They do have a two sided arena. It's called Axis vs Allies. Have you seen the mass number of players there?
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.
They do have a two sided arena. It's called Axis vs Allies. Have you seen the mass number of players there?
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.
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.
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.
I think they should go to a single side! Then we can roll maps really quickly!
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.
I think they should go to a single side! Then we can roll maps really quickly!
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.
Are you saying similar has never happened with 3-sides?
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
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.
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.
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.
I think we should go 8 sides!!!!!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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. This latter issue is the ultimate salvation for the game and I don't have an answer.
Where's the proof of benefit to 2 sides again?
This current system used to work, but doesn't now.
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. ;)
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.
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.
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.
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.
I say go 5 sides, but split into country specific planesets.
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.
140 on last night
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.
140 on last night
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
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.
Strawman. There is no evidence there would be a two year long imbalance in AH Melee (Non-AVA where could have tech imbalance).
------------------------------------------------------
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
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
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 they're round based, not long term strategic, which is an enormous difference.
I'll have mashed potatoes and fried okra . Thank you.
I think it's time to change. At least lets do an Experimental Arena to try it out with maybe a Medium size map.
Not going to happen.
HiTech
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
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.
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.
: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. ;))
And for some, that arena gameplay when it's good is what we want.
I think the correct quote is "peace on earth and goodwill towards men."
Nevermind trying to bring new ideas wont hear from me again ever on the forum. Good luck
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
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... 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.
I have an opinion. It is not constructive. (when I say that, you can imagine... ;))
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.
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.
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. ;)
(https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-mlA31WMylkU/Th17yF5dbCI/AAAAAAAALo0/01FQlGQw3h0/s1600/chicken-happy_cluck.jpg)
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...
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.
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)
Yes. And your proposed alternative has no proof that it will improve that. Regardless, HT has spoken.
Wiley.
Smaller maps are the easiest remedy in my opinion.
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
Not going to happen.
HiTech
(https://i.pinimg.com/originals/35/64/f4/3564f4b0338c3cf4285ee94e22b3ecf2.jpg)
Hows that?
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.
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)
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.
Beat a dead horse.:aok
semp
: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:
Because of the length of time required to switch sides... 24 hrs right?
With 2 sides, that requirement is moot :salute
: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:
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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 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.
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. ;)
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.
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. ;)
WBs was the EXACT SAME GAME minus ENY and we never had balance issues.
You got data to back you up? Because I have thousands of canceled subscriptions to back ME. And that number grows each month.
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.
COBOL :rofl
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
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.
"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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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
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. ;)
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. ;)
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 started with Cobol in high school.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Nobody started in BASIC?
DANG.
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.
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
oh look, lingerie for programmers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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 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 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.
If I had a buck for every time I've read that I'd be living on a beach :old:
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.
Answer my question first.
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?
semp
What is your understanding as to why they are spread out?
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.....
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
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.
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)
just lime Dale does.
Times change, for what its worth, Dale doesn't. (http://66.189.10.34:8080/pics/shrug.jpg)
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
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.
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
If you dont think splitting 50 players 3 ways, and limiting exposure to eachother is a huge problem here....you are huffing glue.
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
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
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
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.
...
Point is two sides didn't save WB.
Is 3-sides saving Aces High?
Straw man makes a lot of convenient easy to refute statements. :D
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
Are you afraid to answer?
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?
...
Because that's just you making up false arguments that you wish were true.
(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.....
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.
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?
me: What is your understanding as to why they are spread out?
semp: Answer my question first.
me: It's simple, excessive choice vs. time available, gratification/fulfillment vs. down time to target once one is selected.
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
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.
Point is two sides didn't save WB.
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.
In conclusion blow it out your aromatic rear spincter.
there might be a few mistakes in this typing because I did it all via voice with my phone.
. . .
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.
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.
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 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
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)
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.
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.
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.
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.....
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.
I didn't.
Ahem.
I'm sure it was covered somewhere here but I missed it.
What was the reasoning we can't have smaller maps?
Point Counterpoint to ACHOO :
The world is round
I blame apple.... before the regeneration of apple people knew how to make choices for themselves...
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
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
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
Imho... this argument can be boiled down to those whom prefer fur balling to those that prefer taking
bases and winning the map...
The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.
The reason players are spread too thin is because they want to. If everybody wanted to furball they would.
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
It's crazy how having to many options can be counter productive.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
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.
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 ...
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?
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.
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
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'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!
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!
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 need you need to improve things.
:salute
The game should ENCOURAGE furball action as part of taking bases, otherwise rename it TANKS LOW.