for the points. Ticket-clock is ticking.
I was hoping maybe that was where WO:P was maybe headed, but apparently not.
:salute
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 02:54:12 PM
I think the correct quote is "peace on earth and goodwill towards men."
Lol. You think you could get both!!!????!
:D
Post by: AAIK on December 11, 2019, 02:54:19 PM
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 02:56:03 PM
Nevermind trying to bring new ideas wont hear from me again ever on the forum. Good luck
Breath Yipi. I already knew the answer when I started. :D
(https://networkingnerd.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/don-quixote-windmill.jpg)
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 03:31:04 PM
The Melee isn't the only game-play in AH. Are you saying Scenarios, TFT, FSO aren't fun?
Those are much more similar to BF than they are to the Melee. They have a definable beginning, middle, and end within a fixed time-frame with specified victory conditions. I'd say events are significantly more engaging than the wandering around aimlessly for days picking your nose activity of the Main.
They're fun, but I believe if FSO was just SO and ran all the time, it would dwindle. It's a once a week special thing that is fun to do for certain. So are scenarios (when the numbers are there). But I know for myself, what I like about the MA is the unpredictability It's a melee and you don't know what the other side is doing all the time.
Scenarios, you know you'll be facing these planes trying to hit these things in numbers similar to yours. In the MA you've got another side trying to take your fields. How they're going to do it is up to them. Sometimes it's a sneak, sometimes it's an NOE mission, sometimes it's a bunch of people upping together to hit it. You have to respond to what you're seeing them do as opposed to "up at field 19 and defend it because they are trying to bomb the hangars."
WBs S3 was hands down the best iteration of that kind of thing IMO. "These kinds of targets are worth these many points. These are the people you are working with for 3 hours Sunday night. Go." No assigned targets except from the CiCs, some targets were obvious good choices but they weren't forced to go after any specific fields. The downside was if your command guessed wrong you might wind up boring holes in the sky until you got redirected.
Quote
My dream version of AH would be a hybrid mode very similar to BF. (Yeah, I know, hate on me. :neener:)
Balanced, 2-Sided ,1 hour mini-scenarios with defined victory conditions and limit clock. Divide up, choose flights, start the clock, take off, fight like Hell at maximum intensity for a 1 hour max sprint. Boom. Session scoreboard and stats. Winner or loser, beginning, middle, end within a time frame a play can get through in the time that evening they have to play. Swap maps and missions. 10 minute intermission. Again!
You could get more actual combat time in a setup like that in a night as you do in a month in the Melee. You could actually see the fruits of your effort within your evening, instead of always leaving things half finished. Players can run if they want, but they'll be losing within the hour. If they want to win, they'll have to fight for the points. Ticket-clock is ticking.
So... WT clone. ;) Like I said, those bite-sized action packed types of rounds are what is popular. I'm not even saying it's wrong. I fell into PUBG for months because of that kind of gameplay. I just am saying "saving" the game by changing it to that is roughly equivalent to shutting it down.
Quote
I was hoping maybe that was where WO:P was maybe headed, but apparently not.
:salute
I have an opinion. It is not constructive. (when I say that, you can imagine... ;))
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 11, 2019, 04:06:14 PM
They're fun, but I believe if FSO was just SO and ran all the time, it would dwindle. It's a once a week special thing that is fun to do for certain.
I'm not so sure. I think the main problem is they are being done "by hand" so there can be some dead time waiting for command to get all the ducks in a row. A lot of work, no offense. Those guys ought to be paid!
I've found the Melee to be much more predictable. I see no complex grand strategic thinking. They just attack the next base adjacent to one they have. Then the next one. Then the next one, until they log for the night. Did they win? Did they lose? Was there a point? By the next day, some unnamed Euro's have retaken the bases you took overnight. So, get back on the treadmill. Unless the Euro's had finished the map overnight, but you weren't there to see it.
I'm not sure where all this grand strategic thinking is you speak of.
So... WT clone. ;) Like I said, those bite-sized action packed types of rounds are what is popular.
Well, I only played WT for about an hour. Couldn't get my joystick to work right (or maybe it was the flight model ;)), and only Devil worshipers fly with a mouse!
I don't know if I'd describe 1 hour sprints as "bite-size" but yeah, I plead guilty.
If there was a BF style game with AH flight model, defined victory conditions, on 128x128 mi maps that played out in 1 hour sprints, 24x7, that is where I'd be playing when not playing a deeper scenario experience.
But I would always want that in addition to the Melee, not instead of.
But like I've said before, maybe it is better to just start with a different game where you have design freedom.
I'm not even saying it's wrong. I fell into PUBG for months because of that kind of gameplay. I just am saying "saving" the game by changing it to that is roughly equivalent to shutting it down.
It's like someone's grandpa. If he only has a few years left, is it worth trying to get him to stop smoking, get exercise, and eat better? Or just concentrate on palliative care. Then remember him fondly. ;)
I have an opinion. It is not constructive. (when I say that, you can imagine... ;))
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlA31WMylkU/Th17yF5dbCI/AAAAAAAALo0/01FQlGQw3h0/s1600/chicken-happy_cluck.jpg)
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 11, 2019, 04:50:35 PM
Some of these maps don't allow the 3rd team to easily participate in the off hours fighting. When that happens, it creates ENY embalance and one side with low #s.
Some people just want an easier access to fights for all sides on smaller maps.
I recognize that some new maps have been made. But I also recongnize that some maps needs to be removed.
There should always be an emphasis to create new maps.
Hitech gotta pay people for that.
Maps are the most important part to AH.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 05:12:15 PM
I'm not so sure. I think the main problem is they are being done "by hand" so there can be some dead time waiting for command to get all the ducks in a row. A lot of work, no offense. Those guys ought to be paid!
No disagreement here. I wouldn't do what they do unless I was WELL compensated.
Quote
I've found the Melee to be much more predictable. I see no complex grand strategic thinking. They just attack the next base adjacent to one they have. Then the next one. Then the next one, until they log for the night. Did they win? Did they lose? Was there a point? By the next day, some unnamed Euro's have retaken the bases you took overnight. So, get back on the treadmill. Unless the Euro's had finished the map overnight, but you weren't there to see it.
I'm not sure where all this grand strategic thinking is you speak of.
I'm not thinking that big. I am thinking more in terms of relatively small base take type stuff, strat runs to a certain degree, and just general opportunity to do the unexpected. I guess the distinction some people make is "strategic" which is what you seem to be talking about vs I'm talking more "tactical". I'm talking about things like how some people will pork and take the VH when they're trying to take a base, some won't. What I like to see is a bardar appearing a sector or so back on a contested front headed somewhere. You can guess but you're not sure where they're going until someone scouts them out.
Now I realize it's not that way all the time, and it's not organized spectacularly well all the time, but it creates opportunity for unexpected stuff to happen.
Quote
Well, I only played WT for about an hour. Couldn't get my joystick to work right (or maybe it was the flight model ;)), and only Devil worshipers fly with a mouse!
I don't know if I'd describe 1 hour sprints as "bite-size" but yeah, I plead guilty.
If there was a BF style game with AH flight model, defined victory conditions, on 128x128 mi maps that played out in 1 hour sprints, 24x7, that is where I'd be playing when not playing a deeper scenario experience.
But I would always want that in addition to the Melee, not instead of.
Not sure where the sweet spot would be on something like that, but the down-to-the-minute details aren't that critical, I get your gist.
Quote
But like I've said before, maybe it is better to just start with a different game where you have design freedom.
It's like someone's grandpa. If he only has a few years left, is it worth trying to get him to stop smoking, get exercise, and eat better? Or just concentrate on palliative care. Then remember him fondly. ;)
And does grandpa want to live in a world without bacon and scotch? If he doesn't, I wouldn't inflict that on him.
Quote
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlA31WMylkU/Th17yF5dbCI/AAAAAAAALo0/01FQlGQw3h0/s1600/chicken-happy_cluck.jpg)
:D Some of it rhymes with that. But I like my account...
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 05:20:10 PM
Again, where counterexample? We can clearly see from player behavior in AH that they don't switch like they used to in WB.
Just like they do now. Oh wait...
Just like they don't get penalized now with a side switch timer for six hours when they do. Oh wait.
Quote
Right. As opposed to the vast majority flying around bored taking functionally undefended bases until they cancel their subs. Improvement!
Wiley.
Uh, that's what's happening now. Look around you.
Post by: Wiley on December 11, 2019, 05:24:50 PM
Uh, that's what's happening now. Look around you.
Yes. And your proposed alternative has no proof that it will improve that. Regardless, HT has spoken.
Wiley.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 05:28:40 PM
Nevermind trying to bring new ideas wont hear from me again ever on the forum. Good luck
Sad but true.
Unfortunately intransigence is not always a good strategy. So we're sunk.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 05:31:20 PM
Breath Yipi. I already knew the answer when I started. :D
(https://networkingnerd.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/don-quixote-windmill.jpg)
We all did.
Adapt or die. It's clear the former is not an option for whatever reason. I have heard technical, but that can be overcome with creative thinking.
So.
Since we are stuck with three sides we need smaller maps to drive action and INCENTIVES to balance numbers. If we don't get these things I fail to see a way out.
Post by: Vraciu on December 11, 2019, 05:39:22 PM
Yes. And your proposed alternative has no proof that it will improve that. Regardless, HT has spoken.
Wiley.
Common sense dictates that it WILL work. We have proof now that three sides DON'T work so there's nothing to lose.
And don't give me this garbage that it won't work for this and that, because we have an example of where it did, and without balance mechanics to boot.
There's only one way to find out. Go bold or go out of business.
Post by: guncrasher on December 11, 2019, 07:58:35 PM
Makes as much sense as saying we need smaller maps. With smaller maps some people will quit. It will just be a never ending furbal with no objectives.
semp
Post by: Oldman731 on December 11, 2019, 09:02:26 PM
Smaller maps are the easiest remedy in my opinion.
This.
I was on this night. There was good action in the sectors where the three countries intersected. Yet I saw people on the side I'd joined suggesting that we should attack bases far off - where there was no opposition, in other words. We'll always have a win-the-war crowd, and that's good, it brings in or keeps a whole body of players, but smaller maps would keep everyone more concentrated.
- oldman (like that's never been said before, I know, I know...)
Post by: guncrasher on December 11, 2019, 10:26:17 PM
semp
Post by: save on December 12, 2019, 01:19:42 AM
Fixing abnormalities like Yak3, B26 damage model would help.
This way old players returns, and it's playable in other time zones than US.
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 02:14:28 AM
semp
Post by: Ciaphas on December 12, 2019, 07:28:27 AM
Newer cats don't seem as interested in WW2 flight sims as they did even ten years ago.
People left because their squad or personal play style was altered or removed completely.
The graphics (UI/in game) are not equal to what you would expect from a game in todays market and with all of the candy out there it has become an expectation to have cutting edge graphics.
Maps may be a bit to large for the current player base. New terrain paint is needed as well as new paint and structures need to have a few different styles of paint to keep things fresh and perhaps a few different layouts as well.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 08:18:48 AM
So you are saying numbers will increase if we have two sides, because that's common sense.
Makes as much sense as saying we need smaller maps. With smaller maps some people will quit. It will just be a never ending furbal with no objectives.
semp
I can assure you of one thing, as action diminishes numbers will drop more and more. People don't pay to be bored. All of you denying this reality with snark and dismissal are whistling past the graveyard in deception to yourselves alone.
Post by: Zoney on December 12, 2019, 08:31:07 AM
Not going to happen.
HiTech
When this has been posted, the conversation following will degenerate into everything that is wrong with AH and serve no purpose except to discourage new or existing players to play the game because of all the negativity.
Please consider the atmosphere you create with these discussions if you truly want to help the game.
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 08:47:36 AM
Hows that?
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 09:05:11 AM
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/35/64/f4/3564f4b0338c3cf4285ee94e22b3ecf2.jpg)
Hows that?
#Approved
Post by: Vinkman on December 12, 2019, 09:14:17 AM
I have read that just having two sided would be good for the game.
I am on Knights for years i would opt to get rid of this side as they are on the hole rubbish in game.
:rofl
Post by: Spikes on December 12, 2019, 09:25:46 AM
Post by: Lusche on December 12, 2019, 09:29:00 AM
7 pages in a day must be a record.
There was much more forum activity when the arenas were split in 2006 :devil
This one had 22 pages in 24 hours (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,187156.0.html)
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 09:47:34 AM
There was much more forum activity when the arenas were split in 2006 :devil
This one had 22 pages in 24 hours (https://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,187156.0.html)
Oh Gawd. Don't get me started on that one. :rofl
Funny how times have changed. I might be manufacturing the memory, but I remember I kept getting redirected to the other LW arena and I thought there were like 200 players on it. I was so spitting mad I was ready to quit. No WAY I was going to pay money to get stuck in a little kiddy arena with only 200 players on it!!!!! :rofl
If we had 200 players in the arena today, Shuffler would be running around on the forum nekid with his hair on fire yelling, "WE HAD 200 PLAYERS IN THE ARENA!!!!! WE HAD 200 PLAYERS IN THE ARENA!!!!!" :D
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 12, 2019, 10:05:06 AM
Some do need to be removed or replaced during off hours.
Side switch should be 3 hours.
3 hours would not create spying. But would help #s to balance better.
Post by: Shuffler on December 12, 2019, 10:27:43 AM
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 12:18:05 PM
(https://i.chzbgr.com/full/7163128064/h7B279135/my-work-here-is-done)
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 12:24:54 PM
Maps create the action. Period. It's a map issue, not a side issue.
Some do need to be removed or replaced during off hours.
Side switch should be 3 hours.
3 hours would not create spying. But would help #s to balance better.
It's both but fixing one or the other would alleviate much of the problem.
Post by: Ramesis on December 12, 2019, 12:30:34 PM
Beat a dead horse.:aok
semp
Jeez, how often is this subj gonna come up?
Just as someone else stated, with only 2 sides the side loosing WILL
ultimately see a mass exodus to the winning side :bolt:
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 12:39:49 PM
:aok
Jeez, how often is this subj gonna come up?
Just as someone else stated, with only 2 sides the side loosing WILL
ultimately see a mass exodus to the winning side :bolt:
Strawman.
Why do you think the losing side in a 2-sided scenario would have more ability to switch to the winning side than the two losing sides switching to the winning side now in a 3-sided scenario?
It is not better or worse and there are plenty of mechanisms to handle both.
Post by: Ramesis on December 12, 2019, 12:43:09 PM
With 2 sides, that requirement is moot :salute
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 12:53:23 PM
Because of the length of time required to switch sides... 24 hrs right?
With 2 sides, that requirement is moot :salute
Strawman.
Who says there wouldn't be the same time switch limitation?
And in BF they don't even bother. You can switch any time you want as long as it doesn't imbalance the teams beyond a certain threshold. At that point they tell you you can't switch at that time, and to try again later.
There is no difference in this regard between 2-side and 3-side scenarios.
:salute
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 01:02:07 PM
:aok
Jeez, how often is this subj gonna come up?
Just as someone else stated, with only 2 sides the side loosing WILL
ultimately see a mass exodus to the winning side :bolt:
Nonsense.
But that's fine by me. Gives me more people to shoot at.
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 01:13:42 PM
I can assure you of one thing, as action diminishes numbers will drop more and more. People don't pay to be bored. All of you denying this reality with snark and dismissal are whistling past the graveyard in deception to yourselves alone.
But you assume everybody likes the same kind of action you do. And it's your way because we are all wrong.
semp
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 01:17:07 PM
But you assume everybody likes the same kind of action you do. And it's your way because we are all wrong.
semp
No action is no fun. Yeah, there are some weirdos that like an empty arena but they're not enough to support a business. The numbers tell the tale.
You use the word "we" as if it were more than five or ten people. Keep deluding yourself.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 12, 2019, 01:21:38 PM
One side would always have the higher #s. One side would typically have the better squads. You wouldn't be able to fight somewhere else to avoid fighting players you don't like in some cases. Having more sides is more fun to fight with and against.
It's really a map issue. For example, on the huge donut looking map with oceans in-between the islands. #s late nights are very low, and one side is normally very low. This is because the map is created so that the 3rd side cannot Interupt the other 2 sides fighting, and therefore cannot partake in the fight.
I don't typically like Fighter towns because they defeat the purpose of the objective of winning the war. But the maps should create an opportunity for all sides to be able to fight each other without having to fly 5 sectors.
I will also point out that the majority of players in AH want fighter action, so the maps should benefit that. If you don't believe me. Notice how the 3rd side late at night is normally porkers and tankers trying to beef their stats with little to no opposition. This side typically has the lowest #s for a reason.
I really love the world map concept, but closer bases and smaller areas of fighting are the key.
Normally in AH, I find the biggest fights where there is a tank base in-between 2 fighter fields where you don't have to fly a sector to get to the fight.
Late nights, the farther the bases the slower the fights are. With low #s, people don't like to fly longer than 10 minutes to fight one or 2 guys.
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 01:26:16 PM
It's a bogus argument.
Three sides has become dogma for some.
Regardless, we are stuck with it so we need maps that work with lower numbers.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 12, 2019, 01:33:38 PM
One side ALWAYS has the higher numbers. Even with three sides.
It's a bogus argument.
Three sides has become dogma for some.
Regardless, we are stuck with it so we need maps that work with lower numbers.
yes, but with more than 100 players, the other side can off set the #s difference by taking away players to fight them on the other side.
We agree on the last point.
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 02:14:32 PM
No action is no fun. Yeah, there are some weirdos that like an empty arena but they're not enough to support a business. The numbers tell the tale.
You use the word "we" as if it were more than five or ten people. Keep deluding yourself.
Well remove the 5 or 10 weirdos and still doesn't leave you with 90 players that agree with you.
semp
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 02:25:57 PM
Well remove the 5 or 10 weirdos and still doesn't leave you with 90 players that agree with you.
semp
You got data to back you up? Because I have thousands of canceled subscriptions to back ME. And that number grows each month.
Pull your head out. Being obtuse is not a virtue.
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 02:28:23 PM
You got data to back you up? Because I have thousands of canceled subscriptions to back ME.
Didn't know it was required to submit a form to you when quitting the game.
Sorry about that.
semp
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 02:30:21 PM
Didn't know it was required to submit a form to you when quitting the game.
Sorry about that.
semp
Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 12, 2019, 02:39:21 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 02:54:44 PM
Apology accepted. Don't let it happen again.
You are funny, passing yourself as somebody that knows why thousand quit, doesn't make it true.
As for being obtuse, well I'm not the one pushing a 2 sided arena after being told no so many times.
semp
Post by: atlau on December 12, 2019, 02:57:01 PM
You are funny, passing yourself as somebody that knows why thousand quit, doesn't make it true.
As for being obtuse, well I'm not the one pushing a 2 sided arena after being told no so many times.
semp
Let's just compromise and go with a 2.5 sided arena. The 2 full sides have ENY values of 20 to even it up :)
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 03:12:32 PM
You are funny, passing yourself as somebody that knows why thousand quit, doesn't make it true.
Look around you. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out.
Quote
As for being obtuse, well I'm not the one pushing a 2 sided arena after being told no so many times.
semp
I've long given up pushing for Hitech to do anything. He's got his mind made up and it ain't changing. Everyone knows that. Doesn't mean I won't press the case for why I think differently even though I know it's an academic exercise.
As noted above the root cause has been likely overlooked, and the ultimate solution remains retaining new players.
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 04:17:27 PM
Things that make you go hmmmmmmm.
HTC used a playing card suit spade in their company logo.
Yet, they use chess pieces for their countries. (Which have an intrinsic value difference. So they are saying Rooks are far more important than Bish or Knits. :bolt: )
Yet, I've never played 3-sided chess.
Is that like 3 dimensional chess?
:D
Post by: bustr on December 12, 2019, 04:46:59 PM
Take a que from fjordma and the GV spawn arrangement there and things will be busy for the fans of ground and air combat. A terrain like that will be flipped over night by the late night map flipping gremlins. All three of them.
Post by: bustr on December 12, 2019, 05:03:21 PM
Hitech, would you allow this for an MA map.
A shorter range of 13-15 miles as standard for airfields. Air combat would be more like the three sides Furball lake and middle of NDisles. The shorter range would bring people together faster. On a 10x10 terrain, most of the fields, say not more than 22-25 per country would be inside of a 6 sector diameter while the strats would effectively be way out in the boonies for the strat runners. About half the terrain area would be excess make work for the builder becasue of the 10x10 area. Riftval and FjordMA have a lot a make work terrain just to fill space. I doubt anyone knows there are glaciers on Oceania.
From my 4 terrains since AH3 went live, I think shortening the field distances to 13-15 miles would help promote more air combat activity in the MA. The faster turn around would hold attention spans longer. That is why I shortened the GV spawns on FjordMA and placed a short spawn from the field out to meet the incoming spawns. That generates a lot of GV combat while most airfields on FjordMA are 19 miles. That experiment plus the flack bases on the Pizza map having all aircraft enabled and 15 miles from A30 validate my assumption about how much activity will be generated.
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 06:17:53 PM
There are just too danged many bases spread across too wide an area.
You could cut some maps by half and they would be greatly improved by it.
Some of the best fights are with bases just shy of radar rings touching, with water in between them. Not entirely sure why this is the case...
Post by: bustr on December 12, 2019, 06:45:23 PM
I don't try to force him to change his game based on the delusion I know better than him like you and many others do. I take what he provides and try to do something new with that. Over time he has allowed me to make changes across 4 terrains with little changes that I use to test how players use them. Without trying to force my lack of building games experience on him, and only building terrains for his game with tests built into them. I'm pretty sure since he wants to keep three countries even now. And our smaller numbers, reducing the minimum field distance rule to 13-15 miles will result in more air combat due to the faster turn around time.
I've built 4 terrains in the three years of AH3 you have been flapping yer gums the whole time telling him you know more about his craft than he does. So until he changes AH from 3 country centrist, I've been doing tests to get more activity out of MA terrains. For all I know, enabling planes at F89 15 miles from A30 on smpizza this week was him testing the feasibility of shortening the distance between airfields. It produced a long period of air combat over A30.
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 06:49:02 PM
Here is where you have always gotten this wrong while I've been able to add none standard things to test in my 4 terrains since AH3 went live.
I don't try to force him to change his game based on the delusion I know better than him like you and many others do. I take what he provides and try to do something new with that. Over time he has allowed me to make changes across 4 terrains with little changes that I use to test how players use them. Without trying to force my lack of building games experience on him, and only building terrains for his game with tests built into them. I'm pretty sure since he wants to keep three countries even now. And our smaller numbers, reducing the minimum field distance rule to 13-15 miles will result in more air combat due to the faster turn around time.
I've built 4 terrains in the three years of AH3 you have been flapping yer gums the whole time telling him you know more about his craft than he does. So until he changes AH from 3 country centrist, I've been doing tests to get more activity out of MA terrains. For all I know, enabling planes at F89 15 miles from A30 on smpizza this week was him testing the feasibility of shortening the distance between airfields. It produced a long period of air combat over A30.
I’ll "flap (my) gums" as you so condescendingly put it, as much as I like within the TOS until he tells me otherwise. It’s a DISCUSSION board. And I’ll tell you something else I know better than apparently anyone: What we have now is not working. If it were then numbers would be rising.
He’s not gonna change. I don’t expect him to nor does anyone else. Many have left expressing that very frustration. As Dr. Phil asked, “How’s that workin’ out for ya’?” It’s his call. He has to live with it. All the well-intended end-user advice goes right into the round file. That’s fine. It is what it is. It’s also why I spend 99% of my time on AH skinning not flying because the latter is something I can still find enjoyment in because the restrictions are reasonable.
And no, “ALL (I) HAVE DONE” is not just chatting on here. I’ve spent COUNTLESS HOURS creating, restoring, and updating skins for the game, things that get used EVERY SINGLE HOUR it is online. Hell, I’ve almost singlehandedly updated the entire stable of P-51s alone.
You’re welcome.
Shortening base distances will cause other unintended consequences that will NOT solve the problem. If you want more LAs and YAKs running amok knock yourself out. It won’t fix the problem one bit.
Post by: FLOOB on December 12, 2019, 07:01:02 PM
I have read that just having two sided would be good for the game.LMAO
I am on Knights for years i would opt to get rid of this side as they are on the hole rubbish in game.
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 07:21:14 PM
All the well-intended end-user advice goes right into the round file. That’s fine. It is what it is.
Don't let Bustr troll you into saying inaccurate stuff.
It is simply not true that Hitech never listens to customer input. He just doesn't agree on this point. But it is his rice bowl, so it's his call in the end. He is the one that ends up as a Walmart Greeter if it all goes pear-shaped. (Or worse, a COBAL programmer! :eek:)
I've always said there has been some stuff I have convinced him on, and some stuff I haven't convinced him on ...yet. ;)
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 08:03:19 PM
Don't let Bustr troll you into saying inaccurate stuff.
It is simply not true that Hitech never listens to customer input. He just doesn't agree on this point. But it is his rice bowl, so it's his call in the end. He is the one that ends up as a Walmart Greeter if it all goes pear-shaped. (Or worse, a COBAL programmer! :eek:)
I've always said there has been some stuff I have convinced him on, and some stuff I haven't convinced him on ...yet. ;)
I'll buy that assessment. :cheers:
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 12, 2019, 08:19:07 PM
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 08:30:02 PM
I for one am happy that shorter base distance is being tested and implemented. When players cannot defend a field because of far distances, it creates the horde effect. Plus more people just want to hop right into the fight. If you want to grab alt and get alt, a back base is right there for you. It works much better with lower #s. The biggest problem was players flying for 10-15 minutes. Then to get ganged immediately and die. Rinse and repeat. It gets old. But, players who can jump into the fight more quickly, dont care about dying as much.
To a point yes.
But do we want maps to be one giant collection of Furball Islands? No.
There are too many bases.
The maps are too big.
One side can be ignored.
Putting bases closer together doesn't by itself solve this problem.
Post by: SilverZ06 on December 12, 2019, 08:41:23 PM
Don't let Bustr troll you into saying inaccurate stuff.
It is simply not true that Hitech never listens to customer input. He just doesn't agree on this point. But it is his rice bowl, so it's his call in the end. He is the one that ends up as a Walmart Greeter if it all goes pear-shaped. (Or worse, a COBAL programmer! :eek:)
I've always said there has been some stuff I have convinced him on, and some stuff I haven't convinced him on ...yet. ;)
COBOL :rofl
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 12, 2019, 08:43:17 PM
WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues.
That is a load of BS. When I played WB (before your time), balance was a serious issue and a major source of player complaints.
You also don't have any actionable metrics that prove 2 aides will alleviate the issue of side unbalance. You are not privy to the metrics to prove your point. You might think 2 sides will fix things but again, you don't have the metrics to prove it. Saying it worked in another game isn't metrics a developer will take action on. It would be like me saying 2 sidea don't work because of my experience in playing WW20L, in which the Allied aide usually out numbered the Axis aide by a large margin that often left the Allied side no one to fight.
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 12, 2019, 08:52:29 PM
You got data to back you up? Because I have thousands of canceled subscriptions to back ME. And that number grows each month.
No you don't. You don't know why other players have quit, you only thin you do so you can try to "lend" some data to your opinion. The only ones that know are HiTech, through his exit surveys or the players themselves that quit. Unless you are trying to claim that every player that has quit the game contacts you and tells you why.
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 08:52:54 PM
I for one am happy that shorter base distance is being tested and implemented. When players cannot defend a field because of far distances, it creates the horde effect. Plus more people just want to hop right into the fight. If you want to grab alt and get alt, a back base is right there for you. It works much better with lower #s. The biggest problem was players flying for 10-15 minutes. Then to get ganged immediately and die. Rinse and repeat. It gets old. But, players who can jump into the fight more quickly, dont care about dying as much.
I agree. This is the next best option to compensate for the incorrect decision not to consider 2-sides. :D
I'm torn on the issue of base count. Part of me says that should be reduced proportionally with the smaller player count.
The other part thinks maybe a lot of closely spaced fields might promote whack-a-mole fights. Which I don't consider a bad thing. I'd rather see a bunch of 4x4 whack-a-mole fights spread across a lot of closely spaced fields for lots of fast, small scale action. Instead of mass hoards trying to muscle their way into fewer fields.
But too many will spread out the fight too much. :uhoh
But reducing the number can roll maps faster so less boredom. :confused:
With tightly spaced fields, you'll probably need a hub and spoke design so the strats and HQ are flug farther out from the central cluster. :headscratch:
:salute
Post by: CptTrips on December 12, 2019, 08:57:43 PM
COBOL :rofl
That was pre-history before writing. Bear skins and stone knives. They only learned about it from cave paintings in France. Who knows how it should be spelled.
Actually I bet it is a quite lucrative gig if you could still find one. Who else this side of a pair of Depends remembers it?
:D
[Edit] I actually did have one class in it at school, but i think it was a kind of practical joke. ;) Though I still might prefer it over LISP. :D
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 09:12:19 PM
That is a load of BS. When I played WB (before your time), balance was a serious issue and a major source of player complaints.
Operative word BEFORE my time. It was not an issue when I played.
Next!
Quote
You also don't have any actionable metrics that prove 2 aides will alleviate the issue of side unbalance. You are not privy to the metrics to prove your point. You might think 2 sides will fix things but again, you don't have the metrics to prove it. Saying it worked in another game isn't metrics a developer will take action on. It would be like me saying 2 sidea don't work because of my experience in playing WW20L, in which the Allied aide usually out numbered the Axis aide by a large margin that often left the Allied side no one to fight.
The allies usually outnumber the axis in games like that because allied rides are more popular. In WBs it took players of goodwill to make it work, including guys like me who weren't fans of axis planes, but we did. The rise of the Main made it a moot issue.
Hitech has all the balancing mechanisms he needs to sort it out. You win the war types can horde in your junk rides while we who love the fight will have plenty of targets. Win-win.
And I have more than enough metrics to prove that what we have doesn't work.
So. Keep up the excuses, sparky. You're still wrong.
/Discussion
Post by: Vraciu on December 12, 2019, 09:17:13 PM
No you don't. You don't know why other players have quit, you only thin you do so you can try to "lend" some data to your opinion. The only ones that know are HiTech, through his exit surveys or the players themselves that quit. Unless you are trying to claim that every player that has quit the game contacts you and tells you why.
Yeah, that crescendo of voices saying why they're leaving don't count for a thing.
Anyone who is not a dogmatic true believer devoid of objectivity can make a fairly accurate guess as to the top five or ten reasons why people are leaving. It's pretty obvious. (The bigger riddle is why new players don't stay. That nut is a bit tougher, but many of the reasons are the same.)
"Exit surveys."
LMFAO. I used to take surveys for a living. Garbage in garbage out. It's a very specific science to gather useful info should you do it right, and the response rate is always dismal by default, requiring precise statistical analysis to turn it into anything of value.
"Sell crazy someplace else," as the movie line goes. "We're all stocked up here."
(Now if you will excuse me I must bandage my ankle.)
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 12, 2019, 10:37:00 PM
I agree. This is the next best option to compensate for the incorrect decision not to consider 2-sides. :D
I'm torn on the issue of base count. Part of me says that should be reduced proportionally with the smaller player count.
The other part thinks maybe a lot of closely spaced fields might promote whack-a-mole fights. Which I don't consider a bad thing. I'd rather see a bunch of 4x4 whack-a-mole fights spread across a lot of closely spaced fields for lots of fast, small scale action. Instead of mass hoards trying to muscle their way into fewer fields.
But too many will spread out the fight too much. :uhoh
But reducing the number can roll maps faster so less boredom. :confused:
With tightly spaced fields, you'll probably need a hub and spoke design so the strats and HQ are flug farther out from the central cluster. :headscratch:
:salute
Some of the newer small maps have been much more successful in retaining #s. I saw 140+ last month, even with FSO. 13 miles is perfect with a tank field near the mix.
Adding a few CVs in there makes extra fun!
If you can get 3-4, even 5 big fights scattered around the map at all times. That should be the key. During the off hours, it helps when all 3 sides can have access to each other. Maps that don't allow this retain less #s as the night gets later.
Post by: Canspec on December 12, 2019, 10:44:24 PM
I have read that just having two sided would be good for the game.
I am on Knights for years i would opt to get rid of this side as they are on the hole rubbish in game.
:banana:....Zack is awesome........ :banana:
Post by: guncrasher on December 12, 2019, 10:49:51 PM
Yeah, that crescendo of voices saying why they're leaving don't count for a thing.
Anyone who is not a dogmatic true believer devoid of objectivity can make a fairly accurate guess as to the top five or ten reasons why people are leaving. It's pretty obvious. (The bigger riddle is why new players don't stay. That nut is a bit tougher, but many of the reasons are the same.)
"Exit surveys."
LMFAO. I used to take surveys for a living. Garbage in garbage out. It's a very specific science to gather useful info should you do it right, and the response rate is always dismal by default, requiring precise statistical analysis to turn it into anything of value.
"Sell crazy someplace else," as the movie line goes. "We're all stocked up here."
(Now if you will excuse me I must bandage my ankle.)
how many players have come to you and tell you why they're leaving? you dont have to be exact, just a rough estimate. I can say that players are leaving because they would rather spend the money on street corn and I bet I would have the exact same data as you. zero.
as for new guys not staying, it's been said many times that tens of thousands have downloaded the game and played for 15 minutes more or less. maybe they couldnt figure out how to set up their controls, then again I only played about 3 games in world of warplanes while in beta and quit because I couldnt figure out the controls either.
also played world of tanks, still have several hundred gold, millions of credits, several 10 tier tanks and I quit. tried to get back and it was the same thing. people running in to cause as much damage and die within 3 minutes. they have millions of players but there's times when I still had to wait 5 minutes to get into a match that would last less than the waiting time.
so having said that, it doesnt make me an expert on why people dont stay. seen a few players spawn and sit there, I have talked to them on range and explained how they can talk back to me and nothing no feed back.
also remember that back when we had 600 players, players would make fun of the young people, calling them squeekers and whatever. and then they complain that young people arent interested in this game.
vraciu if you forget for a moment that you are a long time player and think yourself as new. you will figure out a thing or two about why things are the way they are. not saying some things shouldnt change, but most of the things you think should change, could actually make things worst.
not everybody here loves to just furball, there's some that mostly drive tanks, others that enjoy bombing. with a map 1/2 the size of the smallest one we have, what would happen to the bombers? the thing is to have a balance between pure furballers, those who like to furball but at the same time take bases and those who love to bomb and gv.
semp
Post by: Ciaphas on December 12, 2019, 11:50:17 PM
not everybody here loves to just furball, there's some that mostly drive tanks, others that enjoy bombing. with a map 1/2 the size of the smallest one we have, what would happen to the bombers? the thing is to have a balance between pure furballers, those who like to furball but at the same time take bases and those who love to bomb and gv.
Well the following could work:
- Smaller map sizes (32x32)
- Smaller number of Field types
- Closer proximity for certain field types (ie... Small Airfields and Vehicle Bases
- Strategically placed field types to support Small Airfields and Vehicle Bases (ie.. Medium and Large Airfields)
- 2 to 4 Ports per side
- Strat structure placement and make the strats something worth defending or attacking
- Place Tank towns at terrain choke points and within reasonable distance between front line feilds
- Limit the bomber plane set in regards to certain field types (ie... Small field: no bombers/heavy attack, only light/medium attack aircraft, medium fields: light and medium bombers, heavy attack and Large and Super large fields: all bombers.
Post by: Ack-Ack on December 13, 2019, 04:37:18 AM
"Exit surveys."
LMFAO. I used to take surveys for a living. Garbage in garbage out. It's a very specific science to gather useful info should you do it right, and the response rate is always dismal by default, requiring precise statistical analysis to turn it into anything of value.
Exit surveys are a very important business intelligence tool in the video game industry, especially for online games, like MMO's. It will provide the necessary incite to see why players are leaving your game.
Please show the verifiable data you have that proves thousands, like you've claimed, to have left the game because of the 3 country set up.
Post by: SilverZ06 on December 13, 2019, 06:39:34 AM
That was pre-history before writing. Bear skins and stone knives. They only learned about it from cave paintings in France. Who knows how it should be spelled.
Actually I bet it is a quite lucrative gig if you could still find one. Who else this side of a pair of Depends remembers it?
:D
[Edit] I actually did have one class in it at school, but i think it was a kind of practical joke. ;) Though I still might prefer it over LISP. :D
I had to take a COBOL class for my AS in programming several years ago. It is a rather unique language.
Post by: turt21 on December 13, 2019, 06:54:54 AM
not everybody here loves to just furball, there's some that mostly drive tanks, others that enjoy bombing. with a map 1/2 the size of the smallest one we have, what would happen to the bombers? the thing is to have a balance between pure furballers, those who like to furball but at the same time take bases and those who love to bomb and gv.
semp
[/quote]
Now were getting somewhere. Those of us that suck at furballing get frustrated at the effort put into that. My first choice is a tank, then bombers even a TBM if I get bored. Fighters is just a quick frustrating death for me.
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 06:58:02 AM
Exit surveys are a very important business intelligence tool in the video game industry, especially for online games, like MMO's. It will provide the necessary incite to see why players are leaving your game.
If you don't ask the right questions the data is irrelevant.
Quote
Please show the verifiable data you have that proves thousands, like you've claimed, to have left the game because of the 3 country set up.
Look around you.
Thousands have left and hundreds more will follow. There are numerous causes. Nobody said the ONLY cause was three countries. It is a contributing factor AT THIS STAGE (and for many months prior).
Enjoy living in your bubble. I'm sure all Hitech needs to do is listen to people like YOU. Then all will be fine. /sarcastic blue
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 07:02:51 AM
how many players have come to you and tell you why they're leaving? you dont have to be exact, just a rough estimate. I can say that players are leaving because they would rather spend the money on street corn and I bet I would have the exact same data as you. zero.
as for new guys not staying, it's been said many times that tens of thousands have downloaded the game and played for 15 minutes more or less. maybe they couldnt figure out how to set up their controls, then again I only played about 3 games in world of warplanes while in beta and quit because I couldnt figure out the controls either.
also played world of tanks, still have several hundred gold, millions of credits, several 10 tier tanks and I quit. tried to get back and it was the same thing. people running in to cause as much damage and die within 3 minutes. they have millions of players but there's times when I still had to wait 5 minutes to get into a match that would last less than the waiting time.
so having said that, it doesnt make me an expert on why people dont stay. seen a few players spawn and sit there, I have talked to them on range and explained how they can talk back to me and nothing no feed back.
also remember that back when we had 600 players, players would make fun of the young people, calling them squeekers and whatever. and then they complain that young people arent interested in this game.
vraciu if you forget for a moment that you are a long time player and think yourself as new. you will figure out a thing or two about why things are the way they are. not saying some things shouldnt change, but most of the things you think should change, could actually make things worst.
not everybody here loves to just furball, there's some that mostly drive tanks, others that enjoy bombing. with a map 1/2 the size of the smallest one we have, what would happen to the bombers? the thing is to have a balance between pure furballers, those who like to furball but at the same time take bases and those who love to bomb and gv.
semp
Balance is a chimera. It's obviously not working because people are leaving any way.
All of this is irrelevant. Hitech has his reasons so we have to deal with things as they are. We must find a way to retain those players that leave after fifteen minutes. Discussing things that are set in stone is a waste of time. We need to focus on retention.
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 07:03:35 AM
Well the following could work:
- Smaller map sizes (32x32)
- Smaller number of Field types
- Closer proximity for certain field types (ie... Small Airfields and Vehicle Bases
- Strategically placed field types to support Small Airfields and Vehicle Bases (ie.. Medium and Large Airfields)
- 2 to 4 Ports per side
- Strat structure placement and make the strats something worth defending or attacking
- Place Tank towns at terrain choke points and within reasonable distance between front line feilds
- Limit the bomber plane set in regards to certain field types (ie... Small field: no bombers/heavy attack, only light/medium attack aircraft, medium fields: light and medium bombers, heavy attack and Large and Super large fields: all bombers.
These are interesting ideas.
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 07:40:35 AM
Now were getting somewhere. Those of us that suck at furballing get frustrated at the effort put into that. My first choice is a tank, then bombers even a TBM if I get bored. Fighters is just a quick frustrating death for me.
Well, some would say that by catering to your crowd we now have a fraction of the player base we once had, so let's call that a bust.
AH remains a great game. It should be quite popular. How do we retain new blood? This is the only question that matters right now.
I suggest a Chinese or Japanese language version to tap into those markets might grab a few warm bodies. It would give the Brit/Euro and Aussie/NZ crowd some action when the US players are in bed.
Post by: hitech on December 13, 2019, 09:08:33 AM
I had to take a COBOL class for my AS in programming several years ago. It is a rather unique language.
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
HiTech
Post by: CptTrips on December 13, 2019, 09:40:30 AM
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
It's spelled COBOL! Or so the Archaeologists tell us. :D
Actually it wasn't that bad. Didn't have to do punch cards thank Cod. I missed punch cards in my Assembly class by one year.
I do remember in the lab having to submit print jobs for the one high speed printer and waiting around for the output to be stuck in your little cubby hole in a wall of the lab like you were having mailed to you. lol
That high speed printer was in a glass enclosed room and you could look in as you walked down the hallway to the lab. One day a friend told me he had been walking down that hallway and heard a "Brrrrrrrrhrhrrhrhrhrhrrr!" and the sys admin jumped up from his desk and was running around like a chicken with it's head cut off. Apparently some one had submitted a job that had a page feed in a tight infinite loop and the high speed printer just started spewing out reams of paper like a river. LOL I'm sure that wasn't on purpose.
I had taken an AI class in LISP. All I remember was typing parenthesis within parenthesis within parenthesis within parenthesis for days. The parenthesis keys on the keyboard were worn down to nubs. I saw parenthesis in my sleep. The horror. The horror.
:rofl
Post by: save on December 13, 2019, 10:40:04 AM
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
HiTech
I did, that's what made me change to another language (Forth), on microprocessors, instead of DOS/MVS on mainframes.
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 11:07:37 AM
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
HiTech
Closest I got to that were those dang Scantron things for grading tests. Shudder.
Post by: SilverZ06 on December 13, 2019, 11:14:59 AM
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
HiTech
:rofl No, we used COBOL for Visual Studio.
Post by: waystin2 on December 13, 2019, 11:16:10 AM
Way
Post by: CptTrips on December 13, 2019, 11:22:14 AM
:rofl No, we used COBOL for Visual Studio.
Visual Studio? :rofl
When Hitech took COBOL, laptops looked like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/10/23610-050-6E34CF6B/portion-Difference-Engine-Charles-Babbage-logarithm-tables-1832.jpg)
10 bonus point for anyone that recognized that contraption. ;)
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 11:54:30 AM
I will not speak to the two sides discussion but I can speak to why I and a several other Pigs have cut our hours in the Melee. Lack of of that "chaotic anything and everything is and could happen" activity. I know that is a hard to quantify thing but the choice of lots of activities and tons of foes and ways to fight against those foes is what the Pigs have always enjoyed. Less players, less joy. It is simply due to player population decline. Not game mechanics, or player behaviors, etc. We are and will still be very active in AH FSO & events but spend the bulk of our gaming hours elsewhere. See all of you up there and out there. OINK
Way
The lack of action is compounded by the third country. It all works together and feeds off itself. If you dilute player density you'll reduce action. Reduced action causes a reduction in players. Repeat.
So the key becomes retaining the new blood that comes in.
Post by: Shuffler on December 13, 2019, 12:29:04 PM
Visual Studio? :rofl
When Hitech took COBOL, laptops looked like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/10/23610-050-6E34CF6B/portion-Difference-Engine-Charles-Babbage-logarithm-tables-1832.jpg)
10 bonus point for anyone that recognized that contraption. ;)
Difference Engine (Calculator) :D
Post by: CptTrips on December 13, 2019, 12:34:07 PM
Difference Engine (Calculator) :D
Winner winner, chicken dinner.
Post by: hitech on December 13, 2019, 12:38:37 PM
Visual Studio? :roflNot quite but I learned basic using a teletype on this.
When Hitech took COBOL, laptops looked like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/10/23610-050-6E34CF6B/portion-Difference-Engine-Charles-Babbage-logarithm-tables-1832.jpg)
10 bonus point for anyone that recognized that contraption. ;)
(https://raymii.org/s/inc/img/pdp-8-i.jpg)
Post by: FLS on December 13, 2019, 12:51:18 PM
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 01:40:53 PM
Visual Studio? :rofl
When Hitech took COBOL, laptops looked like this:
(https://cdn.britannica.com/10/23610-050-6E34CF6B/portion-Difference-Engine-Charles-Babbage-logarithm-tables-1832.jpg)
10 bonus point for anyone that recognized that contraption. ;)
It's an abacus. :old:
Post by: Ramesis on December 13, 2019, 02:07:19 PM
But did you ever have a room mate drop 500 punch cards of COBAL code on the floor? And only get 1 run of the code per hour?
HiTech
I hated COBOL... spent most of 6 mos debugging COBOL spaghetti code written by Air Force
coders at the block house on Gunter AFB :mad:
And yes HiTech, I have also had to pick up (and have dropped) a lot of punch cards back in the '60s...
You left out having to sort them out :D
Post by: Ciaphas on December 13, 2019, 02:49:52 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Canspec on December 13, 2019, 03:39:00 PM
....coding was done.....punch cards were produced and sent off to get an answer.....two weeks later the punch cards came back with an error........fixed code, punched new cards......two more weeks later I got the correct response.....At that time as students, we just couldn't see much use for this new technology....ha...
We actually visited the military base to see the computer......a very large room filled with banks of magnetic tape machines......we were impressed when the officer in charge was able to have the computer print out a December calendar page for us....
Post by: Vraciu on December 13, 2019, 04:52:14 PM
I started with Cobol in high school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nobody started in BASIC?
DANG.
Post by: Wiley on December 13, 2019, 04:57:17 PM
Wiley.
Post by: CptTrips on December 13, 2019, 05:08:44 PM
Nobody started in BASIC?
DANG.
First computer.
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/71LTn5kDuAL._AC_SL1500_.jpg)
Saving the code to cassette tape.
Spent half a summer writing my magnus opus in BASIC: "Global Thermonuclear War".
About 3/4 through I hit the 16k mem limit and I was like "Whoa! I hit the limit on the whole computer!!!" :rofl :rofl :rofl
Post by: guncrasher on December 13, 2019, 06:27:36 PM
semp
Post by: Harry46 on December 13, 2019, 08:21:28 PM
Post by: Ciaphas on December 13, 2019, 10:31:58 PM
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: zack1234 on December 14, 2019, 04:04:48 AM
Hitech agrees with me after all :old:
Post by: Lazerr on December 14, 2019, 06:55:02 AM
Maps create the action. Period. It's a map issue, not a side issue.
Some do need to be removed or replaced during off hours.
Side switch should be 3 hours.
3 hours would not create spying. But would help #s to balance better.
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 14, 2019, 09:45:17 AM
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
Well, if all 3 sides can be apart of the action, then it's not too bad, preferably not in a FT tho. I recommended a map switch to smaller maps during a period of time during the off hours in other threads. Not sure how hard that would be to implement. Think it would be great tho. The larger maps like the one that is a circle with a bunch of islands around it, for example, is not good at all during those times. IMO, if maps are smaller but get rolled over quickly, that's not a bad thing. Some of these maps stay up for 4-5 days and it's very annoying. I had a whole week to play AH a few weeks ago. Was the same friggen huge map the entire week.... kinda disappointed me. Perhaps maps with only 2 sides could be tested in the off hours, but for me its about the size of the map and access for all teams to fight each other when the #s get low.
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 10:07:58 AM
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
:rofl :rofl :rofl :aok :cheers:
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 10:08:43 AM
oh look, lingerie for programmers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
:rofl :rofl :rofl
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 03:41:12 PM
Well, if all 3 sides can be apart of the action, then it's not too bad, preferably not in a FT tho. I recommended a map switch to smaller maps during a period of time during the off hours in other threads. Not sure how hard that would be to implement. Think it would be great tho. The larger maps like the one that is a circle with a bunch of islands around it, for example, is not good at all during those times. IMO, if maps are smaller but get rolled over quickly, that's not a bad thing. Some of these maps stay up for 4-5 days and it's very annoying. I had a whole week to play AH a few weeks ago. Was the same friggen huge map the entire week.... kinda disappointed me. Perhaps maps with only 2 sides could be tested in the off hours, but for me its about the size of the map and access for all teams to fight each other when the #s get low.
for reasons that are known only to Dale, he has decided that there will never be a two sided MA. However, the point that is being debated is the spread of players across three fronts.
While smaller maps will do their part, the issue of player numbers being spread to thin across the map is not addressed. Even with smaller maps you will still have three fronts to fight on. This means that if two of the countries are fighting, one country is left with a pretty peaceful front with little to no action. Removing the third country places the fight at your doorstep, regardless of the country that you are on. Sure there would have to be some concessions made for "map win" conditions and a few other adjustments but all in all it would alleviate the "odd man out" syndrome that exists in today's game environment.
There are other things that can be done to remove other annoyances and breathe life back in to this game for the current users, such as:
Make strats worth attacking and defending, limiting airfield numbers and types, perhaps change to a victory condition that relies on points instead of percentages, change base capture requirements so that we actually have to work for the capture etc... .
for new players there needs to be a mandatory flight training mission that asks "are you using a mouse or joystick?" and then plays one of two flight training missions to at least get them off the ground and in stable flight and back to the ground wheels down.
for what it's worth, these are just my opinions.
:salute
Post by: Max on December 14, 2019, 03:52:15 PM
for new players there needs to be a mandatory flight training mission that asks "are you using a mouse or joystick?" and then plays one of two flight training missions to at least get them off the ground and in stable flight and back to the ground wheels down.
If I had a buck for every time I've read that I'd be living on a beach :old:
Post by: Mongoose on December 14, 2019, 04:35:42 PM
for reasons that are known only to Dale, he has decided that there will never be a two sided MA. However, the point that is being debated is the spread of players across three fronts.
Dale has told everyone why. He has tried it before. Three sides works better than two sides.
Every time this comes up, people yell, "You're wrong! Things are different now!" But history has shown that with an open playground like this, three sides works better than two sides.
Post by: guncrasher on December 14, 2019, 05:01:22 PM
semp
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 05:10:07 PM
Post by: guncrasher on December 14, 2019, 05:51:41 PM
semp
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 05:52:34 PM
If I had a buck for every time I've read that I'd be living on a beach :old:
You can read? Color me surprised. :D :banana:
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 05:53:34 PM
Dale has told everyone why. He has tried it before. Three sides works better than two sides.
Every time this comes up, people yell, "You're wrong! Things are different now!" But history has shown that with an open playground like this, three sides works better than two sides.
Yeah, yeah, sure. SMH.
Two worked just fine in WBs and we had no side-balancing mechanics.
Say what you want, three sides is not working and people are quitting because of its effects.
History has shown that people want action and when they don't get it they leave. Three sides. Two sides. Ten sides.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 06:02:51 PM
Answer my question first.
semp
It's simple, excessive choice vs. time available, gratification/fulfillment vs. down time to target once one is selected.
:salute
Post by: The Fugitive on December 14, 2019, 06:07:33 PM
If you complain that players are spread too thin in the maps. Maybe try to understand why. And the problem isn't big maps. Players themselves can fix that and concentrate on same base. But why they don't do it?
semp
What is your understanding as to why they are spread out?
The answer is the same for both questions....... it is easier to go where there ISNT any opposition and capture bases.
It seems more and more that players are looking for the easy way out more and more often.
Fighting in an area where a couple of "sharks" are orbiting, go and start a fight on the other side of the map.
A good defense springs up at a base capture, move to the other side of the map to roll an undefended base.
How are you going to make players turn around and WANT to fight? Fight for a base, fight in a fighter, fight through a cap in buffs and getting bombs out on target. If players dont want to FIGHT, this game is going to slowly continue to die a slow death.
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 14, 2019, 06:10:08 PM
Dale has told everyone why. He has tried it before. Three sides works better than two sides.
Every time this comes up, people yell, "You're wrong! Things are different now!" But history has shown that with an open playground like this, three sides works better than two sides.
Yep!
He's tried and tested the 2 sides approach.as well as the 4 sides approach for Malee Arena play.... 3 sides is what works the best for MA playing.....
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 06:11:25 PM
Yep!
He's tried and tested the 2 sides approach.as well as the 4 sides approach for Malee Arena play.... 3 sides is what works the best for MA playing.....
What was the game state at the time of testing?
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 14, 2019, 06:17:37 PM
What was the game state at the time of testing?
Doesn't really matter, even though it was like 23+ years ago..... Player mentality state of wanting to be on the side with the advantage is what makes 2 sides Main arena play a no-go.... That simple
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 06:21:44 PM
Doesn't really matter, even though it was like 23+ years ago..... Player mentality state of wanting to be on the side with the advantage is what makes 2 sides Main arena play a no-go.... That simple
That makes a massive difference.
Post by: Shuffler on December 14, 2019, 06:43:55 PM
What was the game state at the time of testing?
Obviously you think Dale is not too bright. He said he tested it and he understands what works best.
Anyone who has a mind to can build their own game and run it as they see fit.... just lime Dale does.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 06:54:06 PM
Obviously you think Dale is not too bright. He said he tested it and he understands what works best.
Anyone who has a mind to can build their own game and run it as they see fit.... just lime Dale does.
Don't put words in my mouth.
MMO's are a social game, social constructs change with time. If what TC stated is true in terms of time frames. It would stand to reason that another study would be needed.
Dale has already given his verdict on the subject, what is happening now is called a conversation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: The Fugitive on December 14, 2019, 06:57:12 PM
Obviously you think Dale is not too bright. He said he tested it and he understands what works best.
Anyone who has a mind to can build their own game and run it as they see fit.... just lime Dale does.
Times change, for what its worth, Dale doesn't. (http://66.189.10.34:8080/pics/shrug.jpg)
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 06:58:19 PM
Times change, for what its worth, Dale doesn't. (http://66.189.10.34:8080/pics/shrug.jpg)
you said a mouthful
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 14, 2019, 07:02:13 PM
just lime Dale does.
Learn something new everyday.....
I didn't know he just lime, heh
I prefer my scotch on the rocks (preferably 2 ice cube squares)
I prefer my patron tequila straight....no lime, no salt or anything else....
I prefer my moonshine straight out of the jar.....
:D
Post by: Max on December 14, 2019, 07:04:47 PM
Times change, for what its worth, Dale doesn't. (http://66.189.10.34:8080/pics/shrug.jpg)
Just venturing a guess here but chances are, resetting the infrastructure of present maps, from 3 to 2 sides would require a sizable modification of coding. My next guess is that Dale is/has/will be moving on to new pastures given the updates we've seen in the past year or so.
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 14, 2019, 07:09:03 PM
Quote
Player mentality state of wanting to be on the side with the advantage is what makes 2 sides Main arena play a no-go.... That simple
Ciaphas, the above quoted part is what was the most important takeaway you should have picked up on....not the time frame of when some testing was done....
Hope this helps
TC
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 07:09:52 PM
Just venturing a guess here but chances are, resetting the infrastructure of present maps, from 3 to 2 sides would require a sizable modification of coding. My next guess is that Dale is/has/will be moving on to new pastures given the updates we've seen in the past year or so.
He can code it to disable one side and offset that with ENY adjustments for the remaining two.
It’s not an insurmountable hurdle.
Frankly, he’s made a lifetime of money off this game as it is. He could close it down tomorrow and not miss it.
We already have two sides with the added benefit of pissing off a third of the players on a daily basis due to their inability to find a fight...
Player retention.
Fewer bases.
Two sides.
Any of these three things would be a massive help.
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 07:10:56 PM
Ciaphas, the above quoted part is what was the most important takeaway you should have picked up on....not the time frame of when some testing was done....
Hope this helps
TC
We never had this “problem” in WBs.
If it doesn’t work after trying it for a few tours he can always go back.
Frankly, Lazerr said it best above.
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 07:13:02 PM
Ciaphas, the above quoted part is what was the most important takeaway you should have picked up on....not the time frame of when some testing was done....
Hope this helps
TC
That's an easy fix, don't allow side switching.
The time elapsed between tests is very important as the old data was based on player actions from 20+ yrs ago and does not take in to account players from the last 10-15 yrs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 07:14:45 PM
That's an easy fix, don't allow side switching.
The time elapsed between tests is very important as the old data was based on player actions from 20+ yrs ago and does not take in to account players from the last 10-15 yrs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Ding ding ding ding ding.
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 14, 2019, 07:30:36 PM
That's an easy fix, don't allow side switching.
The time elapsed between tests is very important as the old data was based on player actions from 20+ yrs ago and does not take in to account players from the last 10-15 yrs.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
If you want to use player's actions from the past 10 to 15 years, that is great!
It makes my posting regarding "players mentality to want to be on the side with the advantage / or winning side" even stronger!
15+ years ago players did a better effort of self balancing.....and didn't avoid fighting
Post by: Ciaphas on December 14, 2019, 07:46:41 PM
If you want to use player's actions from the past 10 to 15 years, that is great!
It makes my posting regarding "players mentality to want to be on the side with the advantage / or winning side" even stronger!
15+ years ago players did a better effort of self balancing.....and didn't avoid fighting
The side with the advantage and the winning side are not mutually exclusive.
10+ yrs ago we had a massive player base with hundreds online at the same time. Avoiding fights took some work and there was way more aggression in the game. Now people log in to go through their normal routines.
Those days are gone.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: FLS on December 14, 2019, 08:15:52 PM
If the problem is people avoiding certain fights then dropping one country changes something else.
People act a way that's unpopular, then they want Hitech to force the people they insult to play with them.
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 10:21:26 PM
If you want to use player's actions from the past 10 to 15 years, that is great!
It makes my posting regarding "players mentality to want to be on the side with the advantage / or winning side" even stronger!
15+ years ago players did a better effort of self balancing.....and didn't avoid fighting
They probably didn’t have a six-hour side switch timer that got them stuck with either no fight or ENY...
Post by: Vraciu on December 14, 2019, 10:22:38 PM
If two countries are better than three why has AH had more players than WB for 20 years? How many have switched to WB since the numbers dropped "too much" for three sides?
If the problem is people avoiding certain fights then dropping one country changes something else.
People act a way that's unpopular, then they want Hitech to force the people they insult to play with them.
WBs didn’t die due to number of sides (two).
And let’s not pretend AH is not following a similar trajectory with three sides.
People want Hitech to provide a service worth fifteen bucks a month. That generally includes the ability to regularly find a fight.
Post by: FLS on December 14, 2019, 11:14:49 PM
WBs didn’t die due to number of sides (two).
And let’s not pretend AH is not following a similar trajectory with three sides.
...
Point is two sides didn't save WB.
Post by: CptTrips on December 14, 2019, 11:16:05 PM
Point is two sides didn't save WB.
Is 3-sides saving Aces High?
Post by: FLS on December 14, 2019, 11:28:46 PM
Is 3-sides saving Aces High?
Straw man makes a lot of convenient easy to refute statements. :D
Post by: CptTrips on December 14, 2019, 11:30:51 PM
Straw man makes a lot of convenient easy to refute statements. :D
Are you afraid to answer?
Post by: Shuffler on December 14, 2019, 11:36:00 PM
Don't put words in my mouth.
MMO's are a social game, social constructs change with time. If what TC stated is true in terms of time frames. It would stand to reason that another study would be needed.
Dale has already given his verdict on the subject, what is happening now is called a conversation.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
From your post that is what it looks like. Simply search the BBS and you will see how he explained it.
Post by: FLS on December 15, 2019, 12:41:41 AM
Are you afraid to answer?
Who said 3 sides is saving Aces High? Nobody.
It's a false argument that diminishes your credibility.
Post by: guncrasher on December 15, 2019, 12:43:00 AM
-you cant force people to play the way you want. try it and they will log off.
-people want to play the way they see fit, change that they will log off.
-this isnt a furballing game, force people to furball all the time and they will get bored and they will log off.
-it's about fun using ww2 airplanes, your idea of fun isnt everybody's idea of fun
-hitech and I dont speak for him, I think he sees some of what I posted above.
-feel free to post more or less of what I posted above.
semp
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 01:00:31 AM
Who said 3 sides is saving Aces High? Nobody.
It's a false argument that diminishes your credibility.
If you insinuate 2-sides was supposed to have been able to save WB with all its various problems, why wouldn't it be fair to assume 3-sides should be able to save Aces High with all its various problems?
Your unwillingness to answer a simple question diminishes your credibility.
Post by: FLS on December 15, 2019, 07:56:02 AM
If you insinuate 2-sides was supposed to have been able to save WB with all its various problems, why wouldn't it be fair to assume 3-sides should be able to save Aces High with all its various problems?
...
Because that's just you making up false arguments that you wish were true.
Post by: Puma44 on December 15, 2019, 08:16:40 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0CYRrw5/A0-D10089-8-C41-4-B6-A-A901-CE9-CD6-A22111.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Post by: FLS on December 15, 2019, 08:58:00 AM
Two sides means joining the gang or getting banged when there's inequality.
Three sides gives you another option.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 10:46:17 AM
Because that's just you making up false arguments that you wish were true.
Because that's just you deflecting to avoid answering a simple question.
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 15, 2019, 11:14:20 AM
(https://i.postimg.cc/J0CYRrw5/A0-D10089-8-C41-4-B6-A-A901-CE9-CD6-A22111.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Should have been reply # 1 to this thread.....
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 11:32:23 AM
Two sides works with the right people. So does three sides. As long as you have the right people playing it makes no difference. :D
It's not about the right or the wrong people. It's about enough or too few people. You find a way to put 400-500 players back in the arena and my argument over two sides is over. 3-Sides works great with 500 player. Better even.
Two sides means joining the gang or getting banged when there's inequality.
Wait, now you're insinuating there is never gang-banging or side inequality in a 3-sided design?
Or you're suggesting that when one side vastly outnumbers the other two sides and is banging, that the low side players should just switch to the winning side?
Look, 2-sided and 3-sided just have the same issues with side balancing. The mechanism to address count imbalance exist and work equally well (or not) for 2 or 3 sides. Additional mechanism exist to add like hard side balance limits. Some games even temporarily switch players to sides between "sorties" if needed to balance. Those are all possible design choices. Games that make billions use those successfully so don't pretend the world would end.
The issue between 2-sides or 3-sides is about tighter fight density and access to any point on the frontage by all players so you don't end up with one great fight on the map that the numbers will support and 1/3 of the players logged in can't get over to it and have to content themselves with long flights to attach empty bases.
I'm done. Believe what you want to believe. The numbers will eventually resolve the issue one way or another. Until then, I'll content myself with those (gasp) 2-sided scenarios. :aok
Post by: Ciaphas on December 15, 2019, 11:50:10 AM
Quote
semp: If you complain that players are spread too thin in the maps. Maybe try to understand why. And the problem isn't big maps. Players themselves can fix that and concentrate on same base. But why they don't do it?
Quote
me: What is your understanding as to why they are spread out?
Quote
semp: Answer my question first.
Quote
me: It's simple, excessive choice vs. time available, gratification/fulfillment vs. down time to target once one is selected.
Still waiting on your understanding on why people are spread to thin... .
I posted something asking people to think about players in this game. let me give you some facts:
-you cant force people to play the way you want. try it and they will log off.
not relevant to this conversation
-people want to play the way they see fit, change that they will log off.
not relevant to this conversation
-this isnt a furballing game, force people to furball all the time and they will get bored and they will log off.
out of all the things posted, this is the only thing you picked up on? There are so many factors that are affecting this game outside the realm of furballing. There appears to be game mechanic issues, training issues, and content issues that the player is aware of and in most cases we all would like to see them resolved. Dale looks at this game from a different perspective than we do, what he doesn't see we might see and vice versa.
-it's about fun using ww2 airplanes, your idea of fun isnt everybody's idea of fun.
fun, that's an interesting concept in this conversation. One could argue that the difference in numbers from say 10 yrs ago and now would indicate that many people are not having fun in the MA and many of those people have either A. cancelled subs, B. Moved to FSO permanently or C. Only fly in scenarios. It begs to question, what was the catalyst that drove people from the MA? I suspect that there are many reasons but I would place it in four categories: 1. Those that got all huffy that they might need to upgrade their commodore 64 machines to continue playing (which is a completely different conversation) 2. Those that have seen no value added to the stagnant game play of the MA, 3. Those that are getting up there in years and are no longer physically able to fly, and 4. Those that for whatever reason have moved on to greener gaming pastures.
-hitech and I dont speak for him, I think he sees some of what I posted above. not relevant to this conversation
-feel free to post more or less of what I posted above. Same ol knee jerk responses void of any actual depth of conversation
semp
Post by: hitech on December 15, 2019, 12:08:05 PM
He can code it to disable one side and offset that with ENY adjustments for the remaining two.
It’s not an insurmountable hurdle.
Frankly, he’s made a lifetime of money off this game as it is. He could close it down tomorrow and not miss it.
We already have two sides with the added benefit of pissing off a third of the players on a daily basis due to their inability to find a fight...
Player retention.
Fewer bases.
Two sides.
Any of these three things would be a massive help.
You have just shown how you truly are speaking out your rear sphincter.
how would you have any clue about the financials of aces high or more in particular my personal finances.
your arguments are completely unreasoned anytime somebody disagree with you you just move the goalposts and try to some other reason to prove you're right.
You continually post straw man arguments stating why the way things are with no validation to your assumptions.
you are so narrow mindedly looking at issues that you just want one thing and have no concept of the unintended consequences of your desiree.
Here's one simple unintended consequence. if things were changed to to two sides what is the next thing you think people would ask for.
No one in this thread is even posted the real reasons there are three sides.
the reason is not to spread out gameplay the reason is it gives a much bigger variants of gameplay .
with two sides each map continually is falt exactly the same way. you jump into the arena there's one side to fight there's no ebenflow and variance to the battles as there are with three sides.
As far as not enough players for three sides.
when I learn to play air warrior there were three sides and a Max of 32 players in the arena.
And don't go thinking I just stick my head in the sand saying that everything's alright with AH.
there might be a few mistakes in this typing because I did it all via voice with my phone.
In conclusion blow it out your aromatic rear spincter.
Hitech
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 12:24:59 PM
Point is two sides didn't save WB.
Point is three isn't saving AH.
Point is nothing could save WBs from Wild Bill.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 12:25:47 PM
As far as not enough players for three sides.
when I learn to play air warrior there were three sides and a Max of 32 players in the arena.
Honest question, I can't remember back that far. How big were maps? How many bases?
And how many other online multi-player combat games was AW competing against in 1988? Wasn't it pretty much the first with no competitors?
In conclusion blow it out your aromatic rear spincter.
There are a few aromatic sphincters in this thread, on both sides of the discussion. ;)
there might be a few mistakes in this typing because I did it all via voice with my phone.
I thought the spelling was unusually good. :D
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 12:28:35 PM
. . .
how would you have any clue about the financials of aces high or more in particular my personal finances.
. . .
No one in this thread is even posted the real reasons there are three sides.
the reason is not to spread out gameplay the reason is it gives a much bigger variants of gameplay .
with two sides each map continually is falt exactly the same way. you jump into the arena there's one side to fight there's no ebenflow and variance to the battles as there are with three sides.
As far as not enough players for three sides.
when I learn to play air warrior there were three sides and a Max of 32 players in the arena.
And don't go thinking I just stick my head in the sand saying that everything's alright with AH.
Well, don't forget we are on YOUR side, Hitech.
You're making a grave mistake thinking 32 players over three sides is going to build this game.
Also, I'm well aware of why you say three sides work. We've heard it before from both you and Skuzzy.
As for your finances, I find it hard to believe you NEED this game for that. I'm sure you've done quite well, and deservedly so.
I'm not going to be allowed to debate you so I'll leave it there. Just remember, the end user isn't always right, but he's also not always wrong. I used to spend nearly every minute of the day on this game. I understand the dynamics quite well.
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 12:33:25 PM
Two sides works with the right people. So does three sides. As long as you have the right people playing it makes no difference. :D
Two sides means joining the gang or getting banged when there's inequality.
Three sides gives you another option.
Wrong and wrong and wrong.
Hitech has all the mechanics needed to balance.
It is said three sides offer more play style options. That's a consequence in search of a justification. When we had full arenas everyone pretty much had the same choices and combat was ALWAYS one of them. Now we have either gang or be ganged OR get ignored. This really should not be by design.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 12:39:34 PM
And the idea you haven't made a fortune on this game is easily derived by anyone with a modicum of common sense and basic math skills. My entire point was that you are not keeping AH alive because you NEED to.
You're going too far again.
You have no idea how much it takes to run a software company. How much of the revenue has to be paid out to venture investors. How much cost has to go into developing things for months or years without being able to monetize yet. How much has to be kept as retained earning to get a team through lean patches.
Whatever Hitech has been able to make off AH has been well earned and I assure you a programmer/architect of his skill level could have made several times more in the commercial world. I can almost guarantee you he has sacrificed potential lifetime earning in order to peruse a dream we have all gotten to share.
I still think he is wrong about 2-sides when player counts are below 200-300 though. :D
But I guess he has earned the right to be wrong on occasion.
Here is what we agree on. Get the player count back up to 500 and many problems resolve themselves. Quantity has a quality all it's own.
:salute
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 12:43:06 PM
You're going too far again.
You have no idea how much it takes to run a software company. How much of the revenue has to be paid out to venture investors. How much cost has to go into developing things for months or years without being able to monetize yet. How much has to be kept as retained earning to get a team through lean patches.
Whatever Hitech has been able to make off AH has been well earned and I assure you a programmer/architect of his skill level could have made several times more in the commercial world. I can almost guarantee you he has sacrificed potential lifetime earning in order to peruse a dream we have all gotten to share.
I still think he is still wrong about 2-sides when player counts are below 200-300 though. :D
But I guess he has earned the right to be wrong on occasion.
Here is what we agree on. Get the player count back up to 500 and many problems resolve themselves.
:salute
I know a lot more than you think. ;)
I'm not attacking Hitech.* I am simply responding to the idea that he's not updating the game any more. I am glad he keeps is going, but I imagine he'll do fine without it. I fail to see how that's anything other than a COMPLIMENT.
Yes, he's the owner. He has the right to do whatever he wants. He is the one who lives or dies with the decisions. :salute
__
* I was in the middle of editing that post when you quoted it. The first line was unclear. "Derived" was not the proper word without "have or haven't" just prior. My brain outran my fingers.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 12:48:41 PM
Hitech showing off his hoarded Aces High riches on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous:
"Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." Dale Addink
(http://petcaretips.net/daffyduck2.jpg)
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 12:49:26 PM
Hitech showing off his hoarded Aces High riches on Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous:
"Consequences, schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." Dale Addink
(http://petcaretips.net/daffyduck2.jpg)
You are so getting a Rule 4 for that. :rofl
Post by: atlau on December 15, 2019, 01:32:43 PM
Here's one simple unintended consequence. if things were changed to to two sides what is the next thing you think people would ask for.
No one in this thread is even posted the real reasons there are three sides.
I postulate that there would be a push to only have 1 side.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 01:38:09 PM
I postulate that there would be a push to only have 1 side.
I postulate you are postulating out your aromatic sphincter. ;)
I say we go 8 sides for super-charged variety of action!
Ebbing and flowing out the ying-yang!
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 01:49:22 PM
I'm not attacking Hitech. I am simply responding to the idea that he's not updating the game any more. I am glad he keeps is going, but I imagine he'll do fine without it.
I think he is updating the game to the maximum of the resources he has. He has to choose carefully how best to apply those resources to both short-term and long-term goals.
He simply does not think that configuring the code to support a two country Melee when numbers are low is the best use of his limited resources. OK. It's his call. I'm not privy to the full range of things he is dividing his time across.
If you are implying he is rolling in dough and could just retire to his yacht in the Bahamas and forget Aces High, I highly doubt that is the case. I bet you he is highly motivated to keep Aces High alive.
He would not enjoy a cubicle with a red stapler. :D
(https://cdn3.movieweb.com/i/article/HxlDDLDJdFAaWZaFgBuZZmHbB1ouWd/1200:100/Office-Space-Buy-Milton-Red-Stapler-Swingline.jpg)
Post by: Ciaphas on December 15, 2019, 02:01:07 PM
Quote
the reason is not to spread out gameplay the reason is it gives a much bigger variants of gameplay .
with two sides each map continually is falt exactly the same way. you jump into the arena there's one side to fight there's no ebenflow and variance to the battles as there are with three sides.
With players organizing missions and the addition of squads in this game came the ebb and flow or variance that you are speaking of, at least from a players standpoint. When we would see 400-500 people online, it was easy to forget that the players created the variance of battle and not the map. You can have point A opposing point B and have it fought multiple different ways depending on the players behavior. The targets stay the same but the mentality of the player changes for any given situation.
example,
Logging in to the current set up, the Knits are running a mission to a northern base on their front and the Bish are doing the same on their front. The Rooks have to defend against both or risk losing both and are then forced to retake ground on two sides of their territory. The battles that are fought are dependent on the play style of the attackers and the map just gave them targets.
now,
Logging in to a two sided arena, Side A is attacking 2 bases on their front on two opposite ends of the map. Side B is forced to defend against both missions or risk losing their bases and are then forced to retake lost ground. The battles are still fought dependent on the play style of the attackers where the map just provided the targets.
in these examples you are still having to defend against two separate attacks from an opposing team. These attacks might even pull a greater sense of urgency as the victory conditions for the map would most likely be a bit different than with a three sided war.
Dale, many of us are trying to pull as many new members as we can by use of social media, streaming, talking the game up etc...
We are all just brainstorming ideas, sometimes debates take place and sometimes we don't like some of the comments but you should understand that if we didn't care about this game we wouldn't even bother to have these conversations. This game has been apart of my entire adult life and also the reason why I am so passionate about helping this game.
:salute
Post by: TequilaChaser on December 15, 2019, 02:01:36 PM
I know a lot more than you think. ;)
I'm not attacking Hitech. I am simply responding to the idea that he's not updating the game any more. I am glad he keeps is going, but I imagine he'll do fine without it. I fail to see how that's anything other than a COMPLIMENT.
How do you come to that observation, especially when there was a patch update just 10 days ago.....
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 02:20:13 PM
How do you come to that observation, especially when there was a patch update just 10 days ago.....
I didn't.
Ahem.
Just venturing a guess here but chances are, resetting the infrastructure of present maps, from 3 to 2 sides would require a sizable modification of coding. My next guess is that Dale is/has/will be moving on to new pastures given the updates we've seen in the past year or so.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 02:26:08 PM
I didn't.
Ahem.
Not all effort in software is immediately visible to end users. Sometimes a lot of work is being done behind the scenes laying the ground work for future features.
What end users see is usually just the tip of the iceberg of effort.
Post by: Max on December 15, 2019, 02:29:08 PM
The world is round
Post by: hazmatt on December 15, 2019, 02:33:24 PM
What was the reasoning we can't have smaller maps?
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 02:40:09 PM
I'm sure it was covered somewhere here but I missed it.
What was the reasoning we can't have smaller maps?
I think smaller maps, with proportionally fewer bases would help. I'd hope Hitech would be willing to reduce the required field spacing to 1/2 sector to increase the action:transit ratio.
I think one issue you'd have to design around would be causing to the strats and HQ to be too easy to drop in such tight spaces. You might have to pull them out from the center mass of fields and end up with a kind of hub and spoke configuration.
Maybe an island map would be ideal for this with a central continent and archipelagos extending out to an HQ island that could also host a bomber base.
:aok
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 02:49:48 PM
Point Counterpoint to ACHOO :
The world is round
:banana: :banana: :banana:
:cheers:
:salute
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 03:05:44 PM
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 03:16:39 PM
I blame apple.... before the regeneration of apple people knew how to make choices for themselves...
But people are making choices for themselves. That's why there are fewer and fewer players every year.
Except for the players we are losing by natural causes. I wonder how many games out there are losing an appreciable percentage of their player base to old age. :O
Post by: Ramesis on December 15, 2019, 03:25:41 PM
The issue between 2-sides or 3-sides is about tighter fight density and access to any point on the frontage by all players so you don't end up with one great fight on the map that the numbers will support and 1/3 of the players logged in can't get over to it and have to content themselves with long flights to attach empty bases.
Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be :salute
Post by: DmonSlyr on December 15, 2019, 03:57:43 PM
Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be :salute
Map taking should correlate into the furballing, bomb runs, and tank support fights. That's how the good battles happen that keep people in the game. The battle to take bases is the most important aspect but good battles for bases will have all the parts of the game in the main battle. That's why I think zones worth higher perks in areas of strategic importance might create more battles. The maps should not be so big that small 2 person fights are scattered around the map. Areas of base clusters might work out better that each have their own strats and VH bases. Would make for a lot of fun.
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 03:58:06 PM
But people are making choices for themselves. That's why there are fewer and fewer players every year.
Except for the players we are losing by natural causes. I wonder how many games out there are losing an appreciable percentage of their player base to old age. :O
Some are for sure... many many more are guided... sad reality of this time
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 04:03:48 PM
Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
This has been an ongoing argument for as long as I can remember and will not be settled until
Dale decides what the focus of the game is or will be :salute
The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 04:07:31 PM
Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
I don't understand your logic. How do you think having 2-sides would prevent you from taking a base?
Are you saying two sides would make it less likely you could take an undefended base?
I'm sure somewhere along the front of even a 2-sided map you can find an undefended base to take if you want. You just might have to hurry a little more.
:salute
Post by: guncrasher on December 15, 2019, 06:58:58 PM
The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.
You mean force people to furball. Players are gonna play which ever way they want.
The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.
Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.
semp
Post by: Ciaphas on December 15, 2019, 07:13:38 PM
The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.
It's crazy how having to many options can be counter productive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 07:27:08 PM
You mean force people to furball. Players are gonna play which ever way they want.
The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.
Yeah. Let's try and encourage people to sigin up/stay in a combat game where everyone avoids combat. Brilliant plan.
If Hitech listens to you he will have six subscribers left, and most of them are posting in this thread.
Quote
Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.
semp
That's happening more and more every day already. Combat avoidance is "popular" by default, kinda like being the last cannibal on the Island. The warriors have moved on. New ones see nothing of interest and leave.
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 07:29:48 PM
It's crazy how having to many options can be counter productive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
When a gourmet burger joint starts serving pizza, Japanese Tepanyaki, and spaghetti it is a sure sign of over-diversification. Airlines don't sell cars for a reason.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 07:35:33 PM
Take away the ability to play as you see fit with smaller maps and they might not log in at all.
So what you are saying is that by denying players smaller maps with shorter flight times, you are wanting to force them to play the way you want them to by forcing boring long flights to empty bases?
Why is forcing larger maps on players that want smaller maps different than forcing smaller maps on people that want larger maps?
And aren't you forcing 3 sides on people that want two?
Any change you make or don't make , whether making smaller maps or larger maps or keeping them the same, or go 2-sided or stay 3-sided is always going to force something on someone that doesn't like it.
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 07:36:11 PM
So what you are saying is that by denying players smaller maps with shorter flight times, you are wanting to force them to play the way you want them to by forcing boring long flights to empty bases?
Why is forcing larger maps on players that want smaller maps different than forcing smaller maps on people that want larger maps?
And aren't you forcing 3 sides on people that want two?
Any change you make or don't make , whether making smaller maps or larger maps or keeping them the same, or go 2-sided or stay 3-sided is always going to force something on someone that doesn't like it.
#Burn
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 07:55:23 PM
So what you are saying is that by denying players smaller maps with shorter flight times, you are wanting to force them to play the way you want them to by forcing boring long flights to empty bases?
Why is forcing larger maps on players that want smaller maps different than forcing smaller maps on people that want larger maps?
And aren't you forcing 3 sides on people that want two?
Any change you make or don't make , whether making smaller maps or larger maps or keeping them the same, or go 2-sided or stay 3-sided is always going to force something on someone that doesn't like it.
Not really... you first logged into this game with three sides and large maps (and yes..larger numbers which as we see has caused an unwanted change in itself)... so ultimately the only forcing of players ways would be to change the whole original game set up....If you wanted two sides you should have played another game all these years ...
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 08:02:29 PM
Not really... you first logged into this game with three sides and large maps (and yes..larger numbers which as we see has caused an unwanted change in itself)... so ultimately the only forcing of players ways would be to change the whole original game set up....If you wanted two sides you should have played another game all these years ...
When I first started playing the C-Hog was not perked. Now it is.
When I first started playing there was no ENY system. Now there is.
Are you saying nothing in the game can ever be changed for any reason ever, even if it is desperately needed? Because that is not the way it used to be?
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:05:07 PM
When I first started playing the C-Hog was not perked. Now it is.
When I first started playing there was no ENY system. Now there is.
Are you saying nothing in the game can ever be changed for any reason even, even if it is desperately needed? Because that is not the way it used to be?
Curse you LOGIC! :bhead
Post by: guncrasher on December 15, 2019, 08:12:21 PM
I'm questioning the idea that players are spread too thin because maps are too large. I think it's because players don't want to be concentrated on a base or two. So how do I know that? Well the fact they aren't concentrating on a base it two. If they wanted to, the map doesn't stop them from doing it.
Think about that.
semp
Post by: SilverZ06 on December 15, 2019, 08:15:32 PM
Post by: Ciaphas on December 15, 2019, 08:16:03 PM
I was talking to my wife about this with two sides ganging up on the third and she said she much prefers a 2v1 over a 1v1. I'm not entirely sure she was talking about AH though.
lol
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:16:30 PM
No cptrips, I didn't say that you did, if I had wanted to say that I would have typed it myself.
I'm questioning the idea that players are spread too thin because maps are too large. I think it's because players don't want to be concentrated on a base or two. So how do I know that? Well the fact they aren't concentrating on a base it two. If they wanted to, the map doesn't stop them from doing it.
Think about that.
semp
Then they should play offline. Seriously.
"The maps aren't too big, it's the players who got small." - Apologies to Norma Desmond
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:18:05 PM
I was talking to my wife about this with two sides ganging up on the third and she said she much prefers a 2v1 over a 1v1. I'm not entirely sure she was talking about AH though.
I was married to one who used to say that very thing. :rofl
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 08:20:48 PM
Do I like the lower numbers...Not really.
Do I want the game to die..not at all (as I said...this is the only game I have an interest for).. .
Do I think big changes would work...no... However I do think these days map design is important...and we have a couple of maps that work well even with very little numbers....
This is an area I believe should be worked on... I have tried in the past but...my patients doesn't allow me to do the things that buster has done
There are still good days..and this is totally player based,which is what keeps me coming back....
I don't care about 2 sides 3 side big map small map ... in game vibe is where it is at for me
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:26:55 PM
I find it somewhat difficult to do. Not the ideas themselves but rather the interface to do it. It would be great for it to be more like. Sim City classic or Starcraft where you can click and drop. Build your stuff out. Save file. BOOM. Done.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 08:30:26 PM
I'm questioning the idea that players are spread too thin because maps are too large. I think it's because players don't want to be concentrated on a base or two. So how do I know that? Well the fact they aren't concentrating on a base it two. If they wanted to, the map doesn't stop them from doing it.
So really maps should be 4x larger than they are now. That would be even better.
Or perhaps each country should be placed in it's own arena so that no one accidentally runs into an enemy?
How do you think this odd world of seemingly robot planes flying around to empty bases on auto-pilot appears to new people trying the game? Seriously.
Do you think they log off and think, WOW, I want to sign up and fly around on auto-pilot? In fact I want to get all my friends to join so we can all fly around on auto-pilot together!
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 08:38:27 PM
So really maps should be 4x larger than they are now. That would be even better.
Or perhaps each country should be placed in it's own arena so that no one accidentally runs into an enemy?
How do you think this odd world of seemingly robot planes flying around to empty bases on auto-pilot appears to new people trying the game? Seriously.
Do you think they log off and think, WOW, I want to sign up and fly around on auto-pilot? In fact I want to get all my friends to join so we can all fly around on auto-pilot together!
Woah woah sailor ....Did you read what he said.... I think you are too invested in this discussion... you need to take a break and get a drink hahahaha......
I agree.... V ... that is my problem... well actually my problem is I'm too dumb to computer.... I need drag and drop to help me.... that could make for boring maps though... I know Buster must have spent a load of time just decorating the train let alone working on the base placement...
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:40:58 PM
So really maps should be 4x larger than they are now. That would be even better.
Or perhaps each country should be placed in it's own arena so that no one accidentally runs into an enemy?
How do you think this odd world of seemingly robot planes flying around to empty bases on auto-pilot appears to new people trying the game? Seriously.
Do you think they log off and think, WOW, I want to sign up and fly around on auto-pilot? In fact I want to get all my friends to join so we can all fly around on auto-pilot together!
Well, he (Semp) seems to advocate allowing players to "do what they want to do" [so long as it's not combat]. Bigger maps would certainly facilitate that.
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 08:41:39 PM
PS ... My game time is when most are sleeping...so I know what low numbers means... and what it affects trust me... but the game is the game..
No, the game is whatever Hitech codes to to be.
Code isn't chiseled in stone for a reason. It is meant to be changed when you need to improve things.
:salute
Post by: SPKmes on December 15, 2019, 08:43:12 PM
Post by: Vraciu on December 15, 2019, 08:43:27 PM
No, the game is whatever Hitech codes to to be.
Code isn't chiseled in stone for a reason. It is meant to be changed when need you need to improve things.
:salute
Yup. And to his credit Hitech HAS made some bold changes--like the new dar settings (which I love).
Post by: CptTrips on December 15, 2019, 08:48:06 PM
Post by: Oldman731 on December 15, 2019, 09:05:11 PM
The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.
Possibly you have forgotten the days when we had hundreds of players, and entire squadrons focused on NOE missions against undefended bases. Plainly that did not encourage furball action, yet many here consider those to be the golden days of AH.
Semp is making the point that the game caters to all, including those who want to accomplish something, yet recognize that their skills are not comparable to those who are more experienced. If you want them to go play online games...well...fine: I think many are actually doing that. I don't believe we benefit from their absence.
- oldman