Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Flench on March 10, 2011, 10:40:06 PM
-
Man , I am fed up with this arena cap .. I fly all day by my self and when the squad log's on around 10 oc this is what I see in Orange .
275/100
30 minute's later
255/200
So here I set been trying to get into orange for an HOUR , where my squad is at....something need's to be done about this . maybe 10 people all together in the other arena's total ...
NOW COME ON !!!!
-
Wow Flench you have some serious anger management issues! Seriously! Go get some help!
This has been discussed a million times already on this board, and unless you have an idea for a better solution then you should contact them privately through email or let it be. Posting this nonsense in Tech Support is not going to go over well.
Instead of whining and crying over it, have you mentioned maybe moving the squad over to the Blue arena for awhile? If more people did this, then the arena caps wouldn't be an issue...
-
What ever ...I'm done with it . Took me an hour and a half to get in . The squad would not move because they had a good fight going .
BTW: every one I talk to feel's the same way I do ..there just got to be a better way ..
-
Perhaps you're in the wrong squadron, Flench.
-
I did not ask them to move . They would have if I ask but I could not brake up a good fight to go to no fight ..just saying there has to be a better way .
nonsense ? I think not if it was why a I seeing so many people complane about it . Anger ? yes when I pay to play and can't . management ? No, Mississippi Red Neck ..
-
Man , I am fed up with this arena cap .. I fly all day by my self and when the squad log's on around 10 oc this is what I see in Orange .
275/100
30 minute's later
255/200
So here I set been trying to get into orange for an HOUR , where my squad is at....something need's to be done about this . maybe 10 people all together in the other arena's total ...
NOW COME ON !!!!
Wow so your squad did not want to fly with you?
-
Sit in the tower with him is what he's saying.
-
Arena CAP's are better for HTC business.
End of discussion.
-
his #'s dont jive anyway
if it was 255/200 in orange there were more than 10 people in blue. a lot more.
-
Wow so your squad did not want to fly with you?
Yes, that's exactly it.
-
What ever ...I'm done with it . Took me an hour and a half to get in . The squad would not move because they had a good fight going .
BTW: every one I talk to feel's the same way I do ..there just got to be a better way ..
I hate to agree with a Memphis boy but I do. OOhh and btw you did miss a helluva good fight last night.
-
Thanks dodger but im a Mississippi Man . I just put Memphis because people know where that's at . I did get about an hour of that good fight tho before the base was took .
I will start taking snap shot's of the clipboard from now on .
-
I loved at 5:38 pm (est) last night the arenas were lwo 102/100 and lwb 100/150 was this way for about 15 minutes. I think they should just do away with caps
-
I loved at 5:38 pm (est) last night the arenas were lwo 102/100 and lwb 100/150 was this way for about 15 minutes. I think they should just do away with caps
Scratching head, I don't see the problem? Why did you not go into blue?
HiTech
-
None of my squad was in blue . Your right , I could have went to blue but I like to have a wing man or at lest fly with someone I know .
EDIT: Oh you was asking DMGOD sorry ..and thanks for moving this thread for me .
-
I think we all run into odd numbers like this. There are times I have seen, say 300/300, go into another arena, check back in 15 mins and come back to see 301/300. Odd. What about allowing players to join their squad if the arena is full. Is this somehow already allowed and that accounts for the number growing by a few?
Boo
-
Scratching head, I don't see the problem? Why did you not go into blue?
HiTech
Don't like map in Blue
-
I think we all run into odd numbers like this. There are times I have seen, say 300/300, go into another arena, check back in 15 mins and come back to see 301/300. Odd.
Two ways this can happen:
- The other arena's population rose above the 75% threshold needed to raise cap on the first arena just for a moment - but that moment was enough to let 2 lucky guys in. Or
- One players left the arena dropping the number to 299/300. Two other players arrived at the login screen at the same time and each of them saw that 299/300 and thus was able to join the arena - bringing total population to 301.
-
Two ways this can happen:
- The other arena's population rose above the 75% threshold needed to raise cap on the first arena just for a moment - but that moment was enough to let 2 lucky guys in. Or
- One players left the arena dropping the number to 299/300. Two other players arrived at the login screen at the same time and each of them saw that 299/300 and thus was able to join the arena - bringing total population to 301.
I'm convinced there is a bug also. Sometimes when I first log on numbers will be 126/300-100/300. The computer will lock up or the router will burp and I'll bet a BSOD or WSOD, come back and the numbers will be 126/100-100/150. And, I don't mean hours later. Sometimes it is literally minutes, hundreds of seconds even.
IIRC one of the reasons 8-player went away was because of a bug like this where eight player rooms were having 30 or 40 people in them.
Or, maybe I'm just lucky some nights.
wrongway
-
TT 7 days a week is the fix ;)
JUGgler
-
Scratching head, I don't see the problem? Why did you not go into blue?
After a reset, everyone mobs into the arena that hasn't reset. The brief time the arena is resetting gives the remaining arena unlimited caps. Afterwards, you see numbers that look like this;
Orange:480 of 100
Blue: 15 of 150
It takes forever for the other arena to populate... I'm not sure how this could be fixed other than resetting both arenas at once.
-
Why dont they just set it at 1 set number. like off hours, it only gets at max maybe 150, and its set cap is at 850? why not the LWO LWB arenas be set to higher caps lets say 500 or so and keep it that way. it would solve this problem.
-
Just give more perks to people flying in the under populated arena at certain times. During the "problem times", provide incentive to filling up the arena and killing bad guys and make it apparent on the arena list at specific times that bonuses are in effect. Problem solved.
-
After a reset, everyone mobs into the arena that hasn't reset. The brief time the arena is resetting gives the remaining arena unlimited caps. Afterwards, you see numbers that look like this;
Orange:480 of 100
Blue: 15 of 150
It takes forever for the other arena to populate... I'm not sure how this could be fixed other than resetting both arenas at once.
They both reset.
Anyhow, the numbers in question were two apart. 100 vs 102. :headscratch:
wrongway
-
Why dont they just set it at 1 set number. like off hours, it only gets at max maybe 150, and its set cap is at 850? why not the LWO LWB arenas be set to higher caps lets say 500 or so and keep it that way. it would solve this problem.
Because if the arena is set to a cap of 500, and your the 505th person loggin in you get to fly in Blue with 4 other people. The way it's set now you'll be in an arena with 200+ people while the other arena will ALSO have 200+ people. Much more playable like it is now.
-
Because if the arena is set to a cap of 500, and your the 505th person loggin in you get to fly in Blue with 4 other people. The way it's set now you'll be in an arena with 200+ people while the other arena will ALSO have 200+ people. Much more playable like it is now.
well then set it to 1 LW arena. set the cap to about 700 or 800 solves the problem no whines and pretty much everyone gets to play. no use having the LWOH server having 850 cap when you only see at max of 150 to 200 people in it and the LWB and LWO have random server caps. that no one gets to fly with their squad or with people they know.
-
well then set it to 1 LW arena. set the cap to about 700 or 800 solves the problem no whines and pretty much everyone gets to play. no use having the LWOH server having 850 cap when you only see at max of 150 to 200 people in it and the LWB and LWO have random server caps. that no one gets to fly with their squad or with people they know.
HiTech has said that over 400-450 people in the arena creates a bad environment causing the game subscriptions not to grow.
WHats your next idea?
-
Actually, for the last 3 weeks I have not had a problem getting into any of the Arenas whether its after-hours or the normal Blue/Orange. My only probs have been issues with rubber bullets and such. But my comp is as old as the Ten Commandments...dam u moses! :mad:
-
HiTech has said that over 400-450 people in the arena creates a bad environment causing the game subscriptions not to grow.
WHats your next idea?
But wasn't the complaint that the guy couldn't get into an arena to fly with his squad when the numbers were 250 or so? Well under the "bad environment" cap?? Cod forbid we should adjust some arcane and arbitrary rule so people can actually have fun flying with their friends in a freakin' computer game. Instead the response is, your friends should all give up having a good time to come fly with you in an empty arena. If they don't, what kind of friends are they.
The arena caps were a bad idea. They haven't improved gameplay and tend to piss people off. And the people who know how the game should be played keep moaning about hordes and the such. So man up, admit they were a mistake and fix them, then maybe people won't keep B&Ming about them on the boards.
-
One more time.
WHY CAPS?
From Pyro's post on September 14, 2006
Quote
Originally posted by Pyro
I'm going to shut down the first thread due to its size and continue here. I'll start off with a FAQ of sorts on some things that were brought up in the original thread. Keep it civil please.
Why did you make this change?
We made this change because it will allow us to support an unlimited amount of players in a much healthier online environment that gives us better long-term growth. The single MA has grown to the point of being unhealthy. This is not a subjective evaluation, it is quantifiable and they are numbers that we look at every day. It's obvious that we simply cannot keep pumping more players into a single arena without hitting a stagnation point.
Why are you doing this now?
There's a convergence of factors such as current arena health, player mass, time of year and a couple of things in the pipeline that we believe will provide an influx of players. Taken together, we believe this is the best time to make this transition.
Is this being done for technical reasons?
No. While some people on lower end machines may see some performance benefit, it's not for technical reasons that the change is being made.
This is going to fracture the community.
We disagree. Communities grow and healthy growth requires structure. Just packing in as many people as possible creates a slum, not a community. We now have multiple neighborhoods in our community, but they are all connected.
The caps need to be adjusted.
The cap numbers as well as the numbers of arenas will undergo adjustment as needed. During the transition, we feel its important not to make them too large in order to overcome habit and herding behavior. Things will change as we move through the transition period and people begin to regain their comfort level.
We need better tools to find or communicate with people across the different arenas.
We agree. We have some host side changes that will be coming out shortly that will facilitate cross arena communication and hooking up with your squad mates and we'll continue to develop more things that will help in this area.
Are you crazy?
No, we are rational and unemotional about this. We don't undertake a major change because we're masochists; we make the change because we believe that it is ultimately what's best for the game.
Why didn't you take a poll or announce it earlier?
It wouldn't be useful to us for this change. We know it's going to be controversial. The real test is not whether people think they're going to like it or dislike it, it's what happens after we make the transition and things are settled. I didn't like beer the first time I tried it but I've grown quite fond of it since then. The transition is the worst part and we have no interest in dragging that out opening up a conflict of speculation before it even starts. We ultimately have to do what we think is best for the game.
It's their income....
Of course, we all know better than they do.
wrongway
-
I think we all run into odd numbers like this. There are times I have seen, say 300/300, go into another arena, check back in 15 mins and come back to see 301/300. Odd. What about allowing players to join their squad if the arena is full. Is this somehow already allowed and that accounts for the number growing by a few?
Boo
No, I experienced the same thing last night something like 275/100 in orange And 75/150 in blue. and pretty much stayed that way for a really long time.
As much as I hate to defend arena caps or a split arena at all for that matter. Cause I dont like either for the same reasons as Fletch And no I wouldnt expect or ask a squad to change arenas for one person either. Especially if they were already in a good fight.
From what I understand. And what I figured happened, happened.
Blue was reset which meant a map change, which meant everyone that was in blue. got booted out of blue. That in turn set the total vs max numbers out of whack resulting in the wide disparity in the numbers shown.
If you were a knit. And normally fly in orange. You got it with another botchslap as Knits were subject to ENY restrictions as well
-
One more time.
It's their income....
Of course, we all know better than they do.
wrongway
Just because we may not agree on this. Doesnt make either side wrong. Only that we dont agree.
HTC however. Are the only ones with the big red button that controls how everything is set up. Which isnt entirely bad either. Imagine how often that button would be pushed if everyone were able to change setups as they pleased.
-
I swear I still don't understand it .Just make it like TT Day with an 850 cap and be done with it ? or just 500 would be plenty .
Not realy sure that Pyro means by a stagnation point ?
-
How bout lose the Blue arena and the off hour arena and just have an Orange arena all the time? If we can have 850 slots in off hours then surely we can just turn it into one large arena and keep it up all the time. I too get tired of seeing 255/100, or 275/250 or what ever else they have, just make one large arena. It is a fairly straight forward answer with alot of common sense, which means it has no place in this world........ :bhead
-
I swear I still don't understand it .Just make it like TT Day with an 850 cap and be done with it ? or just 500 would be plenty .
Not realy sure that Pyro means by a stagnation point ?
Definitions of stagnation on the Web:
a state of inactivity (in business or art etc); "economic growth of less than 1% per year is considered to be economic stagnation"
The obvious answer would be customer growth was slowing to the point that it was a money losing proposition to keep things the way they were and, despite everyone's conjecture, growth must have turned around.
I don't understand the "I don't understands". They've given their reasons for the split and their reasons for not having a "why don't we just have caps at 400, 500" whatever.
There are two arenas. Until someone comes up with an idea where HTC can make money with a single, unlimited arena it's not going to change.
Live with it.
Otherwise, vote with your wallet. Make like a tree and blow.
wrongway
-
After a reset, everyone mobs into the arena that hasn't reset. The brief time the arena is resetting gives the remaining arena unlimited caps. Afterwards, you see numbers that look like this;
Orange:480 of 100
Blue: 15 of 150
It takes forever for the other arena to populate... I'm not sure how this could be fixed other than resetting both arenas at once.
Funny, how I always seem to get the big disco when this happens. :rofl
-
I swear I still don't understand it .Just make it like TT Day with an 850 cap and be done with it ?
they said they can't because an arena over 400-450 is toxic and subscription were NOT increasing, or dropping off (they were losing money)
or just 500 would be plenty .
It you were the 505th person to log on you know where you would be right? Either flying in a second arena with 4 other guys, or watching TV with the wife. So they made the "dynanic caps" it increase the population in BOTH LW arena more evenly so you don't have to wait hours and hours for enough people to filter into the second arena to make it fun.
Not realy sure that Pyro means by a stagnation point ?
Subscriptions were not increasing, stagnating. Something had to be done to continue to grow the company, and the spit arenas is what they came up with, which worked because Hitech has said that subscriptions started to climb after the splits happened.
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
There are other methods to solve the issue of overpopulation that would split arenas, and not have an artificial limit I.E. 500 and you reached a false ceiling because no one wants to be the first in the 2nd arena. Here are some other possibilities all of which also have short comings but do solve the issue .
1. Do a 1 time population split via random squad distributions followed by non squad players. Each person would then only be able to fly in 1 of the 2 arenas, and not have the choice to go to the other. I.E. Every night you would fly in the same arena.
2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
3. Assign people to an arena when they enter and remove the choice of where they can enter.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose).
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
HiTech
-
I hate to agree with a Memphis boy but I do. OOhh and btw you did miss a helluva good fight last night.
Everyone I talk to doesn't feel that way. :lol
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
There are other methods to solve the issue of overpopulation that would split arenas, and not have an artificial limit I.E. 500 and you reached a false ceiling because no one wants to be the first in the 2nd arena. Here are some other possibilities all of which also have short comings but do solve the issue .
1. Do a 1 time population split via random squad distributions followed by non squad players. Each person would then only be able to fly in 1 of the 2 arenas, and not have the choice to go to the other. I.E. Every night you would fly in the same arena.
2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
3. Assign people to an arena when they enter and remove the choice of where they can enter.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose).
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
HiTech
This shows how hard it is to babysit groups of people. Each of the choices result in a plus and minus. The weak link being "FREE CHOICE". Do we want to give that up? I think not.
Bring back the PINK arena. :rofl
:aok
-
How about borrowing a page from the AW play book and have two arenas based on theaters of war, Euro and pacific. Then leave Titanic Tues as is.
As for the arena listing. People will always want to be where the largest crowd is. Followed by the arena with the popular maps. Sometimes they go hand in hand.
Ive seen blue outnumber orange. Its rare but it happens. Usually when orange has a map thats pretty much either stagnated. or that folks arent particularly fond of.
Then more people gravitate to the other map. Those logging in see the numbers and either try to get in there. Or log into the map with the lower numbers, realise why people are in the other arena then spend the rest of the night trying to get into blue.
Put that small orange map (I dont know the name of it) with all the GV bases in orange for a week, and you will consistently see blue outnumber orange by the end of the week.
just my observation.
-
How about borrowing a page from the AW play book and have two arenas based on theaters of war, Euro and pacific. Then leave Titanic Tues as is.
As for the arena listing. People will always want to be where the largest crowd is. Followed by the arena with the popular maps. Sometimes they go hand in hand.
Ive seen blue outnumber orange. Its rare but it happens. Usually when orange has a map thats pretty much either stagnated. or that folks arent particularly fond of.
Then more people gravitate to the other map. Those logging in see the numbers and either try to get in there. Or log into the map with the lower numbers, realise why people are in the other arena then spend the rest of the night trying to get into blue.
Put that small orange map (I dont know the name of it) with all the GV bases in orange for a week, and you will consistently see blue outnumber orange by the end of the week.
just my observation.
If the plane sets reflected this theory then
I suspect the EU arena would be full and the pacific arena would be a baren wasteland!
JUGgler
-
Scratching head, I don't see the problem? Why did you not go into blue?
HiTech
Blue wreaks a rancid stench of vTARDS.
-
If the plane sets reflected this theory then
I suspect the EU arena would be full and the pacific arena would be a baren wasteland!
JUGgler
With the amount of "F" plane's I've been running into lately? I dont think so. And there are alot of folks that seemingly like the Carrier wars. Pac arena could be dominated by mostly ocean,spattered with islands. Make every other or every 3rd port be uncapturable to make sure one side couldnt just capture all the ports and hide all the CV's. And those ports have the 2 cruiser variety of task forces. And your pretty much assured of CV battles.
The only sticking points are the lancstukas, and the hiding of captured CVs.
-
With the amount of "F" plane's I've been running into lately? I dont think so. And there are alot of folks that seemingly like the Carrier wars. Pac arena could be dominated by mostly ocean,spattered with islands. Make every other or every 3rd port be uncapturable to make sure one side couldnt just capture all the ports and hide all the CV's. And those ports have the 2 cruiser variety of task forces. And your pretty much assured of CV battles.
The only sticking points are the lancstukas, and the hiding of captured CVs.
I wouldn't say they do this for some love of carrier operations, I think the attraction is the "ack canopy". Think of it like ultimate fighting, you can always "tapout" so you don't get seriously hurt. The fleets are just a way for many to "tapout" and run away. I think this is proven by the # of landbased fighters that show up to a fight where a friendly CV is!
Also a pac arena would be dominated far more by altitude then what is currently experienced in the MAs. The Pacific theater is just not very competative when it comes to the aircraft! It is very one sided in favor of the Allies. IMO
Unless I am reading you wrong and you intend to have all Pac planes available to every side? In this case the only planes not represented would be Luft and Italian. <-- This would seriously limit the quality of players in the Pac arena agian IMO
JUGgler
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
Snipped down the quote to just the first paragraph, I wonder what would happen if you set the entry to screen to dynamically list the arena you want populated (I'm assuming it would be the one with the lower numbers) to the top based on current population levels?
-
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose)
I posted the solution on page 2 but everyone ignored it per usual. Broadcast via game entrance when "Perk Bonuses are in Effect" in the underpopulated arena. When the unbalance is at a certain percentage maybe under 0.5 for example. Also throw out a system message to the overpopulated arena "Blue is in 2x Perk Bonus Effect now". Problem solved.
Just as you incentivize flying for the disadvantaged side, incentivize flying in the underpopulated arena but make it an even bigger bonus to warrant the switch. Maybe as high as 2-2.5 perk multiplier earned for a limited period of time.
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
There are other methods to solve the issue of overpopulation that would split arenas, and not have an artificial limit I.E. 500 and you reached a false ceiling because no one wants to be the first in the 2nd arena. Here are some other possibilities all of which also have short comings but do solve the issue .
1. Do a 1 time population split via random squad distributions followed by non squad players. Each person would then only be able to fly in 1 of the 2 arenas, and not have the choice to go to the other. I.E. Every night you would fly in the same arena.
2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
3. Assign people to an arena when they enter and remove the choice of where they can enter.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose).
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
HiTech
Thats simple, I go into the first one because there are more people in that one and therefore something better must be going on. Same as in H2H I'd keep trying to get into an 8 player room rather than a 7 or 6 player room for the same reason.
I like the number 4 idea, I presume you mean adding 1 or more new chess pieces to an arena?
-
If the plane sets reflected this theory then
I suspect the EU arena would be full and the pacific arena would be a baren wasteland!
JUGgler
That's how it was in AW. There was a small dedicated PAC group, but the overwhelming mass of players was in ETO.
- oldman
-
Blue wreaks a rancid stench of vTARDS.
Awesome. Just fabulous. A conversation involving what seems to be adults with differing opinions, promoting their ideas to possibly make the game better. A post where the game owner has chimed in a bit also. And you sir, choose to denigrate another squad instead offering up your opinion of the original post. Well done sir <S> I am so totally impressed.
-
2 ideas,
#1 don't close arena for map reset, or don't uncap the other one while its resetting, or somehow remind people that the arena theyre gettin kicked out of will be back up in a minute
#2 dont show arena #'s for late war during primetime, or just show "full" or "available"..
-
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose).
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
HiTech
It's so simple, it can't be a new idea, but here it is anyway.
You already have an ENY system in place that limits flight of certain aircraft based on numbers imbalances. This same system can be used to limit country and/or arena choice.
These would be the new "rules":
1) No one in any arena can switch to an ENY-limited country via the O'club. Changing from the ENY limited country to a non-limited country, or between two non-limited countries, would be OK.
2) If my last sortie when logging in was as country X, and I attempt to enter an arena where X is already ENY-limited, a pop-up would inform me country X is closed. I can either choose country Y, choose country Z, or go to another arena and remain with country X.
Obviously this is more heavy-handed than the simple ENY system we have, but if the players are not rebalancing themselves when ENY is a limitation, then stronger measures are clearly needed. This wouldn't force anyone to fly for a different country (which would not go over well for a multitude or reasons), but would assist in both keeping ENY restrictions low less frequent and balance out the populations between multiple arenas. If it works well enough, tweaking of when ENY kicks in could bring numbers even more in line down the road.
The only "problem" in regard to country choice would occur if country X was ENY limited in both LWAs, but I don't think I've ever witnessed that occur . . .usually is it X with massive ENY (due to massive numbers advantage) in one arena and both countries Y and Z ENY limited in the other arena with very few in country X to oppose them.
-
This shows how hard it is to babysit groups of people.
While some try to make things better, others..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5520313725_f53ca2b412_o.jpg)
:lol
Next all caps line was "dont ever calabrate just dive bombb"
-
While some try to make things better, others..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5520313725_f53ca2b412_o.jpg)
:lol
Next all caps line was "dont ever calabrate just dive bombb"
Someone wanted to do a grillparty in LWO :noid
-
While some try to make things better, others..
(http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5097/5520313725_f53ca2b412_o.jpg)
:lol
Next all caps line was "dont ever calabrate just dive bombb"
:rofl :rofl You neglected to blot a line out moot :D
oops
I hope no-one gets GRILLED over this
JUGgler
-
Blue wreaks a rancid stench of vTARDS.
Imagine that. A big squad that wants to fly together chooses to fly in the less populated arena. OP take note.
How about borrowing a page from the AW play book and have two arenas based on theaters of war, Euro and pacific. Then leave Titanic Tues as is.
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose)
Thats simple, I go into the first one because there are more people in that one and therefore something better must be going on. Same as in H2H I'd keep trying to get into an 8 player room rather than a 7 or 6 player room for the same reason.
I like the number 4 idea, I presume you mean adding 1 or more new chess pieces to an arena?
Last time I looked, EW was first.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
I assumethis would be like "duel" in Air Warrior where you were still in the same arena but you and who you challenged to duel could only see each other.
Probably everyone would only have one arena to enter and then arbitrarily be split into equal groups of equal sides and each group could only see others in the same group.
Essentially it would be multiple arenas but you wouldn't chose where you were playing, I think.
2 ideas,
#1 don't close arena for map reset, or don't uncap the other one while its resetting, or somehow remind people that the arena theyre gettin kicked out of will be back up in a minute
#2 dont show arena #'s for late war during primetime, or just show "full" or "available"..
I've been suggesting this forever. Sony did this when I played Everquest but I always thought it was to disguise their dropping numbers from their competetors.
wrongway
-
Arena CAP's are better for HTC business.
End of discussion.
That would be true if the CAP's were always in place. But everyday the CAP's are removed and there is just one arena until 5:00 PM EST. There are no CAP's on the Late War arena on Tuesday, Is that because HiTech doesn't care about business on Tuesday. The CAP's are in place because HiTech wants the CAP's in place when and where he want's them in place. I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of.
-
I posted the solution on page 2 but everyone ignored it per usual. Broadcast via game entrance when "Perk Bonuses are in Effect" in the underpopulated arena. When the unbalance is at a certain percentage maybe under 0.5 for example. Also throw out a system message to the overpopulated arena "Blue is in 2x Perk Bonus Effect now". Problem solved.
Just as you incentivize flying for the disadvantaged side, incentivize flying in the underpopulated arena but make it an even bigger bonus to warrant the switch. Maybe as high as 2-2.5 perk multiplier earned for a limited period of time.
I really like the added perk bonus Idea. Though, I don't know, in reality, what percentage of the current players would move for that reason. I suspect the exodus would be in long time players to the under gunned side.
-
That would be true if the CAP's were always in place. But everyday the CAP's are removed and there is just one arena until 5:00 PM EST. There are no CAP's on the Late War arena on Tuesday, Is that because HiTech doesn't care about business on Tuesday. The CAP's are in place because HiTech wants the CAP's in place when and where he want's them in place. I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of.
No caps on Tuesdays was to appease the whiners.
No caps during "off-hours" is because there are less people on then the caps are designed to cap.
But I agree. Hitech is just a sadist who likes to screw with his income base.
:rofl
wrongway
-
:rofl :rofl You neglected to blot a line out moot :D
:lol
-
For me the terrain is the driving factor of where I want to play.
And I feel this is the same for a lot of us.
So I must ask this question and risk being tormented for the next month or so.
What would happen if both Blue and Orange arenas were given the same map?
This may have been already been tried and I'd be curious to know the results.
<S> Bellator
-
What would happen if both Blue and Orange arenas were given the same map?
This may have been already been tried and I'd be curious to know the results.
It happened a few times, and it didn't change anything. People are still congregating in LWO.
Terrain is only a secondary factor. There are only a very few maps that are disliked so much that they can break this pattern.
-
I really like the added perk bonus Idea. Though, I don't know, in reality, what percentage of the current players would move for that reason. I suspect the exodus would be in long time players to the under gunned side.
That's the beauty of it, not everyone will move but enough should move to where it will even out the arenas A LOT faster. I know it will never happen though, because then we'd have nothing to argue about here on the bbs.
-
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
This idea would effectively stop squads from flying together, since it would probably be very tough for them to find an arena where they could all fit in under the 33 per country limit.
HiTech
-
I really like the added perk bonus Idea. Though, I don't know, in reality, what percentage of the current players would move for that reason. I suspect the exodus would be in long time players to the under gunned side.
The force is strong with the horde, added perks have never been an incentive or interest for the horde and will never be.
I do like some of the other ideas that HT has been thinking about.
-
This idea would effectively stop squads from flying together, since it would probably be very tough for them to find an arena where they could all fit in under the 33 per country limit.
HiTech
"I am leaning to is IF the cap is 99, "
I.E. an example. Not the definitive numbers.
HiTech
-
they said they can't because an arena over 400-450 is toxic and subscription were NOT increasing, or dropping off (they were losing money)
It you were the 505th person to log on you know where you would be right? Either flying in a second arena with 4 other guys, or watching TV with the wife. So they made the "dynanic caps" it increase the population in BOTH LW arena more evenly so you don't have to wait hours and hours for enough people to filter into the second arena to make it fun.
Subscriptions were not increasing, stagnating. Something had to be done to continue to grow the company, and the spit arenas is what they came up with, which worked because Hitech has said that subscriptions started to climb after the splits happened.
Thanks Fugitive , that really help me understand . Maybe we need to make this post a STICKY untill we get a fix ...
-
BASE caps!
-
Thanks Fugitive , that really help me understand . Maybe we need to make this post a STICKY untill we get a fix ...
What fix?
The problem you have with NOT going to the arena that's available?
The problem you have with locked doors?
The problem you have with squad mates?
(http://www.collativelearning.com/PICS%20FOR%20WEBSITE/SHINING%20EXPANDED%202/jack%20chop%20first%20door.jpg)
When LWO is full, play in LWB. There's your fix!
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
There are other methods to solve the issue of overpopulation that would split arenas, and not have an artificial limit I.E. 500 and you reached a false ceiling because no one wants to be the first in the 2nd arena. Here are some other possibilities all of which also have short comings but do solve the issue .
1. Do a 1 time population split via random squad distributions followed by non squad players. Each person would then only be able to fly in 1 of the 2 arenas, and not have the choice to go to the other. I.E. Every night you would fly in the same arena.
2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
3. Assign people to an arena when they enter and remove the choice of where they can enter.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
I'm always willing to listen to new ideas, but I'm not interested in ideas that will have the net effect of putting everyone in 1 arena. I.E. (make 2 arenas of 850 each and let the players choose).
There is only 1 issue that I do not like about the split arenas that I did not anticipate when we implemented them. That is how the 2 arenas with free choice of entry causes country imbalance. As and example, in one arena the rooks will have 20 more then the other countries, and in the 2nd arena they will have 20 less.
Not just the rooks, but happens to all countries on different nights.
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
HiTech
Keep the current logic that you have for balancing and capping arenas but add this ...
Arena is capped and ... Bish have 40 ... Knights have 30 ... Rooks have 30
Change the arena menu to this ....
Orange 100/100
Bishops are closed ... You can click on either Knights or rooks to gain entry into the capped arena ... until they reach 40 players each ... a total of 160 people.
As each player chooses the less populated team, the cap number moves with it, so if 5 people joined Knights and 2 joined Rooks you would see this ...
Orange 107/107
Let's say the Knights reached the 40 person limit during all of this ... you would see this ...
Orange 147/147
Now, if and during this second level balancing of orange, blue populates to the point that it kicks off your current logic of un-capping orange, you add 50 slots to the current total in orange and it looks like this ...
Orange 147/197
All countries are now available to choose from ... until the cap hits again and the secondary balancing will then kick in using the population of the highest populated country at that time.
-
Keep the current logic that you have for balancing and capping arenas but add this ...
Arena is capped and ... Bish have 40 ... Knights have 30 ... Rooks have 30........
Isn't that just more of the same of what we have now............ Imbalance?
-
bad idea to place arena caps based upon each country.. it would encourage country hopping.. spying etc. Some would change country, fool around, spy, then when the hour was up, switch back to their "normal" country.
-
Keep the current logic that you have for balancing and capping arenas but add this ...
Arena is capped and ... Bish have 40 ... Knights have 30 ... Rooks have 30
Change the arena menu to this ....
Orange 100/100
Bishops are closed ... You can click on either Knights or rooks to gain entry into the capped arena ... until they reach 40 players each ... a total of 160 people.
As each player chooses the less populated team, the cap number moves with it, so if 5 people joined Knights and 2 joined Rooks you would see this ...
Orange 107/107
Let's say the Knights reached the 40 person limit during all of this ... you would see this ...
Orange 147/147
Now, if and during this second level balancing of orange, blue populates to the point that it kicks off your current logic of un-capping orange, you add 50 slots to the current total in orange and it looks like this ...
Orange 147/197
All countries are now available to choose from ... until the cap hits again and the secondary balancing will then kick in using the population of the highest populated country at that time.
Why do you wish to switch from the simple method of once 33% is bish, no more bish are able to enter. It appears to me you just wish to raise the limits? btw in he 99 example I was just speaking of 33 % the limits would still rise as before.
HiTech
-
Why do you wish to switch from the simple method of once 33% is bish, no more bish are able to enter. It appears to me you just wish to raise the limits? btw in he 99 example I was just speaking of 33 % the limits would still rise as before.
HiTech
It could work that way too (33%). I wasn't trying to really raise the limits to just raise the limits, I was just using the natural flow into an arena that is already there and then establishing a max country population based on the most populated country when the cap was actually hit.
The 33% notion would work just peachy using the same menuing options, only caveat is that once a country hits 33%, the door is closed and the arena is truly capped at 100.
So, in an arena that has a cap of 100 (Orange), then only 99 (33% per country) will be allowed in until Blue populates enough to change the cap number.
In my example, the only difference is that the capped arena could actually grow to 150 while the Blue populates enough to change the cap and open Orange.
Your hard and fast 33% of the capped number would be the easiest to implement.
-
Isn't that just more of the same of what we have now............ Imbalance?
Dads .. yes, those numbers do show an imbalance in favor of the bish, but the door is closed to any more bish wanting to join that arena while those who want to fly Knights or Rooks can get in and bring their populations up to meet the amount of players on the bish team ... thus achieving balance within a capped arena.
If this change was not implemented, then the Bish would reek havoc until Blue populated enough to allow more Knights and Rooks into the Orange arena and even then one could not promise a balance.
-
bad idea to place arena caps based upon each country.. it would encourage country hopping.. spying etc. Some would change country, fool around, spy, then when the hour was up, switch back to their "normal" country.
All that is available now.
As far as "encourage country hopping", I doubt it. Those who are "loyal" will remain "loyal". Those who don't give a crap what country they fly for, but want to get into a capped arena can do so and help balance that arena at the same time.
-
Dads .. yes, those numbers do show an imbalance,,,,, but the door is closed to any more ........................
That is what needs to be determined is what is a healthy amount in that imbalance. As an example, even 10 more on a side can have a negative impact at these low numbers of 33%. ie 33, 22, 22 waiting for the other sides to fill.
Having a 30% difference in imbalance probably is a little high, but getting it closer to 5% difference to start off with when there are lower numbers in the arena might be better between the 3 sides, and with that difference in percent would decrease as the players in the arena increases until it reaches capacity then it would be as this example a 0% difference on all sides, all sides would be equal at capacity. When its at its lowest capacity it should be no more than as this example 5% difference in players per side.
It would be ideal to have a balance of 1 for 1 for 1, but I am not sure if that is even achievable since it would have to incorporate numbers that fluctuate due to logging off etc. as well...
-
That is what needs to be determined is what is a healthy amount in that imbalance. As an example, even 10 more on a side can have a negative impact at these low numbers of 33%. ie 33, 22, 22 waiting for the other sides to fill.
Having a 30% difference in inbalance probably is a little high, but getting it closer to 5% difference to start off with when there are lower numbers in the arena might be better between the 3 sides, and with that difference in percent would decrease as the players in the arena increases until it reaches capacity then it would be as this example a 0% difference on all sides, all sides would be equal at capacity. When its at its lowest capacity it should be no more than as this example 5% difference in players per side.
It would be ideal to have a balance of 1 for 1 for 1, but I am not sure if that is even achievable since it would have to incorporate numbers that fluctuate due to logging off etc. as well...
Your right ... but allowing 11 more people to enter for each of the countries that were at 22 is much better than not allowing the "balance".
-
Your right ... but allowing 11 more people to enter for each of the countries that were at 22 is much better than not allowing the "balance".
My example is not preventing anyone to enter nor did it not allow the balance.
It simply keeps the imbalance at a more manageable number than the example given of 10 players at 30% to a more manageable number of 5% difference in the imbalance which decreases as it gets closer to final capacity of 0% imbalance.
-
What he is saying Hitech is only allow enough people to balance the countries within the arena, then totally lock it till Blue is up in #'s.
-
What he is saying Hitech is only allow enough people to balance the countries within the arena, then totally lock it till Blue is up in #'s.
Not necessarily.
The objective is to bring more balance to each arena. If HT decides to lock out arenas or what ever he thinks needs to be done is up to him, my point is that the imbalance should not be greater than 5% advantage at any point as the arena fills up to maximum capacity in which then it would be 0% imbalance or equal sides at max.
My point being is players have had the chance to prove that we can balance the numbers out ourselves and were given incentives to do so but have horribly failed, what we have now is the polarized sides that refuse to balance things out for no other reason but to simply steam roll bases with such advantages that it cannot be defended against by the underpopulated side.
-
Why do you wish to switch from the simple method of once 33% is bish, no more bish are able to enter. It appears to me you just wish to raise the limits? btw in he 99 example I was just speaking of 33 % the limits would still rise as before.
HiTech
I'd like to throw in support for SlapShot's suggestion... I think it has solid basis, but needs some tweaking. If you also combine that with hitech's method you will end up with a system that both balances and caps the numbers.
- Make the cap only relevant behind the scenes. Don't advertise the 'cap' numbers of an arena, just the number of people in the arena.
- Limit an arena on a per-country basis.
- Allow you to select your country upon entry
- After entry, prevent side-switching for 2(or 3) hrs, but once those hours are up, reduce the country-switching penalty back to our current 1 hr limit. Also once that initial country-switching limitation is up, allow unrestricted switching, regardless of current arena #s so that somebody can go fly with their friends.
Examples:
What the Server knows:
- Both arenas are capped to 150 people right now.
- In Blue, there are 50 Bishops/44 Rooks/33 Knights
- In Orange, there are 19 Bishops/31 Rooks/49 Knights
What I see:
- LW Blue Arena: (127 players)
- LW Orange Arena: (99 players)
Example #1:
I decide to click on Orange to enter it and get a country select screen. (or you can make this information available at the arena level)
I want to join the Knights, so I do. This maxes out the Knight's numbers in this arena under the current cap, but also in doing so, I've pushed the numbers in Orange (the smaller arena) to 66% of it's capacity. This bumps up the allowable capacity in both arenas to 180 (10 additional spots per country).
Example #2:
I decide to click on Blue to enter it and get a country select screen. (or you can make this information available at the arena level)
The Arena knows that there are 33% of the capped #s in Bishops. Therefore, that country is not an option, but up to 6 more rooks, and 17 knights can join before the arena is completely full. But since Orange arena still has less than 66% of its capacity filled, then Blue can only grow to 150 players max.
The nice thing about this system is that it promotes even numbers on an arena by arena basis while deemphasizing the 'cap' to the player. It also still limits the growth of one arena over the other.
-
That's how it was in AW. There was a small dedicated PAC group, but the overwhelming mass of players was in ETO.
There was almost always at least one full arena of RR Pacific except late nights. I'd say the split was about 2/3 Euro, 1/3 Pac. FR Pac was a wasteland. This was in the days of AW1 on AOL.
IIRC the most popular planes were the F6F and N1K, KIs and F4Us tied for distant 3rd. P-51s were rare, jugs were unheard of.
-
There was almost always at least one full arena of RR Pacific except late nights. I'd say the split was about 2/3 Euro, 1/3 Pac. FR Pac was a wasteland. This was in the days of AW1 on AOL.
IIRC the most popular planes were the F6F and N1K, KIs and F4Us tied for distant 3rd. P-51s were rare, jugs were unheard of.
I remember seeing a lot of Oscars flying around too, or so I thought. It was quite a while ago.
-
There was almost always at least one full arena of RR Pacific except late nights. I'd say the split was about 2/3 Euro, 1/3 Pac. FR Pac was a wasteland. This was in the days of AW1 on AOL.
Could be, I forgot about the RR arenas.
- oldman
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first.
1. Do a 1 time population split via random squad distributions followed by non squad players. Each person would then only be able to fly in 1 of the 2 arenas, and not have the choice to go to the other. I.E. Every night you would fly in the same arena.
2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
3. Assign people to an arena when they enter and remove the choice of where they can enter.
4. Creating one "virtual" arena where it would contain multiple sets of people. The ground targets would all be common, but you could only see,fight, and speak with people in your "Set" of people.
HiTech
Reading this, i have next to my monitor on the desk sitting in boxes for years; "Il2 Sturmovick","Forgotten Battles",""Pacific fighters", i bought them all, tried but kept paying and playing Aces High, Why? Because AH offers something special;the fun and flavour of massive multiplayer.
-
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
The reason he waited 15 min. to get into the top arena was because that is the arena that his squad was in. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? My squad always flies in the blue arena because it’s usually open and easy to get into.
-
The reason he waited 15 min. to get into the top arena was because that is the arena that his squad was in. Why do you refuse to acknowledge that? My squad always flies in the blue arena because it’s usually open and easy to get into.
Not sure what I am supposed to acknowledge?
People want to fly with their squad ? Check.
People want to fly in the top Arena? Check.
What people ask for and what they want are normally not the same thing? Check.
People will continue to fill an arena to the point of making the game less fun for most of the player base? Check.
Some people refuse to believe that I am a rational person and that I try make decisions only on what makes the greatest number of my customers happy, because that is what makes my business better? Check.
So what exactly am I supposed to acknowledge?
HiTech
-
So what exactly am I supposed to acknowledge?
HiTech
I would like to hear the precise reasons a single arena is considered "unhealthy." Excuse me for not digging through years of threads, but in all of the ones I've seen, there were no real answers. How can you even come close or why would you even try to solve a problem without laying out the precise causes?
-
HiTech,
You’re not making all of the people happy all of the time. LOL
Which is an impossible task.
But to your credit, you will listen and interact with your customers.
I thank you sir for being involved and not turning a deaf ear to the community.
A solution will eventually be found!
<S> BELLATOR
-
A solution will eventually be found!
<S> BELLATOR
I've always been a supporter of brainstorming and creative madness. So:
Grow one arena untill the pain treshold is reached. Then force a split to two arenas transparently so that half of people are divided to each one. The trick is: While moving people, move them squads at a time untill all squads have been divided, then split the rest of the non-squad population. Keep bases and the state of war as it was. More importantly: Always enable a squad member to join the exact server his squad was 'assigned to' during the split.
The result should be that players won't even notice much going on except a jolt in player numbers on arena. The friends still fly next to you, the same base is still under the fight etc. Squad members could still join their friends in game. No arena would start from scratch as it would be two 200 player arenas minimum.
-
I swear I still don't understand it .Just make it like TT Day with an 850 cap and be done with it ? or just 500 would be plenty .
Not realy sure that Pyro means by a stagnation point ?
have you ever been in a small map arena with 600 people at once? the game itself cant take more than a certain amount of contacts at a time or it overloads your views and any more than 64 become dots. second, you know as well that with 200 people per country you get to see a mass furball of 50 vs 50 over one base where vox clogs like a bad toilet and angry whines about HOs, vulching, picking, etc from that mass mudsling clutter 200. Many people hate upping into a furball only to get shot down by 16 enemies on your six 5 seconds later. I honestly want TT gone. its a waste of a good day. nothing can be accomplished on TT til late night
It still amazes me the how strong the force is for people wanting to play in the arena listed first. Just as DMGod showed, 2 = arenas but he waited 15 min just to get into the top one. I'm not blaming anyone for this, I am just amazed by it. People will claim many different reasons why they want the orange (I.E. like the terrain better), but we have actually just swapped positions on the list and then again everyone wanted the top arena.
some squadrons make orange arena their home. i personally believe that the reason orange is more populated is because once you initially go to orange as a noob you dont want to leave. In essence youve made it your home. You can actually see squadrons make different arenas their homes like this. I go to blue arena and see a bunch of people i never see in orange (along with the ones that are tired of orange's map etc). Our squad personally goes to Orange because we always know the people there and our joint squadrons (bomber groups) are almost always stationed in orange. If we go to blue, we see people we never see and although we are welcomed warmly by everyone like usual, you basically dont know them as well... you can sometimes feel alienated. Therefore the mass stays in their home in Orange.2. Do very low cap multiple arenas, I.E. caps of 100-150 across 6-10 arenas.
I've suggested opening a third arena rotation multiple times to see if it can make things better. we can always go back to 2 if it doesnt work
-
I've always been a supporter of brainstorming and creative madness. So:
Grow one arena untill the pain treshold is reached. Then force a split to two arenas transparently so that half of people are divided to each one. The trick is: While moving people, move them squads at a time untill all squads have been divided, then split the rest of the non-squad population. Keep bases and the state of war as it was. More importantly: Always enable a squad member to join the exact server his squad was 'assigned to' during the split.
The result should be that players won't even notice much going on except a jolt in player numbers on arena. The friends still fly next to you, the same base is still under the fight etc. Squad members could still join their friends in game. No arena would start from scratch as it would be two 200 player arenas minimum.
While I too have NO fondness of the caps, I'm worried the next fix will be worse than the current fix. Personally I like a lot of folks flying in the arena. That generally means more air to air and GV and CV fights going on. A real case of the more the merrier.
But the idea above is actually not bad, if we really do have to institute another fix. But as I often get off work late and the only option I have is to log in during prime time, I definitely do not like the caps. But please, don't make them worse. TT is the only night of the week I can really enjoy the AH experience without first getting mad cause I can't get in. I want to fly with my squaddies and not impose on them to leave en masse one arena to join me in another.
-
Bar , what about the game WOW , it has more than 600 on at a time ...
I think MrRipley jst mite be on to something ..and like you Razzor , TT day is the only night that I can really enjoy the AH experience without first getting mad cause I can't get in.
-
I would like to hear the precise reasons a single arena is considered "unhealthy." Excuse me for not digging through years of threads, but in all of the ones I've seen, there were no real answers. How can you even come close or why would you even try to solve a problem without laying out the precise causes?
You don't have to dig through years of threads, you just had to read this one ... AWwrgwy quoted Pyro in this thread explaining CAPS and why ?
-
"I am leaning to is IF the cap is 99, "
I.E. an example. Not the definitive numbers.
HiTech
Won't work.
-
321BAR , I was in a hurry when I made my above post this morning but I see what your saying about 600 people being on at once . Maybe that mean more map change's ? I don't know . The only thing I really don't like is say you got 4 or 5 guy's doing something and you get booted or have to reboot and you can not get back in to where you were at ..
-
Bar , what about the game WOW , it has more than 600 on at a time ...
I think MrRipley jst mite be on to something ..and like you Razzor , TT day is the only night that I can really enjoy the AH experience without first getting mad cause I can't get in.
WOW doesn't have 600 people interacting with each other. You have 600 people off killing AI stuff. And, if it's anything like when I played EQ years ago, you have people training mobs on your toon, stealing your kills, taking your loot....
It wasn't terribly healthy back then either. IIRC, about the time I quit, they were making encounters unique to each group just so you could get your chance at encounters without getting interupted by the other 600.
There are complaints of picks, getting killed while already engaged, kill stealing, the opposite of a pick?, interrupted 1 v 1s, and hoards are bad enough with 200-300 in an arena. Now, double it.
:cry I can't find a fight....
wrongway
-
You have 600 people off killing AI stuff.
....well....
- oldman
-
Not sure what I am supposed to acknowledge?
People want to fly with their squad ? Check.
People want to fly in the top Arena? Check.
What people ask for and what they want are normally not the same thing? Check.
People will continue to fill an arena to the point of making the game less fun for most of the player base? Check.
Some people refuse to believe that I am a rational person and that I try make decisions only on what makes the greatest number of my customers happy, because that is what makes my business better? Check.
So what exactly am I supposed to acknowledge?
HiTech
In the op’s original post, he stated that he wanted to enter that arena because his squad was there . You keep asking why he didn’t just go to the other arena. He had already answered that question. It appeared that you just can’t accept that as an answer. check
-
I seem to remember (and I'm getting old-timers disease :old:) AH several years ago just before the implementation of multiple arenas, people crying incessantly about other people stealing kills, being killshot and what not due to the large numbers of people playing online at any given time (usually around primetime). I recall the need to blow up the target rather than just let if fall to Earth. Why? Because if you didn't, about six or seven other people would follow it down and shoot it while you were watching...stealing your kill. I would qualify that as "saturation" and unhealthy. Yes, those things still happen but with far less frequency than in the past I am referring to. There have been times in the past when 400 or so players have mobbed the NDIsles map (usually on Sunday squadron night). That is WAY too many players for such a small map. You think the hordes of today are bad...? If you've ever experienced that kind of player saturation you'd probably agree with what HTC has done and not get too upset with the arena cap. Personally, if my squadron is in LW Orange and I can't get in, I'll fly in LW Blue until the cap rises or space opens up.
HTC has a very well defined, effective baseline method of controlling numbers in arenas. And here's a bonus...it works! Is it perfect? No, but you see HT here willing to tweak it to better the game. I applaud their efforts and while I may not like everything they do with respect to the game, I believe that their decisions are backed by data, research and solid conclusions...not by haphazard, off-the-cuff ideas that "might work". Data driven changes are the only way to better the game for all the players and to keep competitive advantage.
Now let's discuss a related topic...the next generation of AH...AH3! :pray
-
I seem to remember (and I'm getting old-timers disease :old:) AH several years ago just before the implementation of multiple arenas, people crying incessantly about other people stealing kills, being killshot and what not due to the large numbers of people playing online at any given time (usually around primetime). I recall the need to blow up the target rather than just let if fall to Earth. Why? Because if you didn't, about six or seven other people would follow it down and shoot it while you were watching...stealing your kill. I would qualify that as "saturation" and unhealthy. Yes, those things still happen but with far less frequency than in the past I am referring to. There have been times in the past when 400 or so players have mobbed the NDIsles map (usually on Sunday squadron night). That is WAY too many players for such a small map. You think the hordes of today are bad...? If you've ever experienced that kind of player saturation you'd probably agree with what HTC has done and not get too upset with the arena cap. Personally, if my squadron is in LW Orange and I can't get in, I'll fly in LW Blue until the cap rises or space opens up.
There still is a congo line to kill a single con. Hasn't changed one bit. In fact, it got worst. Instead of 4 on ya, u now have 7+.
-
In the op’s original post, he stated that he wanted to enter that arena because his squad was there . You keep asking why he didn’t just go to the other arena. He had already answered that question. It appeared that you just can’t accept that as an answer. check
Go read the post of mine you are referring to again, I am directly referencing DMGOD's post and never said anything in any way about the OP.
So now in this thread you have called me liar.
Arena CAP's are better for HTC business.
End of discussion.
Traveler writes:
That would be true if the CAP's were always in place. But everyday the CAP's are removed and there is just one arena until 5:00 PM EST. There are no CAP's on the Late War arena on Tuesday, Is that because HiTech doesn't care about business on Tuesday. The CAP's are in place because HiTech wants the CAP's in place when and where he want's them in place. I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of.
I had let that one slide,
You then make a mistake and again state I am trying to hide something. I.E. "He refuses to acknowledge." When DMGOD himself said it was because he didn't like the terrain. (btw everythink what would happen with 1 arena? He would not even have a choice of what terrain he wanted to fly in).
You now try put words in my mouth.
You keep asking why he didn’t just go to the other arena.
I asked DMGOD 1 time, that is not a keep asking. And I never asked the person you were speaking of.
So exactly what have you stated in this thread that in any way shape or form is helpful, truthful , accurate,knowledgeable or credible?
HiTech
-
You don't have to dig through years of threads, you just had to read this one ... AWwrgwy quoted Pyro in this thread explaining CAPS and why ?
You're exactly right, he quoted pyro. I've seen that post several times and as I said, I have yet to see anyone post specific reasons why a single arena is unhealthy. And that post is NO exception. Saying "unhealthy arena" or "bad for subscriptions" does not explain anything. How is it bad for subscriptions? What are the specific complaints customers have when choosing not to subscribe? HTC has not that I am aware of been up front on this.
Now, several players have theories or complaints, but I want to know if those are the same reasons we have split arenas. And no one is going to solve anything until those specific complaints are addressed.
I dont see any difference between 600 guys in one arena or the 400 during peak split times. There is NO DIFFERENCE in the game at all except the one or two bases being horded are short 30 guys. Does that stop gang banging, or the festering bad attitudes caused by the disgust some of you have for the hordes? NO it does not. It has not solved anything. EVERYONE has seen the complaints about all of these things on a regular basis. If you say different you are a liar or you dont pay attention to whats going on around you.
I dont get it. If you guys like split arenas so much, why wouldnt you prefer base or zone caps? At least your squads would be in the same arena.
I seem to remember (and I'm getting old-timers disease :old:) AH several years ago just before the implementation of multiple arenas, people crying incessantly about other people stealing kills, being killshot and what not due to the large numbers of people playing online at any given time (usually around primetime). I recall the need to blow up the target rather than just let if fall to Earth. Why? Because if you didn't, about six or seven other people would follow it down and shoot it while you were watching...stealing your kill. I would qualify that as "saturation" and unhealthy. Yes, those things still happen but with far less frequency than in the past I am referring to. There have been times in the past when 400 or so players have mobbed the NDIsles map (usually on Sunday squadron night). That is WAY too many players for such a small map. You think the hordes of today are bad...? If you've ever experienced that kind of player saturation you'd probably agree with what HTC has done and not get too upset with the arena cap. Personally, if my squadron is in LW Orange and I can't get in, I'll fly in LW Blue until the cap rises or space opens up.
You are right, those things are (very slightly) less frequent but not at all because of the split arenas. In case you missed it, the new kill system prevents "kill stealing." At least the majority of the time. And most people know there is far less chance of stealing a kill now and so they arent so quick to try it. Other than that, there is no change in the game. There are still hordes, still gangbanging, still attempts at stealing kills, still abusive behavior and everything else associated with the single arena. But we do have a dedicated group of followers who refuse to admit when they are wrong.
As far as the small map, if it's too small, GET A BIGGER ONE! How ridiculous to suggest that a map being too small should dictate how we play the game.
-
Go read the post of mine you are referring to again, I am directly referencing DMGOD's post and never said anything in any way about the OP.
So now in this thread you have called me liar.
I had let that one slide,
You then make a mistake and again state I am trying to hide something. I.E. "He refuses to acknowledge." When DMGOD himself said it was because he didn't like the terrain. (btw everythink what would happen with 1 arena? He would not even have a choice of what terrain he wanted to fly in).
You now try put words in my mouth.
I asked DMGOD 1 time, that is not a keep asking. And I never asked the person you were speaking of.
So exactly what have you stated in this thread that in any way shape or form is helpful, truthful , accurate,knowledgeable or credible?
HiTech
Go read the post of mine you are referring to again, I am directly referencing DMGOD's post and never said anything in any way about the OP.
So now in this thread you have called me liar.
I had let that one slide,
You then make a mistake and again state I am trying to hide something. I.E. "He refuses to acknowledge." When DMGOD himself said it was because he didn't like the terrain. (btw everythink what would happen with 1 arena? He would not even have a choice of what terrain he wanted to fly in).
You now try put words in my mouth.
I asked DMGOD 1 time, that is not a keep asking. And I never asked the person you were speaking of.
So exactly what have you stated in this thread that in any way shape or form is helpful, truthful , accurate,knowledgeable or credible?
HiTech
Just where did I call you a liar. I am not aware of calling you a liar in any post.
Where did I say you were hiding something. I never said Hi Tech is hiding anything.
I’ve said, many time, that the game has CAPs because HiTech decided that the game needs CAP’s. First it was that caps were needed all the time, then they were not needed on Tuesdays, now there only needed some of the time. I think that’s very accurate.
I’ve been a paying member for many many years. And perhaps I missed the customer satisfaction surveys . check
-
Traveler:
What would you call saying this.
I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of.
When we have continually stated that we cap arenas ONLY because of business reasons?
HiTech
-
Caps or not, I love the fact that the owner has a presence in game and on the forums. Now if Bill Gates would show up on the MS forums...I have some words for that guy.
-
Traveler:
What would you call saying this.
When we have continually stated that we cap arenas ONLY because of business reasons?
HiTech
An expression of my doubt. I never called you a liar.
Edit, I'd also say that the quote you used is taken out of context. post the entire quote.
-
Muzik: I'll give you the quick version, for any more go do some reading on social dynamics.
When groups are small they can manage them self, a group of 10 people can play together and moderate themselves. If one person is going out side the bounds/rules of the group. The 10 people can deal with the person and either have him change his behavior or remove him from the group.
Has groups get larger and larger people start becoming anonymous and start viewing the group as only a group and not individual people. As this effect gets larger the social structure of the group brakes down and people become more disruptive with out many social consequences. This is a very common social outcome. When more people joing a group it requires a much greater management and governance. How well does it work to have towns of 5000 people with out laws, police, firemen garbage men and other very formal rules of order and management roles.
This show up in game play in many ways and creates less enjoyment for the entire group.
As far as the business side it really is VERY simple, we had hit an artificial ceiling and the player count had reached it's maximum in one arena. It had reached a point where more people would degrade the play, and as people came more people left and more people choose not to become subscribers, the number of total players of AH had STOPPED growing.
As soon as we split the arenas, even with all the complaints and whines when we did, we started growing again the same week we split the arena.
HiTech
-
An expression of my doubt. I never called you a liar.
Ahh I understand you doubt I am telling the truth but you are not calling me a liar. :rolleyes:
I would say lay down that shovel.
HiTech
-
As far as the business side it really is VERY simple, we had hit an artificial ceiling and the player count had reached it's maximum in one arena. It had reached a point where more people would degrade the play, and as people came more people left and more people choose not to become subscribers, the number of total players of AH had STOPPED growing.
As soon as we split the arenas, even with all the complaints and whines when we did, we started growing again the same week we split the arena.
That's not exactly proof that was the reason subscriptions increased. What if you would have switched to whole grain shredded wheat for breakfast cereal and subscriptions started to go up?
-
That's not exactly proof that was the reason subscriptions increased. What if you would have switched to whole grain shredded wheat for breakfast cereal and subscriptions started to go up?
The owner tells you why and still......
:bhead
Maybe he had already tried the breakfast idea and it wasn't working.
wrongway
-
That's not exactly proof that was the reason subscriptions increased. What if you would have switched to whole grain shredded wheat for breakfast cereal and subscriptions started to go up?
By that same token, though, if the arena caps were as detrimental as many of the complainers would have us believe, then subscriptions would have dropped off instead of expanded, yes?
Seriously, some of you need to learn to admit when you are wrong and move on. The horse has long since been pounded into dust.
-
The owner tells you why and still......
:bhead
Maybe he had already tried the breakfast idea and it wasn't working.
Haha. It's like a baseball player wearing the same jock over and over because he keeps getting hits with it. There's no proof the stinky jock is the reason for his hits but how else do you explain the fact that he keeps getting all these hits while he wears his stinky jock? I mean, it HAS to be the stinky jock right? :lol
How about another arena split then? Since arena splits spontaneously generate new players who are teetering on the edge of subscribing, just hoping another arena is added, and then whalllah! A new LW arena, and a player surge, simple as that!. Lets try it. :cool:
-
I think we should add a 4th counrty, the Pawns. That would rule. Yup.
:rock
-
I think we should add a 4th counrty, the Pawns. That would rule. Yup.
:rock
lol the pawns? they would certently be pawns to the bishops, thats for sure.
-
Correlation does not always mean causation.
-
Haha. It's like a baseball player wearing the same jock over and over because he keeps getting hits with it. There's no proof the stinky jock is the reason for his hits but how else do you explain the fact that he keeps getting all these hits while he wears his stinky jock? I mean, it HAS to be the stinky jock right? :lol
How about another arena split then? Since arena splits spontaneously generate new players who are teetering on the edge of subscribing, just hoping another arena is added, and then whalllah! A new LW arena, and a player surge, simple as that!. Lets try it. :cool:
Perhaps you'd like to see the books?
:rofl
wrongway
-
The two times I have cancelled my account since I started playing AH since AW went away, have been after the arena split. I guess that is the reason I cancelled my account then? It must be....although I know differently.
Oh yea...Pwns w00d rul3z!1!
-
geez I'm starting to think HITECH doesn't like me too much.
-
I just can't see how the split arena's would have any thing to do with subscribers . I must of joined back up right after the split and I did not even know about it ..Most new subscribers probably don't even know about it . or old player's coming back ...Just saying .....
-
I am new here and unbelievably surprised that the axis vs allies arena sits empty.
With all of the players demanding flight, gunnery, and damage model to be as historically accurate as possible, I am surprised that they aren't interested in flying versus opponents that would historically be matched against thier chosen airplane.
-
I am new here and unbelievably surprised that the axis vs allies arena sits empty.
With all of the players demanding flight, gunnery, and damage model to be as historically accurate as possible, I am surprised that they aren't interested in flying versus opponents that would historically be matched against thier chosen airplane.
The big participation in events like FSO and Scenarios do show players are interested. The reasons why players do not flock the AvA are manifold, and do not necessarily result from any aversion against historical matchups.
-
That's not exactly proof that was the reason subscriptions increased. What if you would have switched to whole grain shredded wheat for breakfast cereal and subscriptions started to go up?
Grizz you are 100% correct, it is not 100% proof. But when I analyze all changes , and data during that period it is the most likely conclusion I can draw. Your asking us to ignore the elephant in the room.
2nd your trying to argue from a vacuum with zero data along with the fact that you want one arena. Hence your views would naturally be biased. I really do not care if we have 1 arena or 2 or 20. My goal is simply to choose the configuration that MOST players prefer as show by the pocket books.
So to compare my analysis to your shredded wheat example is very insulting. I have a VERY large stake in the discussions, I may be wrong with some choices , but I have every motivation to get the analysis correct, while you do not.
HiTech
-
Flench, it's not a comparison thing single vs multiple. So trying compare it to what we had before to what we have now doesn't work.
It' a human nature thing. Once a group becomes too large it can no longer self govern its self.
It deem to me that as a smaller group we are meant to govern ourselves by staying on top of the "bad element" by using the tools provided by HTC, and peer pressure to keep the gaming experience fun for all.
Once the group gets too big it becomes too much to watch/report all of the poor behavior so nobody does. This just makes thing worst in the arena until people no longer want to play.
Now HTC split the arenas to keep the "groups" smaller, but had to come up with a way to populate both arena evenly. So we get dynamic caps.
Its unfortunate that people MUST play in the arena that is listed near the top. If the only problem is "I want to fly with my squad" then it could easily be solved by just having your squad nights in the "2nd" arena down.
-
The big participation in events like FSO and Scenarios do show players are interested. The reasons why players do not flock the AvA are manifold, and do not necessarily result from any aversion against historical matchups.
That statement is right on the money. Many of us do love the historical match-ups, and those can be had in the FSO (Fridays) and events like the currently running Battle Over Germany (BOG). I get my fill of the historical stuff here and therefore do not need to fly it on a daily basis. After a few of these you may undrstand that in a way the MA is just practice (fun practice never-the-less).
-
2nd your trying to argue from a vacuum with zero data along with the fact that you want one arena. Hence your views would naturally be biased. I really do not care if we have 1 arena or 2 or 20. My goal is simply to choose the configuration that MOST players prefer as show by the pocket books.
Not true. In fact, I posted my solution to caps laid out by your rules of "2 arena min" and you ignored it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,308665.0.html
I have also seen population kill data which I believe to be highly correlative with subscription rates.
I have a VERY large stake in the discussions, I may be wrong with some choices , but I have every motivation to get the analysis correct, while you do not.
Then why ignore my perfectly legitmate caps idea? I spent time and put thought into drafting what I thought would be the most efficient way to utilize caps and also cater to the most people in the game and was ignored. Maybe you didn't see it.
The breakfast example was simply an analogy, mildly insulting to get your attention, but you should easily be able to laugh something like that off for how long you've been around the interwebz.
-
Grizz you are 100% correct, it is not 100% proof. But when I analyze all changes , and data during that period it is the most likely conclusion I can draw. Your asking us to ignore the elephant in the room.
2nd your trying to argue from a vacuum with zero data along with the fact that you want one arena. Hence your views would naturally be biased. I really do not care if we have 1 arena or 2 or 20. My goal is simply to choose the configuration that MOST players prefer as show by the pocket books.
So to compare my analysis to your shredded wheat example is very insulting. I have a VERY large stake in the discussions, I may be wrong with some choices , but I have every motivation to get the analysis correct, while you do not.
HiTech
This is my point, even with your response you still do not state any specific reasons why the single arena is unhealthy. Which means you are working off of a good deal of speculation which you just confirmed.
I understand the dynamic of the group and I agree that this is what happens. But that is a broad definition of what happens. What are the exact problems we have that contribute to customer dis-satisfaction?
I will throw out there what I said before, we have horde issues, we have abuse issues, we have communication issues, and we have control issues.
As I said before, we could come up with a complex base cap system that would accomplish the same thing as the split arena and the only drawback is a slight restriction in choice of bases to fly from. This cant be any worse than being restricted from choosing an arena where the majority of the action is. At least in this case a guy who is separated from his squad is more likely to be reunited with them in a short period of time.
Split arenas are a form of crowd control without any real constructive frame work. Splitting up the kids does not deal with the issues that cause the frustrations that are supposedly causing subscription loss. You have a war without any command and control. In a war zone commanders didnt play lone wolf all the time and they werent allowed to launch offensives anytime and anyhow they felt like it. I suggest we look at how command and control worked in ww2 to find ideas and the first thing I think you should concentrate on is distribution of forces. And it seems to me this is the first step in giving this game a little more strategic play.
We should not have huge hordes at one or two locations on any map. The battle should be spread out all along the front lines and if you dont want to use base caps to accomplish this, maybe there could be other incentives put into place that would drive players to want to spread out. For example, if perks are that important to players, then how bout a sliding perk scale? If you fly in a zone that is largely overpopulated, then you get little to no perks, if the area is underpopulated then you get a large amount of perks.
Obviously there are also interpersonal issues that game rules arent going to remedy. Part of this is channel 200. I dont think it should be eliminated, but traffic gets overwhelming on it when the numbers are high. Limit 200 to a certain range? Perhaps there should be more in game volunteer moderators to control abusive behavior.
The point is, there is no structure to this game and as you pointed out the larger it gets the more control you need. We need more specific information and we need to deal with the issues that are causing dissatisfaction. I know the first impulse as a player is to want to do what you want, when you want and to resist all forms of control. But I think the problem with the split arenas is not merely we are being controlled but that it is not complex enough to target ONLY the issues that are causing the problems.
What you absolutely must do if you want any constructive criticism or ideas from us is give us a list of SPECIFIC problems your customers have that directly concern the "health" of the arena. (excluding wishes and retardedness of course) We cannot solve problems without knowing exactly what they are.
I suggest a pole. I think you have enough diversity in current customers, but if you can get former customers too, all the better. First get every possible complaint concerning the "fun" of the game and what ruins it for us. It should have an intensity scale involved. How much does this affect you on a scale of one to ten. And when you can tell us exactly what the problems are that need to be addressed you may not even need our input, but if you do I think we could come up with some compromises.
PS as far as distribution of forces, I seem to recall that the easier it is to take bases, the smaller the hordes were. Last time I played it was so hard to take bases that hardly ever did you see a few guys hanging around to defend a base because they knew it wasnt that easy. So everyone goes and joins the horde to take another base. After all, as hard as it was, you really needed all the help you could get. Just another thought on how to get people to spread out.
-
Why do people dislike caps?
- The other arena gets populated fast after switch, some get left out and decide to logoff instead of waiting for the 15 player blue to grow. Done that and most of players I know do that.
- The other arena gets populated fast, half of squad gets left out and decide to logoff instead of waiting to all switch to smaller server and wait for repopulation. Again, been there done that.
- The arena closes 'just when you're starting to have fun' a very typical comment you hear on closing time.
- The state of war is reset so you kinda have to start from scratch there too. Not a problem for me but perhaps for landgrabbers.
My suggestion would fix every point of the above if the split would be forced and 50% of players would be relocated squad, then player at a time to a running clone of the MA. The players would see a big warp, perhaps an enemy under fight would 'disappear' i.e. left to the other server but fight would continue non-stop and squads remain intact without either server being void of players.
I think it's a fair assumption that squads comprise the same kind of share of each country so post-switch the balance shouldn't be distorted.
Instead of logging on and checking "hmm is my squad in the full orange or half-full blue, if it's orange I have to login/logoff untill a slot is available or I get frustrated and decide not to play at all" the player would see "hmm my squad is assigned to the blue side today, oh well, doesn't affect me at all since both have around 200 players and I'm automagically directed to the correct server where my squad already is'.
As stupid as it may sound the game is all about social connections. Once you start in a squad the game changes fundamentally and feels lacking when you can't join the friends.
Does anyone think of any downsides to this outside of the Coading required to make this happen? I'm sure the login/logoff game _many_ I know are doing to get in the arena places a large unnecessary strain on the server alone.
-
Not true. In fact, I posted my solution to caps laid out by your rules of "2 arena min" and you ignored it.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,308665.0.html
Oh golly G grizz, I read your idea, just like the other 10,000 Ideas posted but I did not respond to it. I'm sorry that I did not treat you more special then everyone else who ever posted an idea.
Grizz,
How many new people come to our internet sight each day.
How many people visit our download page every day?
How many people downloaded the game every day?
How many people created an account but did not enter the game?
How many people created an account ?
How many days does the average person who creates an account play?
How many people created an account who subscribed before.
How many people who try our game become subscribers.
How much advertising have we done this month.
How many people deleted there accounts this month.
How many people's credit cards were declined this month?
How many people have an account but did not play this month.
How many hours did the average person play last month?
What is the average life span of a subscriber?
What % of subscribers delete in the first month?
These are some of the metrics we look at. And even the simple metric you are using shows growth right after the change.
So yes , you are really viewing things with almost zero data.
HiTech
-
Does anyone think of any downsides to this outside of the Coading required to make this happen?
Yes ... forcing people to do something will never work as well as providing a choice. Forcing people to here and there will generate more whines than the current solution does.
-
Yes ... forcing people to do something will never work as well as providing a choice. Forcing people to here and there will generate more whines than the current solution does.
You're not thinking straight. People would not even notice anything has happened. NOW they're forced to log off and either fight for the occupied side or bide their time in the empty side. If arena would be split to 200 each, both arenas could be left open and war continue untill third split is needed.
The main idea is to avoid breaking up squads.
Let me ask you a question: Who do you care about in the game?
Is it the anonymous red dot on the opposing side? Will you miss a certain enemy in the battle? What about country members, do you miss any fellow countryman especially? What about squad members? Which do you think actually matters with your gameplay?
"You create the world of the game. You bring the subject in the game and they fill it with their squadmates.
Woman: How could you acquire enough detail to think that it's reality?
- Arenas.. they feel real when we're in them right? It's only when we log off that we realize something was actually strange...
Let me ask you a question: You never really remember the beginning of the war, you kinda end up in the middle of what's going on..
Woman: I guess yeah..
- So how did we end up here?
Woman: We're playing?" :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Se5NBKNcsy4
-
My suggestion would fix every point of the above if the split would be forced and 50% of players would be relocated squad, then player at a time to a running clone of the MA. The players would see a big warp, perhaps an enemy under fight would 'disappear' i.e. left to the other server but fight would continue non-stop and squads remain intact without either server being void of players.
The bolded portion would be a gamekiller. Imagine closing on a 262 with smash after having worked for 20 minutes to get the angle, and he winks out of existence. The whines would be legendary.
Now with that said, possibly shuffling people around who are in tower could be worked out instead. The main downside I could see is if you're enjoying fighting an individual who's working in a certain area on the other side, and one of you gets shuffled away, that could be frustrating. Or, if you're winging with a guy who's not in your squad it could be annoying.
Wiley.
-
The bolded portion would be a gamekiller. Imagine closing on a 262 with smash after having worked for 20 minutes to get the angle, and he winks out of existence. The whines would be legendary.
Now with that said, possibly shuffling people around who are in tower could be worked out instead. The main downside I could see is if you're enjoying fighting an individual who's working in a certain area on the other side, and one of you gets shuffled away, that could be frustrating. Or, if you're winging with a guy who's not in your squad it could be annoying.
Wiley.
Heh, THINK. This would happen perhaps once per day and only IF you're unlucky enough to end on the other side. Now you _will_ need to land that 262 in time that might not be enough for you to get home since server is closing. You lose all your kills if you don't make it. Even worse, you will lose your perks if you botch the landing in haste. Not only that, while you took the time to try and land your kills, the arena and your squad already flocked to orange and you can't get in anymore.
Arena has shown it self destructs without regulation.
-
Heh, THINK. This would happen perhaps once per day
...to roughly 50% of the people logged into the server. I'm sorry, but that's not trivial, Ripley. I was just using the 262 as an illustration, whatever fight you're in, people getting 'beamed out' will be confusing and jarring. I did think, and it's not a good idea.
This is also not even considering the ground war. How is it going to make people feel if they're in the middle of a base grab or defense, they've swung the numbers in their favor, and suddenly find half their reinforcements disappearing to the other arena?
For that matter, what happens with the ground game? Does the second arena mirror the first one exactly on startup, including damage, or what? If you were about to receive vehicle supplies from a goon and he beams out, what now?
Another thing, this is what will happen as the arena grows, what happens when numbers drop off? Do the two arenas consolidate again? So you have people 'beaming in' with 10k alt at random?
Wiley.
-
...to roughly 50% of the people logged into the server. I'm sorry, but that's not trivial, Ripley. I was just using the 262 as an illustration, whatever fight you're in, people getting 'beamed out' will be confusing and jarring. I did think, and it's not a good idea.
Umm ok. And you think forcing 100% of the people to log off and fight for the last slots of your squads server somehow better? :bhead
Currently the whole war is stopped and squads get separated. Not good.
Another thing, this is what will happen as the arena grows, what happens when numbers drop off? Do the two arenas consolidate again? So you have people 'beaming in' with 10k alt at random?
Since no arena is filled to the max after the split, people can consolidate freely back to the other arena if they feel necessary. That would only happen if the other side would get way too empty for some reason. With a 50% split there's no logical reason to want to go either side (given that squads are preserved on same side naturally), both have equally active war going on. The state of the war is the same on both sides (initially).
Really, I'm 100% sure people wouldn't even notice the whole change they'd just think the opponent had a random disco.
-
Balancing would work also through social engineering:
Show totally false numbers on arenas. Display the server with less players as having more players -> everyone would be drawn to that server and balance it out.
It's a social problem. People will choose the server that is more full, therefore overfilling it and leaving the other unplayable. This can easily be fixed by fooling them in the login process :)
-
I understand the dynamic of the group and I agree that this is what happens. But that is a broad definition of what happens. What are the exact problems we have that contribute to customer dis-satisfaction?
My guess would be an infinite number. You are trying to fix the symptoms and not the the cause. You assume there is something wrong with an overwhelming force in one area. Now you wish to change this to fix what you perceive as a symptom hence remove more then you have added..
2nd the thought process of product design by polling is one very very very bad idea.
http://blogmaverick.com/2010/04/06/why-you-should-never-listen-to-your-customers/
HiTech
-
HiTech, what is the average lifespan of an AH player. Just curious if you know something I don't and if I should start planning ahead.
-
2nd the thought process of product design by polling is one very very very bad idea.
http://blogmaverick.com/2010/04/06/why-you-should-never-listen-to-your-customers/
HiTech
Very much true. But the hardest part of the innovation is generating solutions to the problems so that the solution works universally.
-
HiTech, what is the average lifespan of an AH player. Just curious if you know something I don't and if I should start planning ahead.
My uneducated guess would be... you are already way past beyond that average span.
But I doubt HTC will give out that kind business details here ;)
-
Dang Lusche, I'm only 30. I think maybe some of you older gents are in trouble. :(
-
Ahh I understand you doubt I am telling the truth but you are not calling me a liar. :rolleyes:
I would say lay down that shovel.
HiTech
I never called you a liar and I never said you were not telling the truth. You quoted me out of context. Bottom line is you will do what ever you want for what ever reason you believe at the time. First there was CAP's all the time, then there was caps all the time except Tuesdays . Then it was Cap's only part of each day. Each time it was decided by HiTech Creatons that this was going to fix the problem. The way I see it, the direction the caps are going , soon there will be no caps.
-
Umm ok. And you think forcing 100% of the people to log off and fight for the last slots of your squads server somehow better? :bhead
...than people randomly disappearing and reappearing? Much, much better.
By the by, what happens if you try to log into your squad's server after things have been split and it puts that arena's numbers over? Does your squad get relocated to the other arena? What happens if half of all the squads assigned to one arena show up at 7:00 EST, then the other half of all of them show up at 8:00, doubling the numbers in that arena? How do they get reallocated?
You're ignoring downsides that are game breakers, Ripley. It's not 'just that simple' and 'oh, people won't notice'. Squads moving together? Great. One thing you'll generally notice about squads, is they have a tendency to fly in the same area. 6 or 8 planes disappearing at once from a battle is not something people will 'just think is a random disco'. It will significantly affect gameplay, for the worse.
Currently the whole war is stopped and squads get separated. Not good.
And it is still susbstantially preferable to people popping in and out randomly.
Since no arena is filled to the max after the split,
Wait, what? So it keeps creating new arenas as more and more people come on? So eventually you wind up with 4 or 5 servers because you had many people logged in at one point, but because there's no mechanism for the arenas to reconsolidate, as they log out you wind up with 4 or 5 servers with 20 odd people in a couple of them?
Oh, but
people can consolidate freely back to the other arena if they feel necessary. That would only happen if the other side would get way too empty for some reason.
...like people logging off after a couple hours. This would happen very often.
With a 50% split there's no logical reason to want to go either side (given that squads are preserved on same side naturally),
What about squads who enjoy working together?
Really, I'm 100% sure people wouldn't even notice the whole change they'd just think the opponent had a random disco.
If your idea requires that people 'wouldn't notice' stuff happening around them, it would never, ever work in a game design.
Wiley.
-
Going off the "assigning people to an arena, or a home arena, Euro/PAC" idea. How about setting it up by squad. When a squad is made, have get assigned to Arena "A", or "B". They can always get into that arena "to be with their squad". You can still choose the other arena to play in as long as it's not capped out. Cap set at where HTC believes they start becoming "unhealthy".
To make this work however your going to need a lot of data to figure the limits of number of squads per arena, squads per side, average number of players from squad that play, and how often. Also the restrictions on squad size would have to be tighter controlled, otherwise you might end up with the "Claim Jumpers" against the rooks and bish :D With the data HTC could find how many people are active with a squad and what the average number of hours they fly and such to come up with a hard number. Using that hard number they should be able to come up with how many squads per side, per arena will come up to say 75% of his cap number leaving the other 25% for those who don't mind jumping.
With this setup the squads will be able to get together, and those who aren't tied to an arena won't have a problem jumping around. You will still have ALL aircraft and vehicles available in both arenas. You could set this up for all 4 main arenas. You would have to figure in the Euro players/squads verses the US prime time players/squads. The only restrictions would be that some squads won't be able to fight AGAINST some squads, or WITH some squads.
I think something along these lines would solve the main issue (I can't fly with my squad!) but not force more restrictions on those of us who don't mind trying another arena, or side, or plane. The trick would be for HTC to find that magic number of squads to have tied to each arena to make "squad" play fun with out shorting the numbers of an arena.
-
I never called you a liar and I never said you were not telling the truth. You quoted me out of context.
I say bull, here is 100% quote so it is impossible to be taken out of context.
Arena CAP's are better for HTC business.
End of discussion.
Your responce.
That would be true if the CAP's were always in place. But everyday the CAP's are removed and there is just one arena until 5:00 PM EST. There are no CAP's on the Late War arena on Tuesday, Is that because HiTech doesn't care about business on Tuesday. The CAP's are in place because HiTech wants the CAP's in place when and where he want's them in place. I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of.
Please explain how this piece,"That would be true if the CAP's were always in place." and this "I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of" is not directly stating that it is your belief , that me changing to split arenas was not because of business reasons?
You well know that I have stated, and chappy is referencing my statements that things were changed for business reasons.
So you are directly stating that you believe my reasons of changing the arena was not because of business reasons.
There is absolutely no way to take that statement other then it you calling me a liar.
Does anyone else see a different way of taking Travelers statements other then how I have interpreted them?
If so please fill me in because I am completely missing it.
Does anyone think I have taken them out of context?
HiTech
-
.
And it is still susbstantially preferable to people popping in and out randomly.
One occurrence per day is not popping in and out randomly. Sorry you're not seeing things in the correct proportions. The arena shutdown and resulting block from getting to orange however is a game killer to many and people just log off as a result.
Wait, what? So it keeps creating new arenas as more and more people come on? So eventually you wind up with 4 or 5 servers because you had many people logged in at one point, but because there's no mechanism for the arenas to reconsolidate, as they log out you wind up with 4 or 5 servers with 20 odd people in a couple of them?
As I said once the other side gets low in players, people _will_ migrate to the larger server as they do now. This will then be split if it reaches too high a number. People will always choose the side that has more. This very fact is causing this whole issue we're debating about here. If people wouldn't swarm to the larger server we would have two equally full servers churring along nicely without any intervention from HTC.
It ain't happening. Caps are needed and the current implementation of the caps locks people out from their friends.
Oh, but
...like people logging off after a couple hours. This would happen very often.
I'm sorry but where is there a problem? As mentioned if enough people migrate away people will automatically consolidate because they will choose the larger server again untill there's too many and another split is needed. The smaller remaining server will get empty just as the servers at AVA, mid- and early war remain empty because they don't have enough players to attract more players. Remember that when you have two servers with lets say 180 and 220 players, it's practically the same which you choose. If you have one with 250 and the other with 20 players, it makes a huge difference and 90% of people will choose or keep trying to choose the larger side.
What about squads who enjoy working together?
Now there's the first real downside, good. However with 50% more space available on server and probably player numbers around 2x200, one squad could move at any time without causing major shift in balance.
If your idea requires that people 'wouldn't notice' stuff happening around them, it would never, ever work in a game design.
Wiley.
Quite the opposite. People get disconnected, quit playing etc. in numbers all the time while you're in MA. You just don't notice it unless the disco happens right in front of you.
So are you saying that if you see someone (or even many) disco maximum one time - once a day when you're playing, it absolutely confuses you and ruins your whole days gameplay? LOL! I must have ruined a lot of days then since I discoed 11 times this tour due to network problems :D
-
I say bull, here is 100% quote so it is impossible to be taken out of context.
Your responce.
Please explain how this piece,"That would be true if the CAP's were always in place." and this "I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of" is not directly stating that it is your belief , that me changing to split arenas was not because of business reasons?
You well know that I have stated, and chappy is referencing my statements that things were changed for business reasons.
So you are directly stating that you believe my reasons of changing the arena was not because of business reasons.
There is absolutely no way to take that statement other then it you calling me a liar.
Does anyone else see a different way of taking Travelers statements other then how I have interpreted them?
If so please fill me in because I am completely missing it.
Does anyone think I have taken them out of context?
HiTech
Oh come on HT. Come clean. We know we are on to you.
(http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/2430/c55b9423e8.jpg) (http://img37.imageshack.us/i/c55b9423e8.jpg/)
-
I think HT has shown great patience.
I think many people in this thread just want to argue for the sake of arguing, or thinking they're entitled to internal HTC information.
I think we have been given all the explanation needed, and are not entitled to view the metrics used by HTC to drive their business decisions.
I think we should just play and have fun...and if that's not possible due to ego or anger issues, then those with problems should take a step back and analyze their lives.
-
everybody knows that orange is where the kewl catz hang.... :cheers:
so just like the nfl fox segment.."COME ON MAN" :noid
Bulldog
-
Does anyone else see a different way of taking Travelers statements other then how I have interpreted them?
Does it really matter?
-
One occurrence per day is not popping in and out randomly. Sorry you're not seeing things in the correct proportions. The arena shutdown and resulting block from getting to orange however is a game killer to many and people just log off as a result.
We've got to be talking about two different things, or you're really, really not getting why this is a bad idea. Let me throw out a scenario, and you tell me what I'm not getting. Let's assume 200 people is 'critical mass'.
Afternoon, 150 people on. We have one arena yes?
Orange: 150
School lets out. 100 people log in, total 250 now. I'm going to assume it splits evenly, yes?
Orange: 125
Blue: 125
People finish dinner, another 100 people log into Orange. What happens now? If it splits, that's twice in an hour 50% of the people in the arena have been relocated. Still, you'd wind up with
Orange:113
Blue: 125
Pink: 112
at that point.
Now, at this point, let's say 50 people from Pink decide they've just GOTTA be in Orange, so they log out of pink and back into Orange.
Orange: 163
Blue: 125
Pink: 72
As the evening progresses, another 50 people show up in Orange, so it splits again.
Orange: 106
Blue: 125
Pink: 72
Fuchsia: 107
That's 3 times in an evening that half of your buddies and enemies have disappeared at once, and this is good for gameplay?
Now let's say 50 from Blue want to go back to Orange, and 50 from Pink are sick of the low numbers and want to go join the crowd. So it splits again?
Orange:103
Blue: 75
Pink: 22
Fuchsia: 107
Mauve: 103
By the by, one thing I haven't even touched on, what if the countries are grossly imbalanced? Let's say of the 250 people in the arena when it splits, 100 are Rook, 100 are Bish, 50 are Knights. Does it take the same percentage from each and throw it into the new arena? Going from 100 friendlies to 50 isn't so bad. Going from 50 to 25 is going to pretty much nullify your ability to do much of anything.
As I said once the other side gets low in players, people _will_ migrate to the larger server as they do now.
...or milkrun like a big dog.
You have quietly glossed over my questions about the ground war. What happens with the state of the fields when an arena splits?
Wiley.
-
Does anyone else see a different way of taking Travelers statements other then how I have interpreted them?
If so please fill me in because I am completely missing it.
Does anyone think I have taken them out of context?
HiTech
Nope.
ack-ack
-
Nay
(http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/Themes/camo/images/post/thumbdown.gif)
Feed him to the grizz gimp
-
Does it really matter?
Very much so Dadsguns, people can disagree with me here with no problem.
Someone states in my house to my customers I am a liar, Yes it matters. If I do not refute it, it gets repeated and repeated, and people begin to take it as truth.
HiTech
-
I don't see what the big issue is here. I think the caps, as in place now, are working pretty well. I rarely ever have to spend more then just a few minutes trying to get into a particular arena. The occaisions where the cap is way under the pop and I just can't get in are so few and far between that they simply aren't worth worrying about.
HiTech, this customer is satisfied with things as they are. Now quit posting and work on some new planes or tanks or something. :D
-
I think HT has shown great patience.
I think many people in this thread just want to argue for the sake of arguing, or thinking they're entitled to internal HTC information.
I think we have been given all the explanation needed, and are not entitled to view the metrics used by HTC to drive their business decisions.
I think we should just play and have fun...and if that's not possible due to ego or anger issues, then those with problems should take a step back and analyze their lives.
+1
Funny how so few complain so much, but yet, they keep coming back and playing. I guess HiTech is doing something right.
Fred
-
Duplicate post
-
I don't see what the big issue is here. I think the caps, as in place now, are working pretty well. I rarely ever have to spend more then just a few minutes trying to get into a particular arena. The occaisions where the cap is way under the pop and I just can't get in are so few and far between that they simply aren't worth worrying about.
HiTech, this customer is satisfied with things as they are. Now quit posting and work on some new planes or tanks or something. :D
Like I've said a hundred times, arena caps are the Energizer Bunny of whines.
(http://i294.photobucket.com/albums/mm94/Ack-Ack/arenacapwhines.jpg?t=1300232896)
ack-ack
-
Oh golly G grizz, I read your idea, just like the other 10,000 Ideas posted but I did not respond to it. I'm sorry that I did not treat you more special then everyone else who ever posted an idea.
My apologies, I thought you'd be a little more enthused after reading the solution to the caps problem.
Grizz,
How many new people come to our internet sight each day.
How many people visit our download page every day?
How many people downloaded the game every day?
How many people created an account but did not enter the game?
How many people created an account ?
How many days does the average person who creates an account play?
How many people created an account who subscribed before.
How many people who try our game become subscribers.
How much advertising have we done this month.
How many people deleted there accounts this month.
How many people's credit cards were declined this month?
How many people have an account but did not play this month.
How many hours did the average person play last month?
What is the average life span of a subscriber?
What % of subscribers delete in the first month?
These are some of the metrics we look at. And even the simple metric you are using shows growth right after the change.
So yes , you are really viewing things with almost zero data.
80% of those parameters have no worth in regards to a player spike due to an arena split. The thing is, I don't mind two arenas as long as there is air to air combat in at least one (Which is harder to come by if both arenas have a giant map -.-), but I have heard you dismiss the one arena proposition many times on the sole basis that you guys saw subscriptions have a short term spike after you split the arenas. If you really believe that, then maybe you can answer this: How did the arena split create new subscriptions/retain subscriptions? I'm talking on the player level here, Say you have 15% players teetering on resubscribing any given month. How did the split encourage them to stay? How did the split cause more players to join the game? How did the split cause inactive players to want to fly again? Ultimately the underlying theme of each question is, how did it create more fun for each case mentioned? Having asked myself these questions, I don't see how it could have helped, it just doesn't make any sense. The more logical explanation is a coincidental player spike.
Ultimately, when the game grows to a certain point you need to split the arenas, I agree on that. But the split is not the cause of the growth, in fact it is quite the opposite, the growth should cause the need for a split.
-
Just out of pure curiosity.
Just how long is the average live span of a subscriber?
-
Griz I can answer your question but choose not to.
The simple fact you state 80 of my metric are not important shows how you will just ignor any real data.
Actually on a quick scan almost all of the items I posted are important to determine the outcome of the arena split change.
But the split is not the cause of the growth, in fact it is quite the opposite, the growth should cause the need for a split.
Actually it is both, growth caused the need for the arena split, because we had grown to a point that to have any further growth, the arenas need to be split.
HiTech
-
Griz I can answer your question but choose not to.
The simple fact you state 80 of my metric are not important shows how you will just ignor any real data.
Actually on a quick scan almost all of the items I posted are important to determine the outcome of the arena split change.
Actually it is both, growth caused the need for the arena split, because we had grown to a point that to have any further growth, the arenas need to be split.
HiTech
Hitech has spoken :O
-
Actually it is both, growth caused the need for the arena split, because we had grown to a point that to have any further growth, the arenas need to be split.
Disagree. This is the prelude to the "cess pool" philosophy yes? In 2011, I doubt the average player, the "xbox generation" if you will, is too concerned with the anonymity of a MMOG or the animosity that comes with it. What drives the average player for his first couple months is how much game driven fun he can have in that time. He's not too concerned with uch more than that, he signed up to fly ww2 airplanes into combat.
More specifically, having success at something. Whether it be helping his team take a base, shooting down a bad guy, or getting his name in the lights. There must be success and improvement and the game must be immersive. Hopefully, he enjoys it so much that he convinces a couple of his friends to play the game also. In whatever way he finds his fun, I do not see how that is directly related to it being in one arena with 600 players on an over sized map or two arenas, especially since hordes seem to manifest themselves the same way in either setting. Is one arena "harder" for the new player to find success? No I don't think so, they can roll with the horde or find isolated fights.
So while you say that you know yet choose not to answer my question I ask again due to the direct validity of it to the current discussion, How does the split arena help retain/create customers (New customers in particular) by enhancing their level of fun?
-
Grizz it sounds like you want the science of it whereas HT is arguing the engineering of it. IE who cares exactly why it works, if it works; IOW if it does what you want it to. Not that there's nothing to gain from knowing and understanding the science of it or that you wouldn't naturally want that deep an understanding, but till you make sense of the how and why, the "what" (the recorded correlation between arena population and subscription growth) is the bottom line and you don't screw with it randomly. And until you know the how and why, screwing with it beyond your basic "what" understanding is random.
-
If I had only a single arena to choose from when I first upped my free two weeks, and was subjected to the "tuff-boi" pissing contests and constant crap-flinging I see prevalent in the LW arena, I would have uninstalled the game and never looked back. I love flight sims and air combat, but don't love all the BS I see in LW. I'm glad there are choices like EW, MW, AvA, and SEA to give me my air combat fix.
-
I say bull, here is 100% quote so it is impossible to be taken out of context.
Your responce.
Please explain how this piece,"That would be true if the CAP's were always in place." and this "I really doubt it has anything to do with business, or lack there of" is not directly stating that it is your belief , that me changing to split arenas was not because of business reasons?
I was referring to and replying to Chappy’s statement.
You well know that I have stated, and chappy is referencing my statements that things were changed for business reasons.
I do? How would I know that? Chappy didn’t quote you.
So you are directly stating that you believe my reasons of changing the arena was not because of business reasons.
There is absolutely no way to take that statement other then it you calling me a liar.
I was responding to Chappy, not you, I never called you a liar.
You know what, life is just to short. Done.
-
The Hater Hath spoken. :lol
A little humor?
-
How many new people come to our internet sight each day.
How many people visit our download page every day?
How many people downloaded the game every day?
How many people created an account but did not enter the game?
How many people created an account ?
These questions or statistics as you call them, have no bearing at all because in all cases you are referring to people who have not even played the game online yet! So whether they do any of those things couldnt possibly be because you split the arenas for them could it?
How many days does the average person who creates an account play?
Im not sure what this question is getting at. How many days during their first 2 weeks? Or how many days do all regular players included play? This stat may be useful in determining the ability of the game to hook customers. So I'll give you that because it might have something to do with their experience in game. But that is an awful big assumption you're making.
How many people created an account who subscribed before.
This stat almost certainly has nothing to do with the arena split because if they came back they obviously dont have much of a problem with the game either way. Im sure some of them might have gotten fed up for a bit. That happens regardless of the split doesnt it? Ive come and gone for years. It didnt have anything to do with the split but I still hate the split arenas.
How many people who try our game become subscribers.
What % of subscribers delete in the first month?
These two stats would certainly be useful in suggesting whether someone likes or dislikes your game. If someone does subscribe you cannot say that it was because you split the arenas, they werent apart of the game before the split. Unless you asked them what they thought of TT you have no way of knowing whether they like the single or split arenas.
If they didnt subscribe and you dont have an exit survey you are making that large assumption again.
How much advertising have we done this month.
This one has no bearing on the split arenas issue what so ever. It only has relevance to how many people you attract to the game initially.
How many people deleted there accounts this month.
This has no bearing unless you are talking specifically about new accounts and in that case you have already addressed this one. If they were long time players they obviously didnt quit because you made things better with the arena split. It would make more sense to suggest that they quit because of the of the way things are now wouldnt it? Plus, there could be any number of reasons why they quit and this is just another assumption.
How many people's credit cards were declined this month?
How many people have an account but did not play this month.
How many hours did the average person play last month?
I dont know why you would even throw these ones in there! You going to ruin everyones fun because of broke or busy players? :rolleyes:
What is the average life span of a subscriber?
And again, nothing really relevant here. People die, get jobs, lose jobs, get laid, stop getting laid, or just get tired of the game.
I wasnt playing during the split, but in the years prior we had the .com crash and 9/11. The country was diving into debt and people started to lose money. TRILLIONS in losses. Are you sure that your customer base wasnt dropping because of these things? I dont know why your subscriptions spiked the way you say it did but until you see the same result several times, you dont have any facts or data to back up your claim that the split was good for business, all you have is a coincidence. The bottom line is, you are making very large assumptions unless you have some secret data you wont divulge.
I dont know why we are even discussing this because all you have to do is poll the entire customer base. That is real data! Ive noticed that you have no problem saying no (IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS) when you have made a choice. So if the whole population says that the caps are a bad idea, all you have to do is say no I wont accept it. Either way, I think you have enough customers that you would have a good sample of how all customers feel including potential customers. I would like to see the results of that data, but I would be happy just to have it done.
-
yada yada yada
You don't look at the stats individually but as a whole and compare them to stats taken at different times. For instance, how long were people playing before and after the split. are they playing longer now? ETC.
This has devolved into Hitech explaining, even vaguely, and some people saying, "no it didn't" who have no other basis that they want to argue.
:bhead again.
wrongway
-
If I had only a single arena to choose from when I first upped my free two weeks, and was subjected to the "tuff-boi" pissing contests and constant crap-flinging I see prevalent in the LW arena, I would have uninstalled the game and never looked back. I love flight sims and air combat, but don't love all the BS I see in LW. I'm glad there are choices like EW, MW, AvA, and SEA to give me my air combat fix.
You have pretty much nailed the problem with arena caps with this comment. The things you are talking about still exist. The arena caps did nothing to change that and and will never do anything to change it. The SPECIFIC problems are not being addressed or even acknowledged.
As for your choices, nobody is suggesting getting rid of all the other arenas, only the extra LW arena.
-
Grizz it sounds like you want the science of it whereas HT is arguing the engineering of it. IE who cares exactly why it works, if it works; IOW if it does what you want it to. Not that there's nothing to gain from knowing and understanding the science of it or that you wouldn't naturally want that deep an understanding, but till you make sense of the how and why, the "what" (the recorded correlation between arena population and subscription growth) is the bottom line and you don't screw with it randomly. And until you know the how and why, screwing with it beyond your basic "what" understanding is random.
I don't think it works actually, it was a short term coincidence imo. They made a change, and numbers went up for a few months. That change must have been the cause for reasons unknown? Maybe? Or maybe it was just a coincidence? That's why I'm asking important questions. If they cannot be answered then it was probably just a coincidence, they should not be difficult questions to answer if there is a correlation.
-
Just read most of this thread and one a couple questions keep coming back to me.
Why are the people who are so angry about the game and how it's set up still playing? Why such investment in a game that we have a choice to play or to not play?
I'd have given up long ago if I was so miserable.
-
Very much so Dadsguns, people can disagree with me here with no problem.
Someone states in my house to my customers I am a liar, Yes it matters. If I do not refute it, it gets repeated and repeated, and people begin to take it as truth.
HiTech
Wow, OK, no kiss up here, but HiTech is 100% right about this. I mean, come on, can you recall the last time he jumped into a thread like this? But I can't recall anyone questioning his integrity like this either. As the head guy, he has an obligation of leadership to defend his company and his name. If it gets smeared, so do all the people that work for him.
I have already said I am no fan of the caps, BUT, after reading this entire thread closely, I am absolutely convinced HiTech is doing this for the best interests of the game, the gamers and the company. I'm impressed with his willingness to step into the fray and respect him for it. :salute
-
Just read most of this thread and one a couple questions keep coming back to me.
Why are the people who are so angry about the game and how it's set up still playing? Why such investment in a game that we have a choice to play or to not play?
I'd have given up long ago if I was so miserable.
There ya go again using logic. So many complaints, yet they pay $15+ a mo. Apparently its "Chicken Little Syndrome".
-
You don't look at the stats individually but as a whole and compare them to stats taken at different times. For instance, how long were people playing before and after the split. are they playing longer now? ETC.
This has devolved into Hitech explaining, even vaguely, and some people saying, "no it didn't" who have no other basis that they want to argue.
:bhead again.
wrongway
Please stop banging your head, you cant afford it!
-
:bhead :banana:
-
Well instead of complaining, I'm going to actually post a credible idea here.
Before continuing I will state that although I don't like how the arena caps work, I do understand why they exist and I also understand why there is always an imbalance. Now with that being said, with everything I've witnessed and everything I've read, I firmly believe that the NUMBER ONE reason that the arena caps don't work so well is because of squads. Think about it, if squads didn't exist, then you could just 'blindly' put a joining person into the less populated arena and no one would ever know any better. While I like that idea, it will NOT work with the current squad implementation the way it is, so to put that practice into play you'd have to abolish squads altogether.
But you can't! Why not? Because squad members represent a HUGE number of the paying customers and there is a large risk that many would simply quit playing the game if they were not allowed to (reliably) fly with their squadmates. To me personally my squad is like an extended family and I enjoy the camaraderie just as much as I do the game play. I'm not sure I could maintain my subscription if I wasn't able to fly in the squad anymore. On the other hand, the people who don't care about being in a squad probably wouldn't care which arena they fly in either. You could literally blindly put the non squad-members in the less populated arena and they wouldn't even know any better.
Now this is pure speculation and without any actual factual numbers in front of me it's hard to be sure, but I have a feeling that Squad members are a LOT more dedicated to Aces High than non-squad members. What I mean by that is the average account age for squad members is probably a LOT higher than the age of non-squad accounts. If this is in fact the case, then I personally think squad members should get a little bit of preferential treatment in the way that the system should be redesigned to keep them together if at all possible and not split them apart.
So what I propose is to have the system handle squad members and non-squad members differently. If you aren't in a squad then when you click on "Late War" you automatically get put into the less populated arena. If you ARE in a squad then you are put in the same arena as your squad-mates UNLESS that arena is full in which you are put in the less populated one. Also if you are in a squad and you can not join their arena, you'll get a pop-up message saying something like "The arena that your squad is in is currently full. Do you wish to be notified when an opening is available?" and if you click yes then once an opening is available (and you are at the top of the queue) then it will notify you and hold a spot open for you for five minutes to give you time to land or whatever you need to do. If you don't join within that time, you lose your slot and the next guy gets it.
Also if it ends up that more squad members end up in the less populated arena than in the more populated arena, then the squad members where there are fewer squad members get a message "The majority of your squad is now in the other arena. You have been reserved a slot before that arena fills up completely and you have five minutes to land" or something like that. This will encourage squads to switch to the less populated arena if it gets to the point in which most of the members can't join in. If the squad members are adamant for staying in that arena, then they have to fly their without the support from the majority of their squad.
Does this make any sense? Let me try a scenario.
Let's say there are five people in the Squad. Their names are One, Two, Three, Four, and Five.
One logs in. Since he is the first in his squad to do so, he is blindly assigned to the less populated arena.
Two logs in. Since there is an open slot in that arena, he gets put in the same arena as One.
Three logs in. The arena that One and Two are in is now full so he gets put in the less populated arena. He gets a message "We will notify you if slots open up in that arena".
Four logs in. He is put in the same arena as Three, getting the same "We will notify you" message.
Five logs in. He is put in the same arena as Three and Four, except now that the majority is in the other arena he does not get any message. Instead One and Two get a message saying that the majority of their squadmates are now in the other arena, and that they have reserved slots for the next five minutes. One and Two land and switch arenas.
Now the whole squad is flying together, and the arenas are a little bit more even.
Now another scenario. It starts off the same as above:
One logs in. Since he is the first in his squad to do so, he blindly assigned to the less populated arena.
Two logs in. Since there is an open slot in that arena, he gets put in the same arena as One.
Three logs in. The arena that One and Two are in is now full so he gets put in the less populated arena. He gets a message "We will notify you if slots open up in that arena".
Four logs in. He is put in the same arena as Three, getting the same "We will notify you" message.
A slot opens up in the first arena. Since only one slot is open and since Three logged in before Four, then only Three gets a message "There is an open slot in the other arena. It has been reserved to you for the next five minutes after which it will expire." Three lands and switches arenas.
Five logs in. He is put in the same arena as Four, getting the "We will notify you" message.
Over the next 10-20 minutes Four and Five end up eventually making their way into the first arena with One, Two and Three, and once again the whole squad is flying together.
I don't know how hard something like this would be to implement and of course it wouldn't be perfect (no balancing system in place would ever be perfect). I personally think the 'blind' assigning of which arena you are put in is the best idea possible! My biggest concern is keeping squads together. In my opinion, this is CRITICAL and steps must be taken to keep squads intact during that process.
-
Would that be the regular squads or multiple squads under the same name?
-
You don't look at the stats individually but as a whole and compare them to stats taken at different times. For instance, how long were people playing before and after the split. are they playing longer now? ETC.
This has devolved into Hitech explaining, even vaguely, and some people saying, "no it didn't" who have no other basis that they want to argue.
:bhead again.
wrongway
I find it funny people with absolutely no experience in running a game studio or designing, developing and operating a MMO telling the developer and studio owner that he has no clue.
ack-ack
-
You have pretty much nailed the problem with arena caps with this comment. The things you are talking about still exist. The arena caps did nothing to change that and and will never do anything to change it. The SPECIFIC problems are not being addressed or even acknowledged.
As for your choices, nobody is suggesting getting rid of all the other arenas, only the extra LW arena.
The stuff that ImaDot is referring to have been addressed, it's called using the .report function. The arena cap wasn't implemented to curb or police people's behavior, it was meant to address the situation where the arena had grown to the point where it wasn't growing anymore and was becoming "unhealthy" to the point where it was driving away customers and slowed business growth.
ack-ack
-
See rule #4
-
I don't think it works actually, it was a short term coincidence imo. They made a change, and numbers went up for a few months. That change must have been the cause for reasons unknown? Maybe? Or maybe it was just a coincidence? That's why I'm asking important questions. If they cannot be answered then it was probably just a coincidence, they should not be difficult questions to answer if there is a correlation.
Got love this, lets not look at the Elephant, but dismiss it as nothing more then coincidence. "and numbers went up for a few months". But then again if you really had any info you would know the duration. Because a few months was not what happened.
Since you are willing to dismiss it as coincidence, no data I could ever show you could convince you otherwise because "coincidence" covers all.
HiTech
-
Got love this, lets not look at the Elephant, but dismiss it as nothing more then coincidence. "and numbers went up for a few months". But then again if you really had any info you would know the duration. Because a few months was not what happened.
Since you are willing to dismiss it as coincidence, no data I could ever show you could convince you otherwise because "coincidence" covers all.
HiTech
The arena split did occur during a peak in the US economy and the numbers have declined with the slowdown in the economy. With all due respect, could this be the elephant in the room rather than the actual arena split? The thing that is strange to me is the fact that very few, active players who have enough guts to speak up about anything do not prefer the arena split (sycophants excluded) . How can this silent majority of players that flocked to AH after the split be so silent? Also, how did they know that the arena was split and thereby were attracted? Honestly, the pieces don’t all fit together.
-
HiTech hasn't commented on my suggestion...... I'm very disappointed and hurt Hitech. :noid
-
You have pretty much nailed the problem with arena caps with this comment. The things you are talking about still exist. The arena caps did nothing to change that and and will never do anything to change it. The SPECIFIC problems are not being addressed or even acknowledged.
As for your choices, nobody is suggesting getting rid of all the other arenas, only the extra LW arena.
Nope, it's exactly the same thing. If I wanted to fly LW hotrod planes, was in Orange, but all I saw was the tuff-boi pissing contests and crap-flinging, I'd switch to Blue to see if it was any better. If there was only one LW arena, and I was subjected to that crap, I'd have never subscribed.
-
The arena split did occur during a peak in the US economy and the numbers have declined with the slowdown in the economy. With all due respect, could this be the elephant in the room rather than the actual arena split? The thing that is strange to me is the fact that very few, active players who have enough guts to speak up about anything do not prefer the arena split (sycophants excluded) . How can this silent majority of players that flocked to AH after the split be so silent? Also, how did they know that the arena was split and thereby were attracted? Honestly, the pieces don’t all fit together.
When economics change different metrics change. As an example when the economy is bad, more people who have not played in 2 months will decide that they can not afford to keep the account open when they are not playing much anymore. When the economy is good more people will make the choice not to close thinking they may play again in a few weeks.
People see the split and think I wish we had 1 arena. What they do not correlate and see is the benefits of having the split arena,they just believe things will be the same if we have more people in one arena. People do see the down side of a split arena, like not being able to play with their squad.
HiTech
-
See Rule #14
-
I tend to find in the off hours setting, I'll only fly till the arena lock.it's not because the splitting of the arenas bothers me. It's more of the fact that I'm required to stop fighting, log in to another arena and look for a new fight. More often than not I just log off at 5pm EST.
-
Would that be the regular squads or multiple squads under the same name?
This would only apply to EACH SQUAD. I know what you are saying.. my squad has four 'branches' but the game sees each branch as their own individual squad. I understand that and agree with HiTech having the squad numbers capped for a reason so he would have have to allow squads to get bigger, he would have to be able to 'link' smaller squads together, or we would have to trim the fat from our squads to make them fit into one actual squad in the game. I see no need for him to compromise that for us.
When economics change different metrics change. As an example when the economy is bad, more people who have not played in 2 months will decide that they can not afford to keep the account open when they are not playing much anymore. When the economy is good more people will make the choice not to close thinking they may play again in a few weeks.
While I don't disagree with that HiTech, I also firmly believe that when the economy is bad people may decide to subscribe! Since $15/month is extremely cheap entertainment, a lot of people may opt to join in and play for $15/month, instead of going out to bars etc. and spending $100+ a week. Of course you're the one who gets to see the income numbers, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out it works both ways...
-
I like tigger29s idea. Not sure how hard it would be to code. I definitely think that for most people this is a social game - they want to fly with their friends and get angry when they can't.
-
they want to fly with their friends and get angry when they can't.
Really.... Grown ups get angry over this? I wish I had this little to worry about.
:bolt:
-
I think the legislature should pass an amendment to the constitution requiring the national government to mail out vouchers to interested players during times of economic hardship. I also think that all democrats should be required to join and fly C47's in LWO and republicans in LWB on Wednesday night so I can shoot them down and get me some perks! LOL
+1 :aok
I am almost fine with the way the caps are now. Like HiTech has said many times, just fly one 30min mission in blue and chances are there will be an opening in orange when you are done. If not then just log in and out a few times if the cap is close enough to the number of people in the arena, if not then just fly in blue and get over yourself. In the off chance that you only have 30min to play anyway, why are you logging on in the first place? Why are we even talking about the arena split? The OP was about the caps, which I find no fault with and am kind of glad that they are in place.
<S>
Regards,
Hector
-
+1 :aok
I am almost fine with the way the caps are now. Like HiTech has said many times, just fly one 30min mission in blue and chances are there will be an opening in orange when you are done. If not then just log in and out a few times if the cap is close enough to the number of people in the arena, if not then just fly in blue and get over yourself. In the off chance that you only have 30min to play anyway, why are you logging on in the first place? Why are we even talking about the arena split? The OP was about the caps, which I find no fault with and am kind of glad that they are in place.
<S>
Regards,
Hector
I don't believe I have ever said or insinuated this. Other people have many times though.
HiTech
-
When economics change different metrics change. As an example when the economy is bad, more people who have not played in 2 months will decide that they can not afford to keep the account open when they are not playing much anymore. When the economy is good more people will make the choice not to close thinking they may play again in a few weeks.
People see the split and think I wish we had 1 arena. What they do not correlate and see is the benefits of having the split arena,they just believe things will be the same if we have more people in one arena. People do see the down side of a split arena, like not being able to play with their squad.
HiTech
For me, this is incredibly cheap entertainment. When times get tough I cut out alot of stuff but not Aces High. No matter what else I do, it is more than 15 bucks a month. The money I have a (well) spent on this game have saved me thousands on other hobbies (obsessions).
-
Nope, it's exactly the same thing. If I wanted to fly LW hotrod planes, was in Orange, but all I saw was the tuff-boi pissing contests and crap-flinging, I'd switch to Blue to see if it was any better. If there was only one LW arena, and I was subjected to that crap, I'd have never subscribed.
I feel your pain [/Clinton voice] and am glad there are 2 LW arenas. I just wish they were always capped at 850, like on TT, so that we wouldn't be forced into the "other" arena if we didn't want to be. Anyone who's sensitivity level is high enough that they cannot tolerate the "cess pool" that people keep talking about (I haven't actually seen it, but I guess that's because of such things as .squelch and .report and detuning 200) can freely choose to leave. Those who want to fly where they want to fly can stay in the "cess pool" with their squaddies.
-
I am almost fine with the way the caps are now. Like HiTech has said many times, just fly one 30min mission in blue and chances are there will be an opening in orange when you are done. If not then just log in and out a few times if the cap is close enough to the number of people in the arena, if not then just fly in blue and get over yourself. In the off chance that you only have 30min to play anyway, why are you logging on in the first place? Why are we even talking about the arena split? The OP was about the caps, which I find no fault with and am kind of glad that they are in place.
In a way I agree with this. I think the caps in place the way they are now is the best that can be done without making special rules for squads... because any further changes to it will break squads apart. I'm just afraid that things may get too complicated.
On the other hand, I too have gotten aggravated over being 'locked out' of the arena the rest of my squad is in. Usually it's a matter of clinking on ONLINE QUIT ONLINE QUIT ONLINE QUIT ONLINE QUIT for dozens of minutes until there are openings available to fly with them. If an automated system was in place (to let me know when there is an opening) I would gladly join the other arena and fly around until that time, but you just can't do that as is. Also maybe if the arena list updated itself every few seconds that might help too.
I too have joined the other arena and asked my squad to switch over. Every time that simply falls on deaf ears. We did switch arenas for a week once and we had a BLAST and there were never problems getting in, but for some reason it migrated back over again. It totally blows my mind how that works out but it always does! Something tells me this happens to all squads.
Anyway the problem is that everyone wants to join the first arena on the list. Then it gets more players and everyone wants to join the arena with more players. So if you randomize which arena is listed first, and if you take away the part that shows how many people are in each of the late war arenas (maybe replace it with vacancy/no vacancy) then that *might* help to even out the numbers, however the problem with getting in to fly with your squad could still remain.
HiTech, if you wanted to make a change without making major modifications to how it works then I would propose the following:
1> Remove the numbers next to the late war arena listings... maybe replace it with a red or green light instead
2> Make the order of the late war arenas show up randomly on everyone's list... (Example on my computer it might show blue on top, on yours it might show orange on top) or if not random, then have the less populated arena appear first
3> Automatically disconnect anyone that shows no activity for over 20 minutes (sitting in the tower, not in flight). Many people will log on and just sit there in the tower for hours to reserve a spot for that evening.
In addition, I'd like to see this:
4> If your connection gets dropped, a placeholder keeps you a spot open in the arena for a couple of minutes so you can get back in even if the arena is full. You'd still be 'killed' but at least you can come back to the arena.
5> Some way to join a full arena to fly with your squad... -OR- some kind of system that holds a place for you so you can do so once the arena has slots open.
6> Some way to refresh the arena list without quitting and coming back in would be nice too.
-
I don't believe I have ever said or insinuated this. Other people have many times though.
HiTech
Thanks for setting me straight boss.
-
When economics change different metrics change. As an example when the economy is bad, more people who have not played in 2 months will decide that they can not afford to keep the account open when they are not playing much anymore. When the economy is good more people will make the choice not to close thinking they may play again in a few weeks.
People see the split and think I wish we had 1 arena. What they do not correlate and see is the benefits of having the split arena,they just believe things will be the same if we have more people in one arena. People do see the down side of a split arena, like not being able to play with their squad.
HiTech
I'm sure that's true and I agree the metrics would show just that. However, for the very same reasons one would think that people would be more likely to sign up or give their kid the money when the economy is good and they have more disposable income. While I agree that $15 a months is dirt cheap, through the years of reading these boards and knowing squadies situations, money truly is a reason why ppl do and don't play. Remember, while the basic game is cheap, you have to have an Internet connection first. This is a much larger expense and to have quality game play u have to have a decent connection. Also, while the game can be played on a lower end machine it's not ideal, but let's throw that out bc it can be played halfway decently. But playing with a mouse sucks and everyone knows it so they eventually get a joystick. Then it is ideal to get headphones and a mic and on and on...
I'm sorry, money has to be a factor. And whenever money is a factor, the economy is a factor.
Also, if the split arenas were the factor for improving the numbers, why did the numbers decline while the arenas were still split? There has to be more to it.
The funny thing is, I'm not campaigning for anything here. While I don't love the split arenas, I actually don't like TT because of the lag and crap that happens. I just think there has to be more to it than the split. If I were to campaign for anything, it would be to get rid of the off-hours arena because it really does break the momentum on a good night of AH. But even that is not that big of a deal really.
-
Speaking for myself, I did not "merely" dismiss your numbers as coincidence. I suggested that it may be the case. I am sure I dont need to tell you, anyone with even a mediocre grasp of statistics would agree that a single incidence or even the months of good numbers you got after the split is not proof of success. Have you gone back to the single arena since; and did you lose customers as a result? And then change back to the split and see regrowth? If not then you dont have anything other than coincidence. When you've tested your theory several times and gotten the same result, that is when any educated minds begin to call them facts! Obviously you cant chase off customers indiscriminately, but there are certainly plenty of ideas floating out there that could be used to get some real statistics.
When economics change different metrics change. As an example when the economy is bad, more people who have not played in 2 months will decide that they can not afford to keep the account open when they are not playing much anymore. When the economy is good more people will make the choice not to close thinking they may play again in a few weeks.
People see the split and think I wish we had 1 arena. What they do not correlate and see is the benefits of having the split arena,they just believe things will be the same if we have more people in one arena. People do see the down side of a split arena, like not being able to play with their squad.
HiTech
Which is exactly why your "how many customers canceled or how many joined again" statistic has no bearing! And as someone else here pointed out, that can go both ways. I know, because I spend more time subscribed when Im not working than when I am.
The reason we dont see the benefits is because there are none! I have never seen so much complaining as I have since the split. And not just about the split. About all kinds of things. My god, have you even looked at fugitives thread. I think he is a minority, but he is not the only one who complains about such things. I guess you are going to say thats because of the growing subscriptions. Maybe it's because there are too many people in the arenas, split or not, and the things that cause the specific problems are not dealt with.
You know I just thought of something. If your customers subconsciously (since we arent smart enough to know what we like) dont like the massive single arenas then that must show up in your statistics. At the very least they would show lower logged time in single LW arena because they would be fed up with unhealthiness of the cesspool.
Statistics you didnt mention in your list should make it pretty clear what people like and dislike, like these...
How many players play every day?
How many of those players avoid titanic tuesday or single LW before change over?
How many players play on a regular schedule?
Is that because of work and family schedule?
How many of those schedules avoid single arenas?
Is that because of work and family schedule?
How many players who play on a weekly basis avoid single arenas?
How many players never sign into single arenas?
Of all players who seem to log into single arenas less overall, how do their split arena login times compare to the login times in single?
Im sure there's a few more that should go in there as well, but those statistics wont lie. Because if you're right, then anyone who has an aversion to the cesspool will avoid it "subconsciously."
Apparently we wont ever agree. You can say easy enough that we "dont see the benefits of the single arena" but I would say that avoiding a customer poll of the subject is really flying blind! I am not mad at you except when you mute me because of ankle... well you know! But we are pretty frustrated with this.
Really, if you have such a problem with new people unknowingly coming into the game unprepared for the level of competition and aggression in the game why dont you prepare them? If it was me I would put a notice on the home page...
CAUTION: THIS GAME INVOLVES AN EXTREMELY HIGH LEVEL OF COMPETITION AND EXPERTISE. YOU WILL GET YOUR bellybutton KICKED REPEATEDLY AND SOMETIMES HUMILIATED. WE TRY TO CONTROL IT AND HAVE MEASURES IN PLACE FOR REPORTING ABUSIVE BEHAVIOR, BUT THERE IS AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF TESTOSTERONE REQUIRED TO SURVIVE THIS GAME AND IT CANNOT BE CONTROLED 100% OF THE TIME. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE THE STOMACH FOR SUCH THINGS, WE SUGGEST YOU SPEND YOUR TIME ON CHECKERS!
-
Hey Muzik. How many flight sims have you made?
-
2nd the thought process of product design by polling is one very very very bad idea.
http://blogmaverick.com/2010/04/06/why-you-should-never-listen-to-your-customers/
HiTech
So, in this thread you already told us we're not smart enough to know what we want. Thx btw. This link you posted is the reason you wont place the single ma to a poll/vote?
-
I don't think a customer poll is going to tell you anything. If the results are published people with either NOT believe them, or push for some stupid change that the majority thinks is a good plan. We already know the customers can't pick the right thing, look at the B29 fiasco! :neener: If the results are not published there would be those in here crying about a cover-up. Hitech has enough trouble "proving" things now with out opening his private info, that would just lead to more stupidity.
Personally I happy to go with a little faith that Hitech's giving us the strait skinny. Over the years I haven't seen him make too many mis-steps with this game. I applauded the spilt arenas. To me it looked like the game was going down hill with far to much smack talking and hordes avoiding each other. When the split first happened things settled down. The "mega squads" pretty much disappeared and smaller squads where fighting. Unfortunately it didn't last long. HT took away one "easy way" of playing and they looked for another. Bring in the NOE era.
That first week or two after Hitech slammed the dar levels down was the most fun I had had in a long time! Hitech relented, and while the NOEs haven't gotten as bad as they were before they are still the main idea of most plans now, AVOIDANCE. The numbers have gone up in the split arenas, and the hordes are back in full force. Funny thing, I like playing in the "off-hours" arena. good fights all over, fun people to fly with, not to many "attitudes" clogging up 200. I won't fly on TT,because it the worst for poor game play and attitudes, and the "split" arenas are getting to be almost as bad. I guess those late night Euro guys are just more laid back :D
I don't think the Caps are a problem other than guys getting to fly with their squads. If some coad can be worked out to allow squads to fly together while still maintaining a balance I think it would help a lot. I wish Hitech could do something about the hordes (go back to all small maps, and have 3 LW arenas with caps, as long as the squad issue can be worked out). I trust Hitech to do what best for HIS company. If in the end I don't like the product, I'll leave. But so far, he's still got my paltry $15 a month :aok
-
Keep the LW arenas split, and uncap them both. Everybody gets what they want. Problem solved.
<------ squealing genius.
:lol
Edit - LOL at text filter. "squealing?" :rofl :rofl
-
I'm sorry, money has to be a factor. And whenever money is a factor, the economy is a factor.
Also, if the split arenas were the factor for improving the numbers, why did the numbers decline while the arenas were still split? There has to be more to it.
Yes economy is always a factor, but my point was not to show you all the data , nor describe why we believe it was not the economy that cause the change , my point is that arena splits and economy show up very differently in metrics. And our interpretation of all our data is the split caused a major change that started increasing our size.
There has to be more to it.
There has to be more to what?
HiTech
-
Hitech, I'd cut everyone some slack. They aren't making all these suggestions not because they want to make your life hell, they are doing it because they really want to see the game thrive.
That said, continue with the normally scheduled discussion. :angel:
-
So, in this thread you already told us we're not smart enough to know what we want. Thx btw. This link you posted is the reason you wont place the single ma to a poll/vote?
We stumbled on that article about 3 months ago, it just states the issues fairly well. Long before I saw that article I was saying give the customer what he wants, not what he ask for, because they are rarely the same thing.
HiTech
-
The arena split did occur during a peak in the US economy and the numbers have declined with the slowdown in the economy. With all due respect, could this be the elephant in the room rather than the actual arena split? The thing that is strange to me is the fact that very few, active players who have enough guts to speak up about anything do not prefer the arena split (sycophants excluded) . How can this silent majority of players that flocked to AH after the split be so silent? Also, how did they know that the arena was split and thereby were attracted? Honestly, the pieces don’t all fit together.
The silent majority that flocked to AH after the split don't know any better and don't know any different.
If a split arena/can't play where they want were so bad, they would quit, wouldn't they? The numbers of people trying a 2-week trial versus subscribing would show this. The number of people no longer subscribing since the split, IE they quit since the split, would show this.
Apparently the numbers are not showing this.
Hitech, I'd cut everyone some slack. They aren't making all these suggestions not because they want to make your life hell, they are doing it because they really want to see the game thrive.
That said, continue with the normally scheduled discussion. :angel:
Thrive by going back to a model that the developer has data showing a lack of growth.
Not thriving.
wrongway
-
We stumbled on that article about 3 months ago, it just states the issues fairly well. Long before I saw that article I was saying give the customer what he wants, not what he ask for, because they are rarely the same thing.
HiTech
I can dig that but polling/ surveys are and will remain the best way to interpret what your base desires. The data from your base and of course the interpretation from you. It never hurts to ask the questions. Thx for taking part of this discussion.
-
So, in this thread you already told us we're not smart enough to know what we want. Thx btw. This link you posted is the reason you wont place the single ma to a poll/vote?
OMG this is why we hear "customers dont know what they want?" He doesnt even give any facts to support his opinion or include the names of the businesses that supposedly failed because they listened to their customers. Doesnt the fact that his theory flys in the face of a long time anecdote "the customer is always right" raise questions? And how about the polling and consumer data companies that make millions every year finding out what people want through polls? Not that politicians dont waste money anyhow, but do you really think they spend thousands of their own money figuring out what hair color voters want to see for nothing?
These people seem to disagree.
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/public-opinion-polls.html
-
I can dig that but polling/ surveys are and will remain the best way to interpret what your base desires. The data from your base and of course the interpretation from you. It never hurts to ask the questions. Thx for taking part of this discussion.
Long before I saw that article I was saying give the customer what he wants, not what he ask for, because they are rarely the same thing.
HiTech
And herin lies the crux....
wrongway
-
And herin lies the crux....
wrongway
Dunno what you mean.. I disagree with his position on the customer not knowing what to ask for.. but that is ok.. It really doesn't matter if you agree or not though, you still have to ask the questions.. Actually, you have to really figure how to ask the questions.. Cause you already know the answer is wrong.. The wording is crucial so you will know by the incorrect answer given on what to do next.. Its just that easy! :bolt:
But no matter how you look at it.. Polling your base is essential and needed data..
-
...a long time anecdote "the customer is always right"...
The customer is NOT always right; sometimes, but not ALWAYS. In this day and age of entitlement, frivolous lawsuits and "more me now", that old tired adage is no longer valid.
-
OMG this is why we hear "customers dont know what they want?" He doesnt even give any facts to support his opinion or include the names of the businesses that supposedly failed because they listened to their customers. Doesnt the fact that his theory flys in the face of a long time anecdote "the customer is always right" raise questions? And how about the polling and consumer data companies that make millions every year finding out what people want through polls? Not that politicians dont waste money anyhow, but do you really think they spend thousands of their own money figuring out what hair color voters want to see for nothing?
These people seem to disagree.
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/public-opinion-polls.html
I know of 1, it's called Warbirds.
HiTech
-
It really doesn't matter if you agree or not though, you still have to ask the questions..
This is not the way I've seen the world work. Asking the question can be very detrimental. No matter which way an answer comes out, you upset many of your customers because you didn't listen to THEIR idea.
It is similar to the idea, it is much easier to ask forgiveness then permission.
What you are forgetting is that in the end the answer you really wish is what the will the customer do with their pocket book. Polls will never show the true representation of this. I can not count the number of times I have seen post from people who say "I'm quiting because of ....." and when you go look if they did delete their account they never did.
History has shown us that very rarely is it a good idea to ask a question, take a poll,announce a change before time that you know will be controversial. All it ends up doing is getting everyone upset before they even see the details.
HiTech
-
History has shown us that very rarely is it a good idea to ask a question, take a poll,announce a change before time that you know will be controversial. All it ends up doing is getting everyone upset before they even see the details.
HiTech
This is something that just cant be denied! I'd add the customer may be right but that doesnt mean they're correct.
:salute
PS: as a subcontractor I found myself in this situation far too many times,sometimes no matter what you do you cant please everyone.
-
OMG this is why we hear "customers dont know what they want?" He doesnt even give any facts to support his opinion or include the names of the businesses that supposedly failed because they listened to their customers. Doesnt the fact that his theory flys in the face of a long time anecdote "the customer is always right" raise questions? And how about the polling and consumer data companies that make millions every year finding out what people want through polls? Not that politicians dont waste money anyhow, but do you really think they spend thousands of their own money figuring out what hair color voters want to see for nothing?
These people seem to disagree.
http://www.crf-usa.org/election-central/public-opinion-polls.html
The notion that "the customer is always right" refers to the business practice of placating unreasonable customers. It does not refer to letting customers make policy because they are infallible.
Polls are useful but generally polls are used to find out what people think so that they can be told what they want to hear. Public opinion polls are not used to determine policy, their purpose is to help sell the policy to the public.
-
Yes economy is always a factor, but my point was not to show you all the data , nor describe why we believe it was not the economy that cause the change , my point is that arena splits and economy show up very differently in metrics. And our interpretation of all our data is the split caused a major change that started increasing our size.
There has to be more to what?
HiTech
Fair enough. I see what you are saying. You answered my question. Forget about the second part, it was pretty much the same question just phrased poorly because I was typing fast on my phone.
I thought of a recent example in my profession as an illustration of what the customer wants and what the customer thinks he wants are two different things. This is especially true with complex issues that appear on the surface to be very simple.
The current facility I am working on is so big that it is split up among several contractors. There are some structures that are very close to each other that are done by different contractors so it is very easy to compare one design to the other. Some foundations were poured for one structure carrying pipe that was practically identical to the other structure loadwise but one set of foundations was larger than the other set. One of these structures was designed by my company. Our foundations happened to be the larger ones. Oh! How scandalized everyone was! We had WAY WAY WAY overdesigned our foundations and cost the client millions of extra dollars! The construction guys and the other contractor had a good laugh at our expense.
I then asked them to compare the steel on both structures. Our structure had less steel than the other structure. To make a long story short, we were smart enough to compare the relative cost of more steel to more concrete. The cost of more concrete was cheaper in that part of the world, so we made structural decisions (this is the complexity that is missed when people simply look at the size of foundations) to cause more load go to the foundations. The total installed cost of our structure ended up being millions of dollars less than the other structure. After I explained the situation (the construction guys never quite understood because they just know big foundations are bad, very bad), I jokingly asked the client if he would like for me to reduce the foundations and increase the steel since he WANTED smaller foundations. We had a good laugh and he declined because what he REALLY WANTED was a few extra million dollars to use to purchase materials for bad contractors that weren’t as smart as SunBat Muppet, P.E.
P.S. If we polled our clients and our construction guys and asked them if they would prefer larger foundations or smaller foundations, they would always choose smaller foundations. The poll would be flawed and steel guys would get rich.
-
^^^
...frickin' genius, I tellsya. :D
Design by committee is a horrible, horrible idea the vast majority of the time. Online games are very much not one of the exceptions to that rule.
Wiley.
-
Exactly Sunbat.
What happens is that the customer translates his wants into an end product, and then ask for the end product not what he wants. But in the customers mind they are the same thing.
Translating want's/desires/needs into products is almost by definition what engineering is.
HiTech
-
Translating want's/desires/needs into products is almost by definition what engineering is.
It also describes late night 1-900 number advertising perfectly as well. :devil
-
P.S. If we polled our clients and our construction guys and asked them if they would prefer larger foundations or smaller foundations, they would always choose smaller foundations. The poll would be flawed and steel guys would get rich.
....so....you want HTC to make airplanes...out of steel and concrete...?
- oldman (so confused)
-
Ive been a Tattoo artist for 23 years...and most certainly the customer is NOT always right, personally I cant stand the arena caps, is it gonna make me quit?..... nope, would the "cesspool" of one arena make me quit?......nope would I enjoy one arena? hell ya I was here when there was only one main so remember perfectly well what it was like, same as it is today, just in one arena, the hords, the ganging, the avoidance, the 200 cesspool was just the same, if someone quits because of the "banter" on 200...well they just don't belong, go play xbox and then tell me 200 is bad, haha 200 is mild.
this game is by far the best in its class bar none.......do I like every decision that HTC makes? nope do I think HTC knows what he is doing? I would be an idiot if I thought he didn't. the guy may not be the best "people person", but when it comes to this game he knows what he is doing, I for one em glad he made it, for I have had many many hours of enjoyment, oh so many :t
and another thing I gotta :salute HTC for is the fact that he actually listens and gets involved with his product, here he is responding to his customers, not many owners will do that.
personally I wish you, HTC would implement a zone eny, you have said this game is about "Combat" and thats the reason I am here, I combat the hord, but what kind of combat is that? it would be better if say I am fighting 6 cons (any multi number would work) and I actually get to kill some of those cons, my perk bonus would be higher if say I was fighting just one. and the perks for the cons that got my kill would be lower, this may or may not make people decide to stay out of the horde so much.
but ether way you do it does not matter to me, I will be here as long as possible and bearing no Real life issues I will always be here :aok
-
For the record, my ideas are just something I thought of that I felt may help the situation. Personally, I'm not all that unhappy with the current setup. I feel that yes it needs improvement but I also fear that too many changes may end up worsening things.
If my ideas help HTC then I'm glad I could help! If not then.. oh well. No loss on my part! I just got tired of seeing everyone complaining about the caps, but never offering any kind of a solution.
I can not count the number of times I have seen post from people who say "I'm quiting because of ....." and when you go look if they did delete their account they never did.
This kind of reminds me of customers who bring their cars in with a serious safety issue. We check it out and give them a price they did not want to hear. The #1 excuse used is "That's too much.. I'm just going to go trade it in" which, if you translate it means "I don't believe you and I'm too cheap to fix it so just give me my car back!"
Three months later that same car is back for an oil change, usually with the same exact safety problem. When confronted again about the issue they say "Erhrrm.. Yeah... I'm saving up for a down payment" or some other bull like that.
A month later that same car is towed in with that part finally failing, causing even more damage to other parts, and they end up paying us twice the price to fix it than they would have paid in the first place! It just cracks me up.
Then there are the customers who need $100 worth of brakes, and instead of spending the money they go and trade it in on a new car instead. I never did understand how buying a $25,000 car can be cheaper than spending $100 to fix an otherwise good vehicle?! It just shows that many customer (ok most) are simply CLUELESS. I've found that over the years selling repair work to customers, you get better results if you TELL the customer what you are going to do instead of asking them. If they have a problem with it, they'll let you know. 95% of the time if you ASK them they simply don't know how to respond, usually because they simply don't know enough about it to feel confident in their decision, so you have to take on the confidence for them.
-
Got love this, lets not look at the Elephant, but dismiss it as nothing more then coincidence. "and numbers went up for a few months". But then again if you really had any info you would know the duration. Because a few months was not what happened.
Since you are willing to dismiss it as coincidence, no data I could ever show you could convince you otherwise because "coincidence" covers all.
I will concede the fact that there was a player spike after the split and the cause of that spike was in at least partly due to the split. I also agree that there is a stagnation point in a one arena environment as the population increases, gameplay will inevitably start to decrease which may cause a few lost subscriptions for a myriad of reasons based on the particular customer.
BUT....
The cause and effect relationship between an arena split and player increase as you explain it on the boards if often very misleading. A split should only create a player increase if one arena is passed its stagnation point. Stagnation point should be based on different factors such as map size, game play dynamics, and player interaction.
There is however, a low stagnation point as well in which two arenas can meet if numbers drop too much. In this case, if you combined the arenas back into one and where this one arena is now between the two extreme stagnation points, you should have a player spike as well, just like you did when you split the arenas due to the high point. Does this mean that simply joining arenas causes an increase in subcriptions? No, just like it does not simply create a spike when you split arenas. It's all dependent based on when you do it.
I'm curious, in a worst case scenario, for whatever reason, player numbers dropped to the point when two arenas were below this 'low stagnation point', would you rejoin the arenas? The point is, when you make a statement that splitting the arenas caused a player spike and offer no further explanation, you imply there is a direct cause and effect relationship there, when that is clearly not the case.
I'm sure you know all of this already, and maybe this is what you knew of early in our conversation that you "chose not to explain".
-
I'm curious, in a worst case scenario, for whatever reason, player numbers dropped to the point when two arenas were below this 'low stagnation point', would you rejoin the arenas? The point is, when you make a statement that splitting the arenas caused a player spike and offer no further explanation, you imply there is a direct cause and effect relationship there, when that is clearly not the case.
It is a direct cause and effect relationship given the condition at the time we did it. Obviously a split with 2 customers would not be an increase. I have also many times said that there is an optimum number of players in an arena for game play. This does conditionality the split.
As far as to how small of a need to join them, why do you think we now switch between the 2 modes. Obviously I believe off peak times does not warrant an arena split.
he cause and effect relationship between an arena split and player increase as you explain it on the boards if often very misleading. A split should only create a player increase if one arena is passed its stagnation point. Stagnation point should be based on different factors such as map size, game play dynamics, and player interaction.
Do you remember all the things we implemented and tried before the split to accommodate more players in 1 arena? Do you remember when each kill was shown to all, but had to be taken out due to increasing numbers? I would have to go back and check readmes to be able to list all the things that changed to keep everyone in 1 arena. I believe even in our first write up we stated we had reached a point of stagnation, so yes we did our best to explain all.
HiTech
-
It is a direct cause and effect relationship given the condition at the time we did it. Obviously a split with 2 customers would not be an increase. I have also many times said that there is an optimum number of players in an arena for game play. This does conditionality the split.
As far as to how small of a need to join them, why do you think we now switch between the 2 modes. Obviously I believe off peak times does not warrant an arena split.
Do you remember all the things we implemented and tried before the split to accommodate more players in 1 arena? Do you remember when each kill was shown to all, but had to be taken out due to increasing numbers? I would have to go back and check readmes to be able to list all the things that changed to keep everyone in 1 arena. I believe even in our first write up we stated we had reached a point of stagnation, so yes we did our best to explain all.
HiTech
You know what, you're absolutely correct. Sorry for doubting. My faith was shaken but ye have restoreth.
-
Well done hitech, it seems that you have convinced even some hard core opposition that what they want is bad for them and they just didnt see it before. Hard to believe so many people like baloney.
I know that customers are not ALWAYS right, but it is not an outdated adage. And yes it did refer to placating irate customers but at it's core it means more than that and always has. It is still a rock solid fundamental of business that everyone here seems to be misinterpreting my reason for bring it up.
Oh and btw, many companies practice ignoring what the customers ask for, but not because it's good for the customer or they dont know what they want. NO it is something a little more uderhanded than that. That practice that you are referring to is usually part of something akin to planned obsolescence. Companies know customers want a dozen viable features in a new cell phone. The manufacturers give the customers 2 and save 3 for next years model. It even kinda sounded like thats what "company #2" was up to in that article about what customers want.
I am not suggesting that we make policy choices for you. I am suggesting the product we pay for BE WHAT WE WANTED when we came here and not be a frustrating experience or become so inconvenient that people get fed up and leave.
And for those of you who keep comparing this issue with your professions, we are not talking about Mcdonalds. We are not irate customers demanding you give us 100 bucks worth of free hamburgers. whether its a single arena or split arena it doesnt change hitechs expense reports. What we are asking for is not going to break him. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us are here because we wanted to play a MASSIVELY multiplayer game! THATS WHAT BROUGHT US HERE!
Ive never played it, but WW2online doesnt seem to have a problem with 1000 players arenas that Ive heard of. And not to pull any punches here, but I think they are <<<<COOUU-winningtherace-GGHHH>>>>
If anyone didnt like the cesspool of playing with 700 guys, why would they have come? OK maybe they didnt know. So did you ask them why they got disgusted and left? Or have you repeated "polls are useless" so many times that you actually believe that asking some guy who downloaded your game...."Hey, Hitech here. Creator of Aces High. We noticed that you tried our game online but didnt subscribe. Did you have a problem with the software or did you have a bad experience with the game? We really want to know what you think so that we can improve our game so that maybe in the future we can make the experience better.".....is actually a waste of time? I mean come on, If the guy didnt like the cesspool, he probably has no qualms about being up front with you. Then you would have facts.
AH is not the only option and all the other options are cozy little get togethers that are supposedly the more appealing healthy type game play you say comes with smaller numbers. Well I gotta tell ya, thats BS. Ive played 8 player AH, Ive played IL2, and MSCFS all online. Not only were they just as caustic as AH can be sometimes, but in many cases they were worse for the same reason that keeps getting ignored here, because absolutely no one dealt with the problems that you refer to as the cesspool. At least in AH we have some controls in place, but you wont add more despite your own admission that the larger the group the more policing needs to be done. And I dont feel any more anonymous with 700 players than I do with 400.
You talk about an elephant in the room, so your solution is to remove the big elephant and replace it with 2 smaller ones. There are weeds in your garden so you put a fence down the middle. The crime rate has gone up, but you dont want to increase the size of the police force. You refer to the problems as "symptoms." So you have a disease and your response is to split the symptoms up and forget you have the disease. Ahhh but you say you didnt forget, you cured it. If that's the case, I dare you to say what the symptoms were that have disappeared from our AH lives.
"As a small business success strategy, delivering what customers want or selling commodities they need, is, as Mark Twain said, "like the difference between lightning and a lightning bug."
Write this on a rock: Find out what humans want, deliver it and charge for it." - Jim Blasingame is the host of The Small Business Advocate Show.
http://www.timesdaily.com/article/20100502/ARTICLES/5025008?Title=Find-out-what-customers-want-not-what-they-need
So charge me 20 bucks a month and give me a populated 700 player arena!
-
This is not the way I've seen the world work. Asking the question can be very detrimental. No matter which way an answer comes out, you upset many of your customers because you didn't listen to THEIR idea.
It is similar to the idea, it is much easier to ask forgiveness then permission.
What you are forgetting is that in the end the answer you really wish is what the will the customer do with their pocket book. Polls will never show the true representation of this. I can not count the number of times I have seen post from people who say "I'm quiting because of ....." and when you go look if they did delete their account they never did.
History has shown us that very rarely is it a good idea to ask a question, take a poll,announce a change before time that you know will be controversial. All it ends up doing is getting everyone upset before they even see the details.
HiTech
Ok, you've made a believer of me. I will follow.
-
Muzic, is that article you posted your local paper? I ask because it is my local paper. lol
-
WALL OF TEXT
I'd just quit if I was so dissatisfied as you. Or, are there no other alternatives and you feel forced to stay no matter what, continuing to whine that it would be better if....
Find out what humans want....
Lets see. One over populated arena. Subscriptions no longer growing. Split arenas. Subscriptions growing.
What did humans want?
wrongway
-
I'd just quit if I was so dissatisfied as you. Or, are there no other alternatives and you feel forced to stay no matter what, continuing to whine that it would be better if....
wrongway
x
Last I saw here was a good discussion. Please try to add to it. Opinion suppression is not the discussion.
-
Hey, Muzik . . . ever hear of New Coke? Do you remember what lead up to them replacing the old Coke with the New Coke? They asked the customers what they wanted. Did taste tests. Everyone they asked loved it.
When they released it, sales plummetted, and they had a consumer revolt. And they then put it back the way it was. Not so much because of the protests, but because SALES PLUMMETTED.
So, two points. First, HiTech is absolutely right when he says what the customer really wants and what they say they want are often not the same. Second, if the arena split was as bad as you make it out to be to the player base at large, then HTC's sales would have PLUMMETTED. And had sales plummetted, HTC would have done the same as Coke and reversed the decision.
Since he has not, I am comfortable in saying that you, sir, are most certainly in a tiny minority of players for whom the split arenas are a big deal. So I suggest that it if causes you such angst as you describe, perhaps this is not the place for you, and you should move on. Bubye.
If HiTech wishes to bill me for your cancelled subscription, I'm good with that.
-
x
Last I saw here was a good discussion. Please try to add to it. Opinion suppression is not the discussion.
Well done hitech, it seems that you have convinced even some hard core opposition that what they want is bad for them and they just didnt see it before. Hard to believe so many people like baloney.
Actually, Mr, Muzik has been rather insulting IMO, both in this snippet and elsewhere, which is not exactly "good discussion." I'm wondering how long it will be allowed to continue.
-
why not go to blue? blue is open most times and therefore a good place for squads. of course your squad mates would have to suck it up for the team. unfortunately most fighter jocks have a hard time working for the team.
-
Who's team?
-
Muzic, is that article you posted your local paper? I ask because it is my local paper. lol
Nah, just found it on the net.
-
Hey, Muzik . . . ever hear of New Coke? Do you remember what lead up to them replacing the old Coke with the New Coke? They asked the customers what they wanted. Did taste tests. Everyone they asked loved it.
We're not talking about coke here Einstein. There are no nearly IDENTICAL substitutes out there. And what you dont seem to remember is that they did away with the old coke completely and gave their customers NO CHOICE, just as hitech has done here. How about speculating on what would have happened if Aces High had a "PEPSI" as a competitor.
First, HiTech is absolutely right
If hitech said grass is pink, you'd be right there.
Since he has not, I am comfortable in saying that you, sir, are most certainly in a tiny minority of players for whom the split arenas are a big deal. So I suggest that it if causes you such angst as you describe, perhaps this is not the place for you, and you should move on. Bubye.
You must have missed a few posts son, because about half of the posters here have said that they didnt like the caps. The problem is most of them say something like..."I'm not real happy with the caps, but hitech says..." Translation, "I DONT WANT TO STICK MY NECK OUT THERE"
Actually, Mr, Muzik has been rather insulting IMO, both in this snippet and elsewhere, which is not exactly "good discussion." I'm wondering how long it will be allowed to continue.
I find it rather insulting that someone that I have DEFENDED when people have bashed his game on other sites tells me that Im not smart enough to know what I want and obviously avoids responding.
I also find it insulting that in spite of his rules on flaming and such, intellectually challenged individuals get away with anything as long as they agree with hitech. They are allowed to speak for him on a regular basis and bash paying customers with underhanded comments because they enjoy telling people what hitech does or doesnt want in his game.
So I guess hitech will be happy that you and wrongway are out there running off his undesirable customers. Please, keep up the good work. Now that Il 2 is up to 128 player servers, I may just take your advice!
-
I think you have got it right muzik. It bothers me to no end when the "the customer does not truly know what they want, but I do" philosophy is preached. It really is a slap in the face IMO.
Sadly there is no "pepsi" for aces highs "coke." If there was then the customer may have a bit more power, in the sense you could talk with your feet.
I guess you still could with leaving but for me the MB still is greater than the MC.
-
Now that Il 2 is up to 128 player servers, I may just take your advice!
Really? Well if the arena gets halved again then there would be no reason not to go over there.
-
I am not suggesting that we make policy choices for you. I am suggesting the product we pay for BE WHAT WE WANTED when we came here and not be a frustrating experience or become so inconvenient that people get fed up and leave.
Actually the product is what I want. Who exactly is the "WE" you are referring to? If you think you are speaking for the community, you may be jumping the gun a bit.
Just a happy customer. :banana:
Fred
-
Muzik just so we're clear, I was expressing my opinion, I don't speak for HTC.
I don't see any argument on your part that says anything other than "I want one late war arena all the time." Nothing that you've posted is a reason to change back to the old system. You have a preference and you don't see the advantages to the current system.
I'm sure there are other customers that share your view but the people who are responsible for everything you like about Aces High don't agree with you.
If you think WW2OL is more suitable for you then you should try it out. It's up to you to decide if Aces High is worth 50 cents a day.
-
Muzik: In your last 2 posts.
Your called my reasons "baloney"
Implied I don't listen to my customers, when I'm sitting here listening and responding.
You fail to see "Find out what humans want, deliver it and charge for it" is exactly what I try do, but you confuse assume the words ask for and want are the same thing. Believe me, that was not what Mark Twain was saying. He then would have simply said, give humans what they ask for, not what they need.
"If hitech said grass is pink, you'd be right there."
You accuse people who agree with me as not being able to think.
You state
"Translation, "I DONT WANT TO STICK MY NECK OUT THERE""
For people not want to really speak there minds, when many people here been speaking there minds to change the caps, but some have seen valid reasons for them.
"I also find it insulting that in spite of his rules on flaming and such, intellectually challenged individuals get away with anything as long as they agree with hitech. They are allowed to speak for him on a regular basis and bash paying customers with underhanded comments because they enjoy telling people what hitech does or doesnt want in his game."
You then complain about people flaming and then flame them in the very complaint.
So as far as flaming goes, I would say your doing very well to keeping yourself at the top of the list in this thread.
So just to make sure I understand your desire & position.
I assume you want an uncapped LW arena?
HiTech
-
Sadly there is no "pepsi" for aces highs "coke." If there was then the customer may have a bit more power, in the sense you could talk with your feet.
There are competitors to AH.For some reason the direct competitors used to have more players then us, but now do not.
HiTech
-
I think you have got it right muzik. It bothers me to no end when the "the customer does not truly know what they want, but I do" philosophy is preached. It really is a slap in the face IMO.
If you would ever have been involved in serious software development you would know you should thank Hitech for not doing everything the clients want. It's 100% sure way to create an unusable application. Not in just games, same applies to any software.
The end user wants a million things but 99.999% of times can't see the implications of what he wants or how it affects others.
-
I see two issues and that is it.
1. I can't fly with whom I want to fly with because...
2. The perk bonus sucks in here because the sides are imbalanced...
Hitech has already addressed #2. As for #1, I personally have never waited more than a few minutes to get into a "capped" arena because the numbers equalize pretty quick, or there is lots of movement between the arenas. :salute
-
Well done hitech, it seems that you have convinced even some hard core opposition that what they want is bad for them and they just didnt see it before. Hard to believe so many people like baloney.
whats with the attitude? are you speaking on behalf of the AH players union or what? who elected you to speak for us?
-
I got bored reading after a few pages but, I was reading earlier in the thread about how players spiked after the initial arena split, that was easy to explain, surely it was curiosity. Curiousity to see what difference it had made to the game, curiosity that spreads like wild fire by way of word of mouth. "Did you hear the Late War Arena is splitting?" "Really... Well lets all get on and see what it's all about" and so on. The real data there is that it should be discounted, mainly because it isn't the 'normal service' for the arena.
That issue I have out of the way; When I was in a larger squad and late on the arena caps irritated me because I couldn't join up with my squad, at the time most recent when the larger maps switched into blue for a short time, most of us regulars swapped arenas once word had got around about the map being 'better' in blue. But then all resumed as normal and back into Orange we went before word had got around the whole of the squad about what had been going on with the arena maps. But I don't see arena caps being in the way to anyone other than people want to join up with squaddies and continue working on the same map for the war winning, so that's about 3 or 4 squads of around (guess-timate) 70 people. But that hardly makes up the whole 400-odd people online at peak times between 2 split arenas. I believe for one the hording and ganging is starting to spoil the arenas more than anything else and without the cap system that's more than likely to happen/continue. There's also alot of movement around the arena numbers, one only has to wait a few mins to get into the desired arena anyway.
I like the system as it is, I for one am a happy customer, even if every now and again the caps are in the way, I'd be an uber happy and bouncing off all walls customer if i had mirrors in my plane and the comms system was improved. The off hours arena has been fantastic, spitting up the LW into 2 arenas at peak times has helped the environment, Titanic Tuesday is often a cess pool of horde vs horde with angry/abusive pm's when one often shoots down a cartoon spit16 (of which i have a screenie saved).
If it aint broke don't fix it. And isn't there ENY and perk point bonuses already within the game!?
-
Ive never played it, but WW2online doesnt seem to have a problem with 1000 players arenas that Ive heard of.
I'm not going to dogpile on you muzik, especially since I'm somewhere in the middle here, (I shifted over a little after hitech hit me over the head with a logic hammer), but I think we can agree that there is a number in any game where once you reach it you start to have reduced gameplay quality. I've never played wwiionline but I imagine that 10,000 players in one war would start to degrade gameplay. So if we call this the stagnation point, each game has a different stagnation point depending on the game itself. Maybe wwiionline has a higher stagnation point due to the nature of the game and how much more of generic ww2 combat it encompasses. So maybe 1000 people online in that game is deemed acceptable.
The point is, we can agree there is a stagnation point in a one arena aces high yes? Would 10,000 players on one map work? Clearly not. So what exactly is the stagnation point if it's not around 600-700 as HTC saw fit?
-
Hitech out of curiosity, if we can agree that each arena has stagnation points, high and low, which are a function in part due to the size of the map, why is the size of the map that is being rotated not tied into formula when the arenas are split? Or is it? The point is, a 150 man arena on a giant map is not the same as a 150 man arena on a small map. The low stagnation point is much higher on a giant map, and in that particular example, 150 players on a giant map, gameplay imo is starting to degrade.
-
Hitech out of curiosity, if we can agree that each arena has stagnation points, high and low, which are a function in part due to the size of the map, why is the size of the map that is being rotated not tied into formula when the arenas are split? Or is it? The point is, a 150 man arena on a giant map is not the same as a 150 man arena on a small map. The low stagnation point is much higher on a giant map, and in that particular example, 150 players on a giant map, gameplay imo is starting to degrade.
Because we haven't thought of it before.
May be a good idea,I'm going to have to digest it for a bit.
HiTech
-
Thats a nice point Grizz, I often feel this way about Noon EST-5PM EST with the off hours. 325 people on small maps in my opinion reaches a stagnate point. While I enjoy the maps, but I feel that 325-400 people on a small map leads to horde on horde combat. Unfortunatley in my case this is the time I am most often able to play.
But I am pleased to see HTC working with the clients to try to figure out the happy medium.
-
Because we haven't thought of it before.
May be a good idea,I'm going to have to digest it for a bit.
HiTech
Excellent! IMO, the next thing that needs attention is the arena change early afternoon. Too often in the afternoon there is a really good fight going and it ends cause the arena closes. There must be a better way.. I do not know what it is.. But I know there is a better way..
-
My thought has always been lock the LWOH as far as allowing people to enter. Open Orange in, when the levels equalize then allow people into LWOH (aka Blue).
-
My thought has always been lock the LWOH as far as allowing people to enter. Open Orange in, when the levels equalize then allow people into LWOH (aka Blue).
5Point, the problem with this method is the time it takes to populate the arenas.
The point of the eject is to reach critical mass as fast as possible. If you are only depending on influx, my guess it would take 2-3 hours to get blue and orange to 100 each. VS the 20 mins it normally takes now.
2nd you run into the problem of people staying in the LWOH and then when most of the people are gone, starting to a milk run of bases.
HiTech
-
Very valid point. Ok, back working on my spreadsheets :(
-
5Point, the problem with this method is the time it takes to populate the arenas.
The point of the eject is to reach critical mass as fast as possible. If you are only depending on influx, my guess it would take 2-3 hours to get blue and orange to 100 each. VS the 20 mins it normally takes now.
2nd you run into the problem of people staying in the LWOH and then when most of the people are gone, starting to a milk run of bases.
HiTech
Ergo, my perk incentive idea to switch arenas and super condense this time. That is of course working under the assumption that people would switch for such an incentive.
-
Hitech out of curiosity, if we can agree that each arena has stagnation points, high and low, which are a function in part due to the size of the map, why is the size of the map that is being rotated not tied into formula when the arenas are split? Or is it? The point is, a 150 man arena on a giant map is not the same as a 150 man arena on a small map. The low stagnation point is much higher on a giant map, and in that particular example, 150 players on a giant map, gameplay imo is starting to degrade.
Because we haven't thought of it before.
May be a good idea,I'm going to have to digest it for a bit.
HiTech
Would it be feasible to open and close fields based on arena population? Start out with a small nucleus of bases near the center, as these get either captured or arena population increases a system message would be broadcast and more fields would be opened up? Actually as I sit here thinking as I type it occurs to me that my idea has some serious issues/flaws. :)
-
HiTech, this graph illustrates my point. Of course the numbers are up for debate but I took game play quality at a scale from 1-10 and called game play at "9" as the "stagnation point" (A 1 drop is deemed acceptable). I fit the numbers the best i could as I see them with my experience in this game but nothing more behind them than that.
(http://i379.photobucket.com/albums/oo237/grizz441/arenastagpoints.jpg)
-
What does any of this do to address the overall imbalance between sides in any arena? Or will it help with it?
-
Would it be feasible to open and close fields based on arena population? Start out with a small nucleus of bases near the center, as these get either captured or arena population increases a system message would be broadcast and more fields would be opened up? Actually as I sit here thinking as I type it occurs to me that my idea has some serious issues/flaws. :)
This is the way other online games handle larger maps.. I'm talking fps games that is..
-
What does any of this do to address the overall imbalance between sides in any arena? Or will it help with it?
From what I've seen most of the global numbers have no bearing on what is actually happening on a small scale. So many times the "low numbers" side has no fights and green hordes and the "high numbers" side is getting ganged on both fronts. So...
-
From what I've seen most of the global numbers have no bearing on what is actually happening on a small scale. So many times the "low numbers" side has no fights and green hordes and the "high numbers" side is getting ganged on both fronts. So...
:headscratch: Really? From what you see? Please explain.
-
No need for a graph grizz (but thanks and I believe your estimates are in the ball park), I agreed the moment you made the point that there are different max points for different maps.
The issues are more what happens when you purposely cap 1 arena more then the other. Is the cure worst then the illness ?
HiTech
-
For me caps suck because of this:
I logged in tonight to find the Orange arena maxed out. No biggie, I went to blue.
Blue arena had a single fight going on for me to participate in.
After trying to get into Orange a few more times I made a comment on country to the effect of,"This is why caps suck, I'm forced to take part in a fight I have no interest in." This was followed with the standard idiotic, "Go outside" and "Nobody's holding a gun to your head." comments.
So I just logged. Now I'm typing this and having a cold one. Guess I'll try again later. :lol
-
For me caps suck because of this:
I logged in tonight to find the Orange arena maxed out. No biggie, I went to blue.
Blue arena had a single fight going on for me to participate in.
After trying to get into Orange a few more times I made a comment on country to the effect of,"This is why caps suck, I'm forced to take part in a fight I have no interest in." This was followed with the standard idiotic, "Go outside" and "Nobody's holding a gun to your head." comments.
So I just logged. Now I'm typing this and having a cold one. Guess I'll try again later. :lol
A whine has been recorded. :lol
-
No need for a graph grizz (but thanks and I believe your estimates are in the ball park), I agreed the moment you made the point that there are different max points for different maps.
The issues are more what happens when you purposely cap 1 arena more then the other. Is the cure worst then the illness ?
HiTech
Yea, I don't think that would go over well. The simplest way to utilize this would be just to make sure that the second arena that switches over at the mid day switch is made sure to be a smaller map, and the first one could be a large map or a small map. So not only do you fill and achieve the numbers to the low stagnation point quicker, you also give the player base a constant choice of either a small or large map to play on.
Side point: I am curious how the rest of the player base views the giant maps compared to the smaller ones though, just from a gameplay perspective. Is there even a need for giant maps other then on titanic tuesday? Do they detract, enhance, or have no effect on game play? Couldn't a question like this be asked in a quick online survey? "Do you as a player prefer Larger maps, Smaller maps, Or it does not make a difference." Just to get an idea of if there is a preference there or if it does not matter. That would be a pretty cut and dry questionnaire, which would be difficult for a customer to not know what they are being asked.
-
Side point: I am curious how the rest of the player base views the giant maps compared to the smaller ones though, just from a gameplay perspective. Is there even a need for giant maps other then on titanic tuesday? Do they detract, enhance, or have no effect on game play?
Personally, I think that many of the maps in the rotation are simply poorly designed. So many of them focus play on a very small number of hot spot points. If the map is large or small, it really doesn't matter if the design still focuses the combat on about 3 pairs of opposing airfields.
-
I don't know what the cure is but I do not like the caps 1 bit. My 2 cents.
-
This is the way other online games handle larger maps.. I'm talking fps games that is..
That is where I got the idea, but things currently work a little differently here. For one how would you deal with the "closed' bases? The apparent answer is make them immune to damage so they couldn't be porked before they opened up, but even then any player that monitored arena numbers could figure out when they would open and set up a cap/vulch or roll GV's in there and not present any potential defenders with much of a chance.
Most FPS that use this method have a way of preventing the players from accessing the off limits part of the map which we don't have here.
-
Caps are not a problem - squads separating are. Yesterday I couldn't join orange where the rest of my squad was. I think I might as well quit being in squad since arena caps make it practically impossible to fly with them.
-
Ive never played it, but WW2online doesnt seem to have a problem with 1000 players arenas that Ive heard of. And not to pull any punches here, but I think they are <<<<COOUU-winningtherace-GGHHH>>>>
I wonder how you can make a judgement about it when you haven't played it?
-
I am curious how the rest of the player base views the giant maps compared to the smaller ones though, just from a gameplay perspective.
Personally, I could care less if I ever see a "small" map again. For me, the larger maps provide the fights that I am looking for.
When a small map is up in the LW arenas, there are fewer points of conflict offered. This leads to large amounts of people fighting in the same area and large amounts of countrymen trying to kill the same target(s). The small amount of conflict points does not allow enemy satellite groups to try and attack different areas of the map/front.
When a large map is up, I don't regularly participate in the massive horde on horde attacks. On a large map, I usually see an ongoing conflict between 2 bases with full green and red dar bars going on for hours. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not my cup of tea. What I do is scan the outer edges of the front to look for smaller satellite groups of enemies trying to take base with a moderate amount of players. That is where I get my "juice" and there are a fair amount of people like me that look for the same conflicts.
So, while all the others are fighting in a massive furball between 2 bases (getting their juice), I am able to do my thing and also provide a defense against attacks on the outer edges of the front. When small maps are up, there just aren't that many opportunities for satellite attacks and I find myself weeding my way thru a sea of green trying to get to a target before 5 or 6 of my fellow countrymen get to it.
Remember, Grizz is asking a question, so this is just my personal opinion and what I like. I'm not trying to say this is the way that it has to be, it just the way I like it. When I log into a LW arena and I see a small map, I will either go to the MW arena or log out.
-
That is where I got the idea, but things currently work a little differently here. For one how would you deal with the "closed' bases? The apparent answer is make them immune to damage so they couldn't be porked before they opened up, but even then any player that monitored arena numbers could figure out when they would open and set up a cap/vulch or roll GV's in there and not present any potential defenders with much of a chance.
Most FPS that use this method have a way of preventing the players from accessing the off limits part of the map which we don't have here.
Well, HT has a way of moving the "capital" from the front to the rear. Why not make the bases that are out of play invisible until the front needs to be expanded and then make them appear?
-
Well, HT has a way of moving the "capital" from the front to the rear. Why not make the bases that are out of play invisible until the front needs to be expanded and then make them appear?
wasnt something like this already tried? there were only a few bases available to capture on each front. I think the vestiges of it still appear if you right click on clipboard map. "field order"
-
Slap, I don't think the size of the map is the reason we have horde issues. :D
On the other hand, a small map, once a certain number of players over populate that map you DO lose those smaller fights going on around the edges. The larger maps were made because the "average" population had increased to the point that a small map was ALWAYS over populated. The problem we have now is most times we have too many for a small map, but not enough for a large map.
wasnt something like this already tried? there were only a few bases available to capture on each front. I think the vestiges of it still appear if you right click on clipboard map. "field order"
I think they were talking more along the lines of "undiscovered country" behind country lines. Start with a front or 20 bases to each side, and as you lose them and pull back new bases "appear" that you can use. This way the fronts are smaller (like a small map) but stay small instead of stretching out all over (like a big map).
-
wasnt something like this already tried? there were only a few bases available to capture on each front. I think the vestiges of it still appear if you right click on clipboard map. "field order"
Yes ... that was the predetermined attack track.
-
Yes ... that was the predetermined attack track.
Interesting, that must have been happening during those years I had to skip. All new to me! :eek:
-
From what I've seen most of the global numbers have no bearing on what is actually happening on a small scale. So many times the "low numbers" side has no fights and green hordes and the "high numbers" side is getting ganged on both fronts. So...
I was hoping you would give more detail in that statement, not sure where your going. I find it to mean the cart comes before the horse if you will.
Global numbers has everything to do with what is happening on a small scale in so many different ways that you cannot simply ignore that, It has even a more profound effect when there is such an imbalance in the arenas and which is the common denominator with almost every issue there is in this game to some extent.
As I have pointed out, no matter how many players are in a particular map either it large or small, caps or no caps, if the imbalance between the sides is not addressed in these arenas then we will end up with more of the same that we have now no matter what HT does with the arenas.
Your statement of "So many times the "low numbers" side has no fights and green hordes and the "high numbers" side is getting ganged on both fronts. So..."
So.... As you see here you have made my point. Cause and Effect, but lets look at the other side of that coin, how about when the high numbers side is steam rolling a field because the "low numbers" cant put up any defense to it when both low numbers side are fighting it out. You chose to look at one side of the issue and ignore the other? Why? Which is more healthier for the game? Why should any 1 side or 2 sides be able to outnumbers any other side with such a large amount of players?
I haven't seen too many if at all that have come on to the boards and proclaim their profound love of being railroaded from the "High numbers" side that is able to steam roll bases or any opposition and having their bellybutton handed to them day in and day out, matter of fact I would say you have seen the complete opposite of how many players are dissatisfied with that..... So..
-
Slap, I don't think the size of the map is the reason we have horde issues. :D
On the other hand, a small map, once a certain number of players over populate that map you DO lose those smaller fights going on around the edges. The larger maps were made because the "average" population had increased to the point that a small map was ALWAYS over populated. The problem we have now is most times we have too many for a small map, but not enough for a large map.
Fugi ... I'm not buying it. Every time there is a large map up, there are always 2 or 3 base points of conflict that attract massive players vs massive players that goes on for hours. If there was say only 100 people in the LW arena, on a large map, then why is there not also this same conflict but with lesser numbers? Does there have to be 300+ players on a large map for this type of conflict to take place ... I think not. Those that enjoy the ongoing conflict between 2 base will be there and it has nothing to do with the amount of players in the arena ... the amount of players participating in the conflict may be smaller, but it will still evolve in time.
I don't think that you can force a certain type of map upon an LW arena using population because you can never really know how an arena will grow. I have seen LW Blue out populate LW Orange on occasions and I wondered why. I logged into the LW O and instantly knew why ... the map sucked compared to the map that was in LW B.
And for those who say .. "I can't find a fight" ... when LW Blue is what they consider low numbers ... I call bollocks on that too. I have no trouble finding fights under those conditions, especially when I go looking for one. Those that say they can't find a fight actually mean that their isn't an instant fight that they can jump into the second they enter the arena.
You want a fight in an under populated arena ... grab a handful of guys with rockets and bombs ... attack a town just to attack it with no intention of taking the base ... and you will get a fight. This is the seed for all fights in AH ... some just don't want to plant them ... then just want to be there for the harvest ... and those are the ones that cry "I can't find a fight".
I can't tell you how many times when I flew with the 13th TAS, Toad and I would up F6Fs or FM2s with rockets ... fire them at a town ... and they start upping like mad hornets ... and then the "fight" was on ... sometimes for hours.
-
Interesting, that must have been happening during those years I had to skip. All new to me! :eek:
Yeah ... it was a kind of cool concept but HT canned it. It was meant to quell the hordes from not fighting each other and milking different parts of the map. The intention was with the predetermined attack track, horde would be forced to face horde ... if they wanted to take base. It did not stop fighting in other parts of the map that were not on the track, you just wouldn't be able to capture a base that was not on the track.
-
Hordes are hordes and your going to find them on ANY size map, period.
300 players on a small map is about the limit from what I've seen. Anything over that and the fronts lose those bases where you can up a couple of F6s and start a fight. If you try they quickly become part of the main battle. With the large maps these little battles can and often do go un-noticed. To some this is the advantage they want to grab a base quick (if you up to defend they disappear). If you up F6s and try to start something you either get in clean and nobody ups to defend, or you get a quick token defense by they disappear as soon as they know it's not a capture attempt and they run back to the "main battle". Or finally you run into like minded players and get a nice little battle going.
The large map has TOO many places to hide/watch and dilutes the fights, and small maps get over populated leaving little room for small side battles.
I'd love to see a "medium" map (69 bases) designed totally around strategic tactics. Meaning not so much a "capture path", but with each "path" of capture to have different challenges. Say while capturing V12 looks good because it has a spawn to A22, A22 doesn't have spawns to V12, but it does spawn to the 2 bases they are the only ones to cover V12. Causing the fight to spread out from V12 if they want to keep it. Or, and airfield that spawns to 4 bases all close by, but is protected by a 7k base 20 miles out. The challenge being either take the high ground first, or grab the low and defend while grabbing a few of the others around to use in support to grab the high ground.
Today the challenge is to grab the base and they have figured out how to do that with ease..... bring lots of friends. Make the maps the challenge to the win the war types. If you are the western country on Mindenao you KNOW your not going to lose that war, not because you team is better, but because the map is better on that side.
-
Hordes are hordes and your going to find them on ANY size map, period.
I'm not sure if this is directed at my responses or your just stating this in general. For me, I could care less about the hordes in LW. They mean nothing to me ... I don't participate in them, nor do I oppose them ... not worth my time in either case. They can horde all they want ... it does not effect me or what I look for. I avoid them at all costs.
The large map has TOO many places to hide/watch and dilutes the fights, and small maps get over populated leaving little room for small side battles.
This is where I disagree ... I don't think the fights are diluted ... how many planes does it take to make a good fight? For me it can range from 1 v 1 up to 20 v 20 or anything in between. Once it starts to get higher than that, I becomes more like a hyena pack and each hyena is fighting for a small piece of meat. At that point, that is when I start to look for another fight.
What I am trying to say is the quality of a "fight" is not determined by achieving a fixed number of planes in conflict, so as far as I am concerned there is no such thing as a "diluted" fight.
I love scanning the map looking for that obscure base blinking and try to figure out the possible attack strategy that may be coming its way ... or seeing the base on the outer edge blink because a handful of guys are upping off a CV to try and sneak a base. There are a fair amount of players that do the same thing as I do. Almost every time I move to base on the outer edges that is blinking, I see the same guys upping right along with me.
-
Muzik: In your last 2 posts.
HiTech
Out of respect for you Im going to respond to this one by email!
-
Personally, I could care less if I ever see a "small" map again. For me, the larger maps provide the fights that I am looking for.
When a small map is up in the LW arenas, there are fewer points of conflict offered. This leads to large amounts of people fighting in the same area and large amounts of countrymen trying to kill the same target(s). The small amount of conflict points does not allow enemy satellite groups to try and attack different areas of the map/front.
When a large map is up, I don't regularly participate in the massive horde on horde attacks. On a large map, I usually see an ongoing conflict between 2 bases with full green and red dar bars going on for hours. Nothing wrong with that, it's just not my cup of tea. What I do is scan the outer edges of the front to look for smaller satellite groups of enemies trying to take base with a moderate amount of players. That is where I get my "juice" and there are a fair amount of people like me that look for the same conflicts.
So, while all the others are fighting in a massive furball between 2 bases (getting their juice), I am able to do my thing and also provide a defense against attacks on the outer edges of the front. When small maps are up, there just aren't that many opportunities for satellite attacks and I find myself weeding my way thru a sea of green trying to get to a target before 5 or 6 of my fellow countrymen get to it.
Remember, Grizz is asking a question, so this is just my personal opinion and what I like. I'm not trying to say this is the way that it has to be, it just the way I like it. When I log into a LW arena and I see a small map, I will either go to the MW arena or log out.
And that's a completely valid argument. You play mostly at peak US times yes? Imo those smaller fights on big maps that you enjoy dry up when it is not a peak time.
-
Hordes are hordes and your going to find them on ANY size map, period.
300 players on a small map is about the limit from what I've seen. Anything over that and the fronts lose those bases where you can up a couple of F6s and start a fight. If you try they quickly become part of the main battle. With the large maps these little battles can and often do go un-noticed. To some this is the advantage they want to grab a base quick (if you up to defend they disappear). If you up F6s and try to start something you either get in clean and nobody ups to defend, or you get a quick token defense by they disappear as soon as they know it's not a capture attempt and they run back to the "main battle". Or finally you run into like minded players and get a nice little battle going.
The large map has TOO many places to hide/watch and dilutes the fights, and small maps get over populated leaving little room for small side battles.
I'd love to see a "medium" map (69 bases) designed totally around strategic tactics. Meaning not so much a "capture path", but with each "path" of capture to have different challenges. Say while capturing V12 looks good because it has a spawn to A22, A22 doesn't have spawns to V12, but it does spawn to the 2 bases they are the only ones to cover V12. Causing the fight to spread out from V12 if they want to keep it. Or, and airfield that spawns to 4 bases all close by, but is protected by a 7k base 20 miles out. The challenge being either take the high ground first, or grab the low and defend while grabbing a few of the others around to use in support to grab the high ground.
Today the challenge is to grab the base and they have figured out how to do that with ease..... bring lots of friends. Make the maps the challenge to the win the war types. If you are the western country on Mindenao you KNOW your not going to lose that war, not because you team is better, but because the map is better on that side.
I think we do have a couple "medium maps" actually. That newer one "Grinder" is it? That one seems to be the perfect size. But I agree that medium size maps, i.e. maps that have # of bases somewhere in between the two polarizing opposites were in rotation.
-
And that's a completely valid argument. You play mostly at peak US times yes? Imo those smaller fights on big maps that you enjoy dry up when it is not a peak time.
Yes typically between 5:30 PM EST to whenever I get tired or bored. I have popped in off peak and yes, the action is far and few between but I still can find a fight if I start one.
-
I was hoping you would give more detail in that statement, not sure where your going. I find it to mean the cart comes before the horse if you will.
Global numbers has everything to do with what is happening on a small scale in so many different ways that you cannot simply ignore that, It has even a more profound effect when there is such an imbalance in the arenas and which is the common denominator with almost every issue there is in this game to some extent.
As I have pointed out, no matter how many players are in a particular map either it large or small, caps or no caps, if the imbalance between the sides is not addressed in these arenas then we will end up with more of the same that we have now no matter what HT does with the arenas.
Your statement of "So many times the "low numbers" side has no fights and green hordes and the "high numbers" side is getting ganged on both fronts. So..."
So.... As you see here you have made my point. Cause and Effect, but lets look at the other side of that coin, how about when the high numbers side is steam rolling a field because the "low numbers" cant put up any defense to it when both low numbers side are fighting it out. You chose to look at one side of the issue and ignore the other? Why? Which is more healthier for the game? Why should any 1 side or 2 sides be able to outnumbers any other side with such a large amount of players?
I haven't seen too many if at all that have come on to the boards and proclaim their profound love of being railroaded from the "High numbers" side that is able to steam roll bases or any opposition and having their bellybutton handed to them day in and day out, matter of fact I would say you have seen the complete opposite of how many players are dissatisfied with that..... So..
Dads, I'm surprised that you have not seen this and I'm sure many here would back me up, but the low side from a global perspective does not always tell the full story. A lot of the time most of the low sides force will be hording the overpopulated country's one front, and the overpopulated's other front is being horded by the other medium sized country. In a three country war global numbers do not tell the whole story very well from my experience. In fact, it almost seems random of which side there will be a fight on. The traditional Muppet policy is to go to the low numbers side, but a lot of the time there just aren't any fights. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this.
-
The traditional Muppet policy is to go to the low numbers side, but a lot of the time there just aren't any fights. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this.
I have experienced this also. I don't think that anyone can state, with any certainty, what will transpire on each of the 3 fronts depending upon the population of each country. As far as I am concerned, it just might as well be determined by the phases of the moon ... it could/would be just as accurate.
I do remember the day, before the new capture parameters were put in place, you could bet the ranch that the 2 most populated countries would gang the lower country from all fronts to race to the reset.
-
Local ENY would curve down the hoards......and Grizz is absolutely correct on the low number side, actually being the side that's hoarding, it's aggravating, and seems to be what happens more often then not.
-
Really? Well if the arena gets halved again then there would be no reason not to go over there.
I dont know all the details, but I think it is a new version called Cliffs of Dover. They may have servers that size now for all I know. I just know that it is supposed to get raised to 128.
<S>
-
Local ENY would curve down the hoards......and Grizz is absolutely correct on the low number side, actually being the side that's hoarding, it's aggravating, and seems to be what happens more often then not.
Hey Ink, are you back flying with us?
-
Hey Ink, are you back flying with us?
That I am :D
-
Awesome, welcome back to the addiction. :salute
-
Thank ya glad to be back :salute
-
See rule #4
Stop the personal insults / attacks.
HiTech
-
There are competitors to AH.For some reason the direct competitors used to have more players then us, but now do not.
HiTech
Really, who were they and when?
Air Warrior? Are you taking credit for shutting them down? Warbirds? I have the vague memory that they were dieing before you ever started AH though I never played. Fighter Ace? Maybe. But then fighter ace wasnt really a direct competitor because the game was so different. WW2online. Not. Il2 Not.
There is no "Pepsi."
-
Really, who were they and when?
Air Warrior? Are you taking credit for shutting them down? Warbirds? I have the vague memory that they were dieing before you ever started AH though I never played. Fighter Ace? Maybe. But then fighter ace wasnt really a direct competitor because the game was so different. WW2online. Not. Il2 Not.
There is no "Pepsi."
Muzik: I created Warbirds. And yes when we started they we not getting smaller. After the entire dev staff left then new game manager started implement all the thing many players were asking for. Did major change of flight models. They went to a historical arena with Axis vs Allies. Changed gunnery lethality. And many other small changes. ALL of these changes were vocally demanded by customers, and each one took a few more away, and created a game where new people were less likely to stay.
Yes fighter ace was a direct competitor. I don't know how you think they were not. They made different choices on how to build the game. But yes they are no longer here.
HiTech
-
but I think we can agree that there is a number in any game where once you reach it you start to have reduced gameplay quality. I've never played wwiionline but I imagine that 10,000 players in one war would start to degrade gameplay. So if we call this the stagnation point, each game has a different stagnation point depending on the game itself. Maybe wwiionline has a higher stagnation point due to the nature of the game and how much more of generic ww2 combat it encompasses. So maybe 1000 people online in that game is deemed acceptable.
The point is, we can agree there is a stagnation point in a one arena aces high yes? Would 10,000 players on one map work? Clearly not. So what exactly is the stagnation point if it's not around 600-700 as HTC saw fit?
No we dont agree on this. It is not the numbers that is the problem. It's the lack of control. I have never played ww2online either so I dont know how their game is set up except that they have a rank system that allows players to control other players. I believe that higher ranking players decide where the offensives are and there is a limit to how many players can go to certain locations. So the entire Allied army is not allowed to focus on one single part of the enemy. NO HORDING!
And by having a rank system, there is always someone in charge of policing the group. I think the commanders can reject players requests to join their offensive.
No, 10000 people would only degrade game play if there was no structure to the game and they were all allowed horde a single base! If there was a structure to the game that prevented that and if there were EFFECTIVE moderators in place to prevent players from abusing other players verbally or otherwise then it would be doable.
You can look at it this way. We have "Kill Shooter" turned on why? Because there is no control in AH to keep some spaz from shooting his own guys just for the fun of it. Say we had (as an example only) 1 moderator for every 10 guys and kill shooter was turned off. If those moderators made fair and level headed judgments they would surely notice that the spaz was a new guy with a sick sense of humor or that he was normally a non problematic guy that for some reason just jumped countries and started shooting at one guy. The mod would realize this is someone who is pissed off at someone and is getting out of line in his behavior.
The mod would immediately warn the new guy and eject him from the game if needed. He would punish the normally non problematic player to an extent that would teach him to not do it again or be banned from the game. So for the most part intentional studmuffinging would never be a problem. Only then, accidental fragging would be a problem. So the mod gets a complaint about fragging. He knows the guy who did the fragging and knows that he is not a spaz or someone prone to getting out of hand so the incident is recorded, but no one is punished because it is determined accidental.
The down side is you might get fragged accidentally, but the up side is guys have to think twice about cutting off someone who is already shooting at the bad guy. So you would start to see less kill stealing and less of 5 guys shooting over each others shoulders. No it doesnt cure all if it, but there starts to be some order in the game as opposed to every man for himself. Kill shooter is a necessity because the prevailing wisdom is that the group can police itself. If that's the case then why do we need kill shooter? Self policing on the internet does not work. If it did there wouldnt be FBI agents digging for pedophiles. There is no consequence to your actions and the report function is a joke. This is why there is a cesspool.
How do you figure ww2online has "generic" gameplay? They have a command and control system in place just like every military in the world. WE have Lord of the Flies
-
A dueling ladder is already hard enough just in volume, and you're saying you want the whole AH population i.e. thousands, moderated (by volunteers, right?) on something as vague as accidental friendly fire? Volunteers means someone not getting paid, for the job of taking his hands off the stick at random times so that he can evaluate a substantial volume of reports. The whole thing is already way more complicated and difficult than automated short-circuit: killshooter.
Why would "moderated" friendly fire cure kill stealing? It's not hard at all to maneuver for a safe shot at a TKO'd plane, and being vulnerable to kill-stealing revenge TK's wouldn't work since the revenge TKer gets punished IE you're still trending towards unmoderated kill stealing only with a major admin overhead to boot.
KS is a necessity because the p.wisdom is the group can't police itself.
You need to give a more comprehensive demonstration of your command structure proposal. Without details it could be either very good or very bad. Personally I wouldn't want a command structure where I'm forced to play another player's idea of "fun". The toolsheder/furballer debates have already proven that a command structure has the potential to piss off a major part of the players.
-
Muzik. Stop. Please.
-
Muzik: I created Warbirds. And yes when we started they we not getting smaller. After the entire dev staff left then new game manager started implement all the thing many players were asking for. Did major change of flight models. They went to a historical arena with Axis vs Allies. Changed gunnery lethality. And many other small changes. ALL of these changes were vocally demanded by customers, and each one took a few more away, and created a game where new people were less likely to stay.
Yes fighter ace was a direct competitor. I don't know how you think they were not. They made different choices on how to build the game. But yes they are no longer here.
HiTech
So are you suggesting that those customers flocked to you because they wanted to be where they knew they wouldnt get their requests granted?
Warbirds "went to a historical arena with Axis vs Allies..."
So Warbirds took away their right to choose and Fighter Ace never had the right that I am aware. You had to be US, JAP, GER, USSR, or BRI.
The only conclusion I draw from that is that customers have made it clear they want to fly what they want, when they want. They dont want to have to jump from allies to axis to fly different planes. (KIND OF LIKE NOT JUMPING FROM ORANGE TO BLUE) They want to pick a plane and go right beside their friends and not forced to deal with the hassle of changing sides.
-
A dueling ladder is already hard enough just in volume, and you're saying you want the whole AH population i.e. thousands, moderated (by volunteers, right?) on something as vague as accidental friendly fire? Volunteers means someone not getting paid, for the job of taking his hands off the stick at random times so that he can evaluate a substantial volume of reports. The whole thing is already way more complicated and difficult than automated short-circuit: killshooter.
Why would "moderated" friendly fire cure kill stealing? It's not hard at all to maneuver for a safe shot at a TKO'd plane, and being vulnerable to kill-stealing revenge TK's wouldn't work since the revenge TKer gets punished IE you're still trending towards unmoderated kill stealing only with a major admin overhead to boot.
KS is a necessity because the p.wisdom is the group can't police itself.
You need to give a more comprehensive demonstration of your command structure proposal. Without details it could be either very good or very bad. Personally I wouldn't want a command structure where I'm forced to play another player's idea of "fun". The toolsheder/furballer debates have already proven that a command structure has the potential to piss off a major part of the players.
I wasnt making a suggestion. I was using an example. And I was crystal clear it wouldnt cure all of it. It would only reduce it and KS is not even the point.
-
I thought so - but your example doesnt prove anything either way because it has no details. It's a philosophical argument and the philosophical counter argument easily beats it: people want to fly what they like when they like. Part of why the historical arenas have always been unpopular.
-
So are you suggesting that those customers flocked to you because they wanted to be where they knew they wouldnt get their requests granted?
Apparently the wishlist forum is a clever ruse to make us believe that HTC listens to their customers. :devil
I'll give you credit and assume you realize that if two customers have conflicting requests they can't both be granted.
-
So are you suggesting that those customers flocked to you because they wanted to be where they knew they wouldnt get their requests granted?
I believe that what HiTech is trying to tell you is that customers flocked to Aces High because after getting what they demanded in the other game, the game sucked and they left to find what they really wanted. A better game(Aces High).
-
So are you suggesting that those customers flocked to you because they wanted to be where they knew they wouldnt get their requests granted?
No, they came here because the flight modeling (and smoothing code) initially was a bit better and now, they come here because they want to play with more than 5 guys.
In fact, I'll bet there hasn't been an exodus this large since the Bering Strait land bridge.
-
No, they came here because the flight modeling (and smoothing code) initially was a bit better and now, they come here because they want to play with more than 5 guys.
In fact, I'll bet there hasn't been an exodus this large since the Bering Strait land bridge.
I agree with completely!
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of us are here because we wanted to play a MASSIVELY multiplayer game! THATS WHAT BROUGHT US HERE!
-
It'd be less massive with uncapped arenas.
-
I came here 15 months ago from Warbirds with a squad of 20 guys. We all left at once.
There were fewer and fewer players to fight against.
Updates were few and far between and were never right and then you would have to wait forever for the fix.
There was virtually no communication between players and those who ran or made or fixed the game.
It was just one guy from the Warbirds squad that first came here and tried it out. I really did not want to leave but the game was slowly dying and it looked like there was no future and it was never going to really be updated.
The first week here was murder. It was harder, there was much more to it and more to learn.
So, here I am. EXTREMELY happy playing here.
Is it perfect? No.
Do I need perfect to have fun? No.
Does it keep getting better ? Yes.
Do I trust HTC to listen to his customers and make the right decisions? Yes.
The worst part of this game is the folks that do nothing but complain. These people are the "Glass 97% Full" people, because it's sure alot more than half but they are so focused on what they percieve as that last 3% they they just absolutely must have, or they are miserable and they think that last 3% is killing the fun.
Be responsible for your own happiness. If you are confused, and don't know where to start to turn you own attitude around, if I may humbly suggest, read my sig and try it.
-
So are you suggesting that those customers flocked to you because they wanted to be where they knew they wouldnt get their requests granted?
Customers flocked to WB because it was the best game out there for us virtual pilots. Sadly, HiTech sold it to Wild Bill and then WB went into an ever rapidly increasing decline. For a great deal of players, switching to the AVP rolling plane set was the last straw and a lot left then. I know that's when I finally cancelled my WB account. Got fed up with all the changes that made a great game start to suck.
Warbirds "went to a historical arena with Axis vs Allies..."
So Warbirds took away their right to choose and Fighter Ace never had the right that I am aware. You had to be US, JAP, GER, USSR, or BRI.
The only conclusion I draw from that is that customers have made it clear they want to fly what they want, when they want. They dont want to have to jump from allies to axis to fly different planes. (KIND OF LIKE NOT JUMPING FROM ORANGE TO BLUE) They want to pick a plane and go right beside their friends and not forced to deal with the hassle of changing sides.
You draw the wrong conclusion because it wasn't the majority that wanted the Ava RPS main arena in WB, it was a rather very vocal minority that was able to drown out the majority in the forums. The new WB owners, who for some reason seemed to base game design decisions on not was best for WB but rather based on the loudest cries on the forums. What was the end result of this change? Far more people left the game and were joining, something that WB has not been able to stem to this day. The only thing that has kept that game around have been the events they run occasionally and on most nights you'll see a general population that is probably no bigger than the population of the MW arena during prime time.
HiTech is correct when he stated that you can't make game design decisions based solely on what the customer demands, iEN is an example of what happens when a game studio does.
ack-ack
-
Dads, I'm surprised that you have not seen this and I'm sure many here would back me up, but the low side from a global perspective does not always tell the full story. A lot of the time most of the low sides force will be hording the overpopulated country's one front, and the overpopulated's other front is being horded by the other medium sized country. In a three country war global numbers do not tell the whole story very well from my experience. In fact, it almost seems random of which side there will be a fight on. The traditional Muppet policy is to go to the low numbers side, but a lot of the time there just aren't any fights. I'm surprised you haven't noticed this.
Oh I completely agree with you that it happens and have seen it, but again its the cart before the horse thinking. Cause and effect. They are attacking that overpopulated side because they are the aggressors, the ones with 40+ players, I have also seen where the underpopulated sides do nothing against the higher populated sides and continue with their own fight. If all sides were more equal, this fight would spread out evenly as well.
I fly the low side and can tell you that the only time when you can take anything against a high side is when their entire side is hording another, (which as of late is the norm) the low number side from what I have observed does not have enough people to put up a formidable attack when the higher number side can easily defend against it (since they can have up to 40 players at times with no eny).
It just don't happen near as often as you make it out to be that a low player side hordes the higher side, it is not the norm since they are spending most of the time defending and not attacking.
Local ENY would curve down the hoards......and Grizz is absolutely correct on the low number side, actually being the side that's hoarding, it's aggravating, and seems to be what happens more often then not.
Are you both drinking from the same well? Local ENY would do nothing to curve down the hoards, just as it does nothing to curve them now.
I don't know who you two are trying to get to eat your BS, well we all know who you want to eat it is.... your not going to convince me otherwise and dont have to, but I will call you out on it when I smell it, start showing some proof in some screen shots.
Hitech, pay close attention and don't get mislead, some of these same people were all about making it easier for the horde to take bases, you see what that did after many people including myself said it would not be a good idea, hordes got bigger as predicted.
Your only problem to solve that would eliminate many issues is the hording created or derived from the massively imbalanced sides when at times creates such an unhealthy environment.
-
Any one else notice this?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309083.0.html
-
Any one else notice this?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309083.0.html
I saw that yesterday night, I just wanted them to keep bashing each other, it is funny
-
Oh I completely agree with you that it happens and have seen it, but again its the cart before the horse thinking. Cause and effect. They are attacking that overpopulated side because they are the aggressors, the ones with 40+ players, I have also seen where the underpopulated sides do nothing against the higher populated sides and continue with their own fight. If all sides were more equal, this fight would spread out evenly as well.
I fly the low side and can tell you that the only time when you can take anything against a high side is when their entire side is hording another, (which as of late is the norm) the low number side from what I have observed does not have enough people to put up a formidable attack when the higher number side can easily defend against it (since they can have up to 40 players at times with no eny).
It just don't happen near as often as you make it out to be that a low player side hordes the higher side, it is not the norm since they are spending most of the time defending and not attacking.
Are you both drinking from the same well? Local ENY would do nothing to curve down the hoards, just as it does nothing to curve them now.
I don't know who you two are trying to get to eat your BS, well we all know who you want to eat it is.... your not going to convince me otherwise and dont have to, but I will call you out on it when I smell it, start showing some proof in some screen shots.
Hitech, pay close attention and don't get mislead, some of these same people were all about making it easier for the horde to take bases, you see what that did after many people including myself said it would not be a good idea, hordes got bigger as predicted.
Your only problem to solve that would eliminate many issues is the hording created or derived from the massively imbalanced sides when at times creates such an unhealthy environment.
hmmmmm ok :rofl
-
Here is my 2 cents on this.
Did you notice how HT is talking about subscription? From what I've read so far on the subject and according to HTC, the split occurred to keep the competitivity level acceptable. As someone here already mentioned, this game is BRUTAL. And some player are very good at what they do. Better than any new comer is. I mean someone totally new to online flight sim like this. In an heavily populated arena, new comer just become cannon fodder for the better sticks simply because there is too much 'predator'. Spreading the total population over 2 arena allows for more player to play all the while easing the learing curve a bit for the new guys out there(like me), because they don't get jumped every 5 min by an angry mob.
I remember maybe 2 years ago coming to AH and being completely put off. Not by trash talk or ganging/hordes and whatever else. Just the sheer difficulty of the game. Why? because unlike a single player game, in AH odds are not stacked my way. And I had actually had to learn an think just to get to survive. I would be very surprised if 1 out of 10 trial become subscriber.
Of course HTC is trying to make as much money as they can. Who would not? But on another level, They are trying to make the game as enjoyable as possible for more people. And make the community grow. It's what is called progress. Maybe you are nostalgic of when there was only 1 big arena but that's not healthy for the community HT told us. He has a lot riding on this decision since that's what he do for a living. That's too bad that sometimes you can't get to fly with your buddy. I would be interested in you recording the number of times you get to fly where you want vs the number of time it does not, tough.
Sometimes if a company want their product evolve, they have to make some unilateral decision about their product and where the company want to go with it. That's what is meant by : don't ever listen to your customer. The bottom line of this is : are we profitable and does our company grows. If yes, complain about how the change in the product changed the way they used the product are inevitable but not relevent in the least and should not even be taken into account in making a business decision. Change must be imposed, not suggested trough a poll. That's what HTC did. And they have numbers to back the fact that it was the right thing to do since it made their numbers grow.
This as been discussed sometimes already and we, collectively are going to need to just get over it. It's not going to change back to the way it was.
I acknowledge that there is a limit to the optilmal number of player a particular map can support. As the community grow so should the maps.
-
Are you both drinking from the same well? Local ENY would do nothing to curve down the hoards, just as it does nothing to curve them now.
Dunno about the horde comments, but I don't see what negative consequence there'd be from local ENY.
-
Dunno about the horde comments, but I don't see what negative consequence there'd be from local ENY.
Tbh I've kind of swung both ways on this topic, assuming it could be coaded to work the way we all envision it to be working which in itself would be quite an undertaking. It would be great for furballers/predators/fighters. Absolutely fantastic. However I wonder how it would affect guys that don't have the experience necessary to compete yet. They need the easy mode planes and they need more friendlies around to become somewhat successful in this game. If they don't they will just move on. I've said it before and I'll say it again, one of the most important things a new player needs to stick around is success in the game, whether that be helping his country take a base, running supplies, or killing a bad guy, his time in aces high can't just be an epic failure otherwise he will quit. And limiting his choices in the hangar will significantly reduce his chances of being successful. Remember, a newbs $15 is just as valuable as a ten year vets $15, and I think local eny would cripple the newer players.
-
Ok, so truncate the ENY scale to positive only? Local ENY would bottom out at 1. This same positive-only rule of thumb works for the game in general. IE incentives not penalties, any time it's possible.
-
Ok, so truncate the ENY scale to positive only? Local ENY would bottom out at 1. This same positive-only rule of thumb works for the game in general. IE incentives not penalties, any time it's possible.
Sorry I didn't follow, you talking from a perk bonus perspective or from a plane limiting perspective?
-
Any one else notice this?
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309083.0.html
I was surprised to see how much this changed things. I stayed in the "off-hour" arena almost until it closed due to the bish horde trying to grab one more base. When I went to go to the split arenas orange was at 200/200 and blue was at 80/150. Jumped in blue and after an hour or so the population was higher but still not high enough to bump orange open. Ended up getting bored with blue, couldn't get into orange, and just called it a night. Funny think was watching people login in and out trying to change the numbers :P Normally I don't have any trouble jumping from one arena to the other and back looking for fights.
-
Sorry I meant local ENY perk point multiplier, not perk price modifier. As far as perk prices go for newbies, flying in the horde isn't how they'll get all that much better. Maybe for the very first rungs up the ladder to pick up on others' examples but that's it. Switching countries is the solution to what's IMO a non-issue - being restricted from easymode planes.
The two problems happen in the same world, they can't be taken in vacuum to decide which one is more important. IE the horde problem is a problem for newbies on the underdog team too, and they're not 'less equal' in the right to a fair chance at a good fight. Newbies on the steamrolling team have no easymode planes, newbies on the pancake team have the odds against em even in easymode planes.
Either way you look at it, I don't think local perk point modifier hurts anyone or anything.
-
I'd like to try having 1 large map late war arena during prime time and a smaller map for off hours.
-
Tbh I've kind of swung both ways
STOP THE PRESSES! :bolt:
-
A random minor idea I just had. How about when an arena is within 5 players overcapped it shows numerically on the arena screen, if it is any overcapped than that it simply says Full. That way if it is close you can exit/enter until you can get in, if your heart so desires and if it says Full, just spare yourself the futility and go to the other arena.
-
Just a thought that I know will never fly (no pun intended) but a thought nonetheless.
How about ENY based on player score/rank. Where, The better score/rank you have. The more difficult it is or the less available the EZMode planes are. Or have the EZmode planes available by perk cost only with some sort of sliding scale as far as what planes get perked.
Example. Everyone would start each tour the same with all planes available to them either at no or low perk costs, (exceptions would be planes like the 262.)
As a player gets better. Already perked planes would be perked even more. Ezmode planes would start to be perked. As the player gets better yet. Either the EZ mode planes would be removed from his selection entirely or would be perked to a much greater extent and other planes previously unperked would now be perked. and so on and so forth.
If it is truly the pilot and not the plane. Then the uber sticks should have no problem with this as no plane would immediately be denied them. They would simply have to put some of their perks at risk.
Then you would have more top notch players in 202's and FM2s rather then spit 16s and F4u1-Cs.
-
take away the spit 16 and ill have nothing to shoot though :huh
-
It'd be a kind of lowest common denominator treatment. And it'd feel like being in a rolling planeset arena. You couldn't fly what you wanted when you wanted to. Because you play "too well". It wouldn't be fair. You would be penalized for merely doing better than others - it's a relative scaling scheme rather than absolute. IE you don't even have to play genuinely well, just better enough than others.
-
Another suggestion that I know wont fly. But I honestly think is the best solution for dealing with new players so they dont gt completely turned off within the first few days.
Steal a page of sorts from the AW playbook (with major improvements) and have a score limited newbie arena whereas newbies could opt to go to that arena to hone their skills against each other until they reach a certain level of proficiency to be determined by their stats( Possibly a formula of hit % and KD ratio combination) before being forced into the MA.
Now they could still opt with a warning message as to what they might be in for to forgo the Newbie arena and just dive right into the MA. But I think that many newbies who would otherwise be deterred and turned off to the game by the extremely steep learning curve in the MA might be more inclined to head back to an arena untill they reach the determined time or score level thats not full of aces that seem more like gods then players where they might be able to progress and learn against people more or less at their own level of experience and skill level at their own pace rather then just say "screw this its too hard"
This arena should be named something enticing like "Aces High Basic Combat Academy" and have a strict side limiter installed and a minimal of captureable bases and have those bases remain captured only for say and hour before they revert back to their original team because this would be about learning some of the nuances of the game and not purely for conquest.
Maybe dumb down some of the damage model and get rid of PWs so they wont die quite as easily from mistakes but will be able to learn what a bad mistake is. Maybe for that damage thats dumbed down, have the option of having an instructor like sound file to let them know "Dummy if this were real, you woulda lost a wing" or "If this were real you would have collided and gotten yourself killed" Or, "Pay attention! you just killed him but you also killed yourself"
And maybe a keyboard command that would bring up a list on the clipboard of common commands such as how to start your engine,drop bombs, etc.
The idea being to help players familiarize themselves with the game while going up against other players of varying skill levels but not so skilled that they dont stand any chance at all.
You could even have Vets volunteer to enter the arenas on a limited and side based level to help and teach and organize the basics. To prevent abuse. Trainers ammo would be severely dummied down and would be limited to an even number per side.
Next up we could rename the current TA to "Advanced Fighter Combat Training Academy" for those that want ot go and learn under an official trainer advanced fighter tactics. but with a warning that unless you've completed basic training AFCTA wont be very helpful to you.
The names of these places are almost as important as what they are there for to give the customer a sense of . "hmmm. Now that sounds interesting"
Tell me. If any of you were new,Which one would you rather go to based on name alone. "The Training Arena"? Or the "Advanced Fighter Combat Training Academy"?
To a new customer. Presentation is everything. This applies to any business. I dont care if its Aces High or a janotorial servise to clean toilets.
Hell, it was proven in the 70s that you could sell people a rock in a box if you just presented it right.
Followed closely by content. As was also proven with "The Pet rock" Not even always content LOL
But here we actually have content. What want is people to come. And then want to stay once they have. the problem is cept for diehards or people already with some flight sim experience in depth. You could be taking some people who barely know an elevator from a landing gear and throwing them into a place where many people are so far advanced they seem unreachable.
Yet, if you provide them with a way to learn how to get part way up that mountain. They might be less inclined to give up
A Newbie arena would help. And a proper name for it might entice them to check it out.
-
It'd be a kind of lowest common denominator treatment. And it'd feel like being in a rolling planeset arena. You couldn't fly what you wanted when you wanted to. Because you play "too well". It wouldn't be fair. You would be penalized for merely doing better than others - it's a relative scaling scheme rather than absolute. IE you don't even have to play genuinely well, just better enough than others.
No. Unless they went with outright denial of planes based on score. You could still fly whatever plane you wanted. You would simply have to put some of your perks at risk to do so.
Tell me. is it fair for an uber stick to fly an EZ mode plane against a newb? In those circumstances. You might as well award the uber pilot a kill bot. Because thats what it amounts to
Again. If its truly the pilot and not the plane. Then the less uber plane shouldn't matter
(I could get really sarcastic here. Not against you Moot. But in general. But I wont)
It doesnt matter anyway. While I would LOVE to see this tried. There is no way HTC will ever do this.
-
Steal a page of sorts from the AW playbook (with major improvements) and have a score limited newbie arena whereas newbies could opt to go to that arena to hone their skills against each other until they reach a certain level of proficiency to be determined by their stats( Possibly a formula of hit % and KD ratio combination) before being forced into the MA.
I've always advocated that we have an arena like this. At least in AW, it was a major plus in helping new players get used to the flight model before testing the waters in the regular arenas and keep them playing so they enter the main arenas. With the score limit, it also prevented veteran pilots from using the newbie arena as their own personal baby seal pup hunting grounds. An arena like this is nothing but a positive for the game.
ack-ack
-
I've always advocated that we have an arena like this. At least in AW, it was a major plus in helping new players get used to the flight model before testing the waters in the regular arenas and keep them playing so they enter the main arenas. With the score limit, it also prevented veteran pilots from using the newbie arena as their own personal baby seal pup hunting grounds. An arena like this is nothing but a positive for the game.
Agreed.
There has to be a better way to kick people out of there, though. In AW there were people who tried to stay in the newbie arena long after they figured out the basics, to make themselves feel powerful I suppose.
- oldman
-
I've always advocated that we have an arena like this. At least in AW, it was a major plus in helping new players get used to the flight model before testing the waters in the regular arenas and keep them playing so they enter the main arenas. With the score limit, it also prevented veteran pilots from using the newbie arena as their own personal baby seal pup hunting grounds. An arena like this is nothing but a positive for the game.
ack-ack
Oh I agree 1000% I went from MA to Newb areana then came back to the MA after a short stint of about an hour showed me that I was in no way ready to play with the big boys.
Had alot of fun and made some friends there too. Its always difficult when you enter something and not know alot about it. Its even more difficult when you dont know anyone on top of it.
Its easier if you enter a place where other people you come across dont know alot either and you then can learn together. Then when you enter a place. you not only know at least something. But you know someone as well. You dont feel as much an outsider. And there is someone there you have something in common with.
Its like going to a party where you dont know anyone. It takes a while before you feel comfortable. Yet you will see if your at a party and there are a few people that dont know anyone. they always seem to manage to congregate together. They all have something in common in that they dont know anyone.
It just makes the transition easier
In the MA there can be such a learning curve. You can quite literally feel like your going against gods. And while it can be great fodder for vets to pad their scores and kill count. It can beat down very quickly so overwhelmingly and thoroughly a newb who's only experience in air to air combat may be what they see on the history channel that they quickly give up and never bother to return. Especially now that flight sims and computer games in general are not dominant on the market like they once were. They have less and less to cut their teeth on.
Here is what I think IMO happens in alot of cases with people who dont stay.
they watch something like Dogfights on TV and see how cool it looks flying around shooting down badguys. then they see the commercial for AH. and say WOW that looks cool I'd love to do that. Which is exactly the point of having the commercial.
They see the fly any plane against other real life people 24/7, air land and sea combat, and two weeks free. Yadda yadda yadda.
so they figure they will give it a shot.
But instead of being subject to the "hook" which is usually the easiest levels of the game. They are immediately subjected to and thrown into what seems to them to be level 10,000. Now two weeks free is great. But if when you first started playing Pac Man you always started at level 250. Even if you were given unlimited free play forever. You probably wouldn't play for very long.
The idea behind the old arcade games that you dropped coin into for every game wasnt to get people to try it once. find it too hard and then move on. But to get them to try it then stay around to try it again. Thats why the first levels were the easiest to beat. there was a ladder for people to climb to get better.
Here we are absent that ladder, that "Hook"
Here our subject matter is a bit different. Its not an arcade so you cant just have an EZ mode arena. Well you cant but it would be detrimental to the spirit of the game. But throwing newbs with no experience into the MA is similar to starting the game at its highest level.
Difficulty is fun if you have a chance of winning. occasionally winning is fun. but its not so fun if its the equivalent of an amateur boxer with no ring experience going against a professional Mike Tyson, or Muhammad Ali in their prime. Your just gonna get beat down.
Now, If you start off in the amateur ranks. Get some experience and some ring savvy against other amateurs. Then move to the pros. Then you at least have a boxers chance when you meet the big boys.
-
Agreed.
There has to be a better way to kick people out of there, though. In AW there were people who tried to stay in the newbie arena long after they figured out the basics, to make themselves feel powerful I suppose.
- oldman
IN AW it was done by score. Once you acheived a certain score then if memory serves correct. You were given rubber bullets.
What often happend is with AOL you could have several screen names. And once you could play on AOL for free, what people would do is simply create another player ID name under one of the alternative AOL screen names. Then go back to the newb arena where the score for that player ID was 0 and club baby seals.
I knew of several people who played the game under several names and with different squads on different sides even.
-
DREDIOCK I posted your post on the wishlist. That kind of idea could net us and HTC some more happy fellow/customer. They have a great product. Let's encourage people to want to get better by easing them into the game instead of trowing them in. 'Cause right now it's 'welcome to the jungle'.
-
LWO is full at the moment and LWB is comprised of 10+ flights of rook bombers (w/ porking fighters) steamrolling bases on one side and NOE nit(wits) steamrolling other bases with even more "team players". yippee.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/10-48pm3-20-11.png)
Is this some kind of glitch? LWO hasn't changed from 200/200 no matter how many times I try.
-
It's the 80% in action it seems. Wonderful job it must be doing to help gameplay.
-
LWO is full at the moment and LWB is comprised of 10+ flights of rook bombers (w/ porking fighters) steamrolling bases on one side and NOE nit(wits) steamrolling other bases with even more "team players". yippee.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/10-48pm3-20-11.png)
Is this some kind of glitch? LWO hasn't changed from 200/200 no matter how many times I try.
dont know what time your pic was taken but this was later at 9:15 pm west coast time, play was battle the horde in either arena, i just logged off
(http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s35/68zoom/sunday1.jpg)
-
LWO is full at the moment and LWB is comprised of 10+ flights of rook bombers (w/ porking fighters) steamrolling bases on one side and NOE nit(wits) steamrolling other bases with even more "team players". yippee.
(http://i343.photobucket.com/albums/o460/caldera_08/10-48pm3-20-11.png)
Is this some kind of glitch? LWO hasn't changed from 200/200 no matter how many times I try.
Those were the numbers when I was trying to get in as well. Knits had the most numbers and were hording whoever it was on the west end of the map.
Im one of the chesspeice loyal. Sorry, but thats just how I am and how I fully intend on staying
I dont look to change sides when my sides numbers are down. And like wise I dont look to change sides when my side has the numbers.
Not wanting to be part of the horde My options were keep trying to get into orange in hopes of a better ratio, or log off.
Eventually I got into orange where knits had the lower numbers and fortunately a decent fight was happening.
-
No. Unless they went with outright denial of planes based on score.
Thought that's what you meant.
You could still fly whatever plane you wanted. You would simply have to put some of your perks at risk to do so.
Tell me. is it fair for an uber stick to fly an EZ mode plane against a newb? In those circumstances. You might as well award the uber pilot a kill bot. Because thats what it amounts to
Again. If its truly the pilot and not the plane. Then the less uber plane shouldn't matter
(I could get really sarcastic here. Not against you Moot. But in general. But I wont)
It doesnt matter anyway. While I would LOVE to see this tried. There is no way HTC will ever do this.
Lowest common denominator doesn't mean what I thought it means. What I meant is that it would be the same dynamic as when academic classes are dumbed down to keep the worst students afloat. So in practice you would have some players (the better ones but it shouldn't matter that it's them or the worst ones) literally made to pay for being successful.
Another subtle thing IMO - just going by planes' ENY value isn't enough. Cheap e.g.: me. I exclusively fly an "uber" plane and 3/4 of the time I fly it where/how it's not uber at all. Lots of people like to fly the crappier planes (P40 and so on) but personally I prefer the 152 where instead of being in a flying coffin, I've got a plane with a wider range of performance that I can use to match a wider range of opponent difficulty. For sure the 152 deserves 10-ENY but flying only to its 10-ENY qualities is boring to me.
So again you would have a good plan overall, but you'd be throwing a bit of the baby out with the bathwater. If players are gonna be dissatisfied either way, it's better for them to be dissatisfied because other players don't police themselves (which is what hordes and kill stealing and truly shameless uberplane howring all boil down to, effectively) than because the game is designed to effectively limit them because the plane they want to fly could possibly but not necessarily be used as an unfair advantage.
Overall I think it'd make for a pretty different kind of game and I'd like to see it actually tried myself. I think the problem in a nutshell is that this treats all planes as though they were generic flying machines with only performance setting em apart. But that's not what warbirds are like :) Each one's got its own character that'll attract some players and others not - almost entirely regardless of their ENY (eg the only 109s I like are the F and K, same with 47s: D11 and M only), the same way it works with car models and brands, and blonde/brunette/redhead nordic/mediterranean/asian, etc.
I like the newbie arena idea. One of the possibly hard parts is a reliable skill tracking system.
-
Thought that's what you meant.
Lowest common denominator doesn't mean what I thought it means. What I meant is that it would be the same dynamic as when academic classes are dumbed down to keep the worst students afloat. So in practice you would have some players (the better ones but it shouldn't matter that it's them or the worst ones) literally made to pay for being successful.
Another subtle thing IMO - just going by planes' ENY value isn't enough. Cheap e.g.: me. I exclusively fly an "uber" plane and 3/4 of the time I fly it where/how it's not uber at all. Lots of people like to fly the crappier planes (P40 and so on) but personally I prefer the 152 where instead of being in a flying coffin, I've got a plane with a wider range of performance that I can use to match a wider range of opponent difficulty. For sure the 152 deserves 10-ENY but flying only to its 10-ENY qualities is boring to me.
So again you would have a good plan overall, but you'd be throwing a bit of the baby out with the bathwater. If players are gonna be dissatisfied either way, it's better for them to be dissatisfied because other players don't police themselves (which is what hordes and kill stealing and truly shameless uberplane howring all boil down to, effectively) than because the game is designed to effectively limit them because the plane they want to fly could possibly but not necessarily be used as an unfair advantage.
Overall I think it'd make for a pretty different kind of game and I'd like to see it actually tried myself. I think the problem in a nutshell is that this treats all planes as though they were generic flying machines with only performance setting em apart. But that's not what warbirds are like :) Each one's got its own character that'll attract some players and others not - almost entirely regardless of their ENY (eg the only 109s I like are the F and K, same with 47s: D11 and M only), the same way it works with car models and brands, and blonde/brunette/redhead nordic/mediterranean/asian, etc.
I like the newbie arena idea. One of the possibly hard parts is a reliable skill tracking system.
Im sorry. When I said Uber plane I meant EZ mode. Spits, NIKIS F4UC etc
Ive flown the 152, And like the D9 and while I agree to a certain degree those are "uber" rides. Mostly because of their speed and guns. But I dont consider them by any stretch of the imagination to be EZ mode. They are actually two of the most difficult planes to fly and be successful in with any regularity.
As far as the Scoring in the Newbie arena. I know what you mean. But thats why I am suggesting a mandatory side balance in it. Maybe make it two sided as opposed to 3. That way your assured that the numbers going against one another are relatively even and not a true representation of the MA. Maybe even take it a step further and have zone/base limits. That way you should always have say 10 players always going against 10 players most of the time. Scoring will have to be a formula of sorts. Possibly a combination of Hit%, kills (actual and not proxie) and K/D ratio. And maybe limit the actual time allowed in the Newb arena to be 30 days or a set number of hours plyed total. Im thinking that if you cant get at least a grasp of whats going on in 30 days. Then there isnt much hope for you lol
-
Is a Spitfire an EZ mode ride when it fights another Spitfire?
Limiting players based on score assumes that everyone tries to get their best score which simply isn't true.
-
342 post and are we any better off than we was ? I have seen no change . Look's like it would be just to simple to give the suggestion's a try ..what can it hurt ? One can alway's go back to the way it was ..
-
342 post and are we any better off than we was ? I have seen no change . Look's like it would be just to simple to give the suggestion's a try ..what can it hurt ? One can alway's go back to the way it was ..
Here's a novel idea.
Play in the arena that's available to you when you log in?
Problem solved.
-
342 post and are we any better off than we was ? I have seen no change . Look's like it would be just to simple to give the suggestion's a try ..what can it hurt ? One can alway's go back to the way it was ..
Here's the change you didn't see.
We have changed the % of players needed from 70% to 80% to raise the cap on the opposite arena.
HiTech
-
Is a Spitfire an EZ mode ride when it fights another Spitfire?
Limiting players based on score assumes that everyone tries to get their best score which simply isn't true.
Depends on the Spit, and if it's perkied!
I miss the old MA, the split LW, is crap! Yeah, I know why they did it, it's still CRAP! :bhead
-
Here's the change you didn't see.
We have changed the % of players needed from 70% to 80% to raise the cap on the opposite arena.
HiTech
Oh cool .. Has it helped ? I got busy and have not been online .
-
Oh cool .. Has it helped ? I got busy and have not been online .
It did exactly the opposite - now it takes even longer for the larger arena to open again and for you to get together with your squad. Sure it helps the smaller arena to fill up faster but since your friends are on the other side you couldn't care less.
-
oh great ......
-
Sure it helps the smaller arena to fill up faster
Which I believe is the point.
but since your friends are on the other side you couldn't care less.
:cry if flying with the squad is important to the squad, it shouldn't matter where they fly. Ask them to come to the other arena (which would help boost the numbers too).
-
:cry if flying with the squad is important to the squad, it shouldn't matter where they fly. Ask them to come to the other arena (which would help boost the numbers too).
LOL! Yeah ask YOUR squad all 10-20 persons to stop what they're doing and change to the smaller, dead arena because of one player can't get in. It will not happen and I wouldn't even ask such a thing from them.
I guess if the game effectively blocks squads from operating from now on, the message from the developers is to stop interacting as squads and go back to individual gameplay. Shame, I was a lone gun for years and now that I started to dig the squad thing, I'm blocked from the server.
-
:cry if flying with the squad is important to the squad, it shouldn't matter where they fly. Ask them to come to the other arena (which would help boost the numbers too).
Asking people to leave a good fight and come to arena where there is no fight is not a solution. I would think at some point you guys might notice this debate covers the same things over and over and over.
-
My squad will change arenas for one player. If it's a smaller dead arena it will perk up after we get there.
-
My squad will change arenas for one player. If it's a smaller dead arena it will perk up after we get there.
That's awesome. Now we only need 10 other squads like yours and the smaller side is always populated straight from the start!
We seem to lack those however.
-
My squad will change arenas for one player. If it's a smaller dead arena it will perk up after we get there.
In what way?
-
That's awesome. Now we only need 10 other squads like yours and the smaller side is always populated straight from the start!
We seem to lack those however.
If you talk your squad into it we only need 9 more. :D
-
If you talk your squad into it we only need 9 more. :D
I don't run my squad so you'll have to talk to dhyran about it. Give it a shot I don't mind.
-
I don't run my squad so you'll have to talk to dhyran about it. Give it a shot I don't mind.
I actually don't mind if your squad won't switch. :D
-
Is it possible to redoe the new cockpit in the A6M5B where the cowl guns will not obscure the gauges and make the load out numbers easier to read.
-
Is it possible to redoe the new cockpit in the A6M5B where the cowl guns will not obscure the gauges and make the load out numbers easier to read.
(http://www.bumpin.com/marketing/blog/newapps/random.jpg)
-
Another random idea. Each player gets two free "Bumps into the capped arena" per week. That way if they really want to fly with their friends on a given day they can get in there.
-
I figured that since HiTech was watching this maybe something would be done. That's my only concern with the game at this time.
-
Another random idea. Each player gets two free "Bumps into the capped arena" per week. That way if they really want to fly with their friends on a given day they can get in there.
Yep, that's fair... :huh
Squad of 20 just HAS to play in capped arena. They meet in lobby for their "squad night" and all get a free pass into the capped arena, making it that much more out of whack.
-
Yep, that's fair... :huh
Squad of 20 just HAS to play in capped arena. They meet in lobby for their "squad night" and all get a free pass into the capped arena, making it that much more out of whack.
The same squad of 20 moving into the arena that has 20 existing players would cause serious imbalance, basically 10 vs 30 situation. That'll do a whole lot of good for everyone! Squad of 20 clubbering 3 uppers on a deacked field :rock
-
Yep, that's fair... :huh
Squad of 20 just HAS to play in capped arena. They meet in lobby for their "squad night" and all get a free pass into the capped arena, making it that much more out of whack.
Might as well embellish a little more and make it a squad of 60 meeting in the lobby and all forcing in at once, but good point nonetheless, two per week is too high. Two free passes per month to be used how you wish. Seems fair to me. Use them wisely.
-
The same squad of 20 moving into the arena that has 20 existing players would cause serious imbalance, basically 10 vs 30 situation. That'll do a whole lot of good for everyone! Squad of 20 clubbering 3 uppers on a deacked field :rock
Would just show me that squad doesn't care about fights...just easy kills. A little self-control goes a long way to keep opponents interested in coming back for more fights.
I can understand squads wanting to fly and fight as one cohesive unit, but c'mon...there's a point where it becomes ludicrous.
-
Would just show me that squad doesn't care about fights...just easy kills. A little self-control goes a long way to keep opponents interested in coming back for more fights.
I can understand squads wanting to fly and fight as one cohesive unit, but c'mon...there's a point where it becomes ludicrous.
So what do you suggest the rest of the squad to do while the 3 are fighting 1 vs 1 and there ARE NO MORE ENEMIES?
Even if the squad is going to attack all sides at once they still overpower them. Dont you get it?
-
I have a suggestion to Hi Tech that will not help the cap issue whatsoever.
On the log in screen I'd change the caps for the Early and Mid wars to 100.
I'm sure there are a lot people out there not following these cap dicussions.
I feel when they see that 350 cap in these areans like this and LWO cap down to 100 like this.
Early War Green 0-players cap-350
Mid War Purple 2-Players cap-350
Late War Orange 100 Players cap-100
Sir, they think you've lost your ever loving mind.
Like I said, this won't help the cap issue at all but it might help with some of the players prception Hi Tech.
Given my limited knowledge of the caps, it won't help.
Given my knowledge of people, it won't hurt.
<S> BELLATOR
-
Im sorry. When I said Uber plane I meant EZ mode. Spits, NIKIS F4UC etc
Ive flown the 152, And like the D9 and while I agree to a certain degree those are "uber" rides. Mostly because of their speed and guns. But I dont consider them by any stretch of the imagination to be EZ mode. They are actually two of the most difficult planes to fly and be successful in with any regularity.
As far as the Scoring in the Newbie arena. I know what you mean. But thats why I am suggesting a mandatory side balance in it. Maybe make it two sided as opposed to 3. That way your assured that the numbers going against one another are relatively even and not a true representation of the MA. Maybe even take it a step further and have zone/base limits. That way you should always have say 10 players always going against 10 players most of the time. Scoring will have to be a formula of sorts. Possibly a combination of Hit%, kills (actual and not proxie) and K/D ratio. And maybe limit the actual time allowed in the Newb arena to be 30 days or a set number of hours plyed total. Im thinking that if you cant get at least a grasp of whats going on in 30 days. Then there isnt much hope for you lol
I dunno Dred.
The D9 and 152 are two sides of the "ultimate 190" coin. Successful D9 flying means very slippery flying with very quick reflexes and very accurate gunnery because of relatively low hitting power + high relative speeds. 152 means you have to be much more careful with your E (less acceleration and level top speed) but can afford to slow down if you can manage 2-3 snapshot oppy's thanks to the guns, and on the other hand E retention is much easier and flexible than D9 and stall departure is completely better.. In the MAs I find it much easier to rack up kills with the 152. I tested it a few nights in a row - flown in a pure killing mode with no regard for fun, ended up with a dozen kills per sortie and on avg 1 rearm before I died. Yes it's not a beginner plane, but IMO it's definitely uber in the sense that I can club baby seals like you were saying is arguably unfair.
Also the non-perk easymodes give up speed for their firepower (hurri2c, n1k..) or maneuverability (zero, spits...). Speed is a major card in your hand. Disengage at will, outpace the furball's movement, etc. So yeah, the D9 and K4, 152, etc, are less beginner planes but they IMO belong in 'uber'.
On the newbie arena-
The 30day limit hints at a similar shortcut. You might not have to have a perfectly reliable skill evaluation system. If by the time there's any ambiguity (as far as the skill-eval algorithm can tell), most players have already gotten enough practice from this special environment, you can just call it a day and ship em out. "Good enough"
-
I have a suggestion to Hi Tech that will not help the cap issue whatsoever.
On the log in screen I'd change the caps for the Early and Mid wars to 100.
I'm sure there are a lot people out there not following these cap dicussions.
I feel when they see that 350 cap in these areans like this and LWO cap down to 100 like this.
Early War Green 0-players cap-350
Mid War Purple 2-Players cap-350
Late War Orange 100 Players cap-100
Sir, they think you've lost your ever loving mind.
Like I said, this won't help the cap issue at all but it might help with some of the players prception Hi Tech.
Given my limited knowledge of the caps, it won't help.
Given my knowledge of people, it won't hurt.
<S> BELLATOR
Even simpler, for the simple folk:
OPEN
CLOSED
wrongway
-
Well now Wrongway that would pretty much kill the cap issue huh?
Then we can have a new thread asking why certain arenas are closed and others open. :D
<S> BELLATOR
-
Even simpler, for the simple folk:
OPEN
CLOSED
wrongway
I hope you're the 101th person to join and see the closed sign. Happy playing alone waiting for the oncoming dozen or so within the next hour lol.
-
Even simpler, for the simple folk:
OPEN
CLOSED
wrongway
:aok
but then they wont know which arena is "better" :rofl
In the mean time I have a suggestion for people, flip a coin, heads = orange, tails = blue. flip it every time before you log in. and stay in that arena. The arenas are the same, it doesn't matter which one you play in. Just play in the lower # arena, it wont kill you.
I ALWAYS play in the lower # arena (typically blue). Never have to wait to get in. Amazing how that works.
-
Well now Wrongway that would pretty much kill the cap issue huh?
Then we can have a new thread asking why certain arenas are closed and others open. :D
<S> BELLATOR
Yeah. I thought of that.
It really the same whine though.
I hope you're the 101th person to join and see the closed sign. Happy playing alone waiting for the oncoming dozen or so within the next hour lol.
It has been my experience since the new Off-Hours stuff that the numbers are pretty even in both arenas.
Maybe I'd be forced into the 117/150 arena instead of the 100/100 arena?
wrongway
-
Yeah. I thought of that.
It really the same whine though.
It has been my experience since the new Off-Hours stuff that the numbers are pretty even in both arenas.
Maybe I'd be forced into the 117/150 arena instead of the 100/100 arena?
wrongway
It's more like 200(cap)/20 for extended period of time after the reset. I see many people just decide to logoff instead of starting to jack with the logins and wait everything to start to run again.
-
I just got the game yesterday and it seems like there are only a few fights going on at 3-4 places per side, even though there are many many more places where fights could be occurring. In my eyes, I want to take part in a huge war with the most people possible. If I wanted to fight small battles I would've bought IL-2 or play in the duel arena. I think they should just go with the 850 cap that the off hours arena has and just have 1 server. I don't even understand how the war continues since the servers are closed for half the day and you can only join the off hours arena.
TL;DR - 1 server, no caps, if you want smaller fights go to the duel arena or play IL-2
I just bought the game so my opinion doesn't hold as much weight as older players, but I don't think that most people are playing a MMO flight sim to just fight against 100 people at a time.
-
:cry Cry. I said :cry cryyyy. Cry :cry, just a little bit harder. :lol
I like having two wars.
<S> High tech well done.
-
I just got the game yesterday and it seems like there are only a few fights going on at 3-4 places per side, even though there are many many more places where fights could be occurring. In my eyes, I want to take part in a huge war with the most people possible. If I wanted to fight small battles I would've bought IL-2 or play in the duel arena. I think they should just go with the 850 cap that the off hours arena has and just have 1 server. I don't even understand how the war continues since the servers are closed for half the day and you can only join the off hours arena.
TL;DR - 1 server, no caps, if you want smaller fights go to the duel arena or play IL-2
I just bought the game so my opinion doesn't hold as much weight as older players, but I don't think that most people are playing a MMO flight sim to just fight against 100 people at a time.
Jeez, i been playing over a year and I can't fight against 100. I have trouble fighting 2 or 3, heck just 1 for that matter. I can only keep track of about 5 or 6 at once, much less fight 100.
-
I didn't read this entire thread so I'm not sure if someone posted this or not. If so, my apologies...
AW had a system of limited aircraft available from a particular base. The factories only produced so many planes to resupply a field's aircraft quota. In here there are unlimited aircraft (except for side balancing/perk restrictions that apply countrywide) available from a base. You can theoretically up 1000 planes at once from any field on any map if you get enough players together.
Stop the unlimited motor pools. Make players move to bases further away and travel farther to enter a horde. I've never seen an airbase that had an unlimited supply of aircraft. You get your plane shot down and the aircraft supply has not been replenished, then you have to move back to the next closest base that has available airplanes.
Seems simple and historically accurate to me.
My 2 cents. :salute
-
I just got the game yesterday...
...so my opinion doesn't hold as much weight as older players...
1. Welcome
2. Actually, your opinion might actually carry more than some of the jaded old-timers
:salute
-
I didn't read this entire thread so I'm not sure if someone posted this or not. If so, my apologies...
AW had a system of limited aircraft available from a particular base. The factories only produced so many planes to resupply a field's aircraft quota. In here there are unlimited aircraft (except for side balancing/perk restrictions that apply countrywide) available from a base. You can theoretically up 1000 planes at once from any field on any map if you get enough players together.
Stop the unlimited motor pools. Make players move to bases further away and travel farther to enter a horde. I've never seen an airbase that had an unlimited supply of aircraft. You get your plane shot down and the aircraft supply has not been replenished, then you have to move back to the next closest base that has available airplanes.
Seems simple and historically accurate to me.
My 2 cents. :salute
LOL I've been calling for this for years for the same reasons. In AW though it was an inadvertent result of technology limits then by design.
But it had one thing in its favor.
It actually worked wonderfully
-
1. Welcome
2. Actually, your opinion might actually carry more than some of the jaded old-timers
:salute
Yep. Its a newbs first impression. And first impressions can be everythig
-
Yeah. I thought of that.
It really the same whine though.
It has been my experience since the new Off-Hours stuff that the numbers are pretty even in both arenas.
Maybe I'd be forced into the 117/150 arena instead of the 100/100 arena?
wrongway
Tell ya one thing I noticed. Maybe move that arena change up a bit. I noticed at almost exactly 11:00 PM EST the numbers seem to drop like a stone
-
Another random idea. Each player gets two free "Bumps into the capped arena" per week. That way if they really want to fly with their friends on a given day they can get in there.
Hey great idea grizz. I have an addendum though. After you use your 2 freebies for the month, each subsequent bump into the full arena costs either 50 perks for 50 cents. :banana:
-
Hey great idea grizz. I have an addendum though. After you use your 2 freebies for the month, each subsequent bump into the full arena costs either 50 perks for 50 cents. :banana:
Omg that's even better! Nice brainstorming session grizz. *fist pound*
-
imagine the lightbulb that goes off in peoples heads when they realize what i already know.
the lower population arena has better fights and less horde mentality.
can you fathom why my little horde lemmings?
a short pause for shock and awe to ensue to the uninformed horde lemming masses...
"wow thx Fester! I never knew!"
don't mention it
-
Scratching head, I don't see the problem? Why did you not go into blue?
HiTech
The problem is squad camraderie. Caps ruin it if the squad is deeply intrenched in 'your' war and cannot disengaged from One arena to move to another to accomodate those left behind. Plain and simple.
It sucks to fly in another arena, separated from your dedicated wingmen and squadmates.
Caps will not force me to go into blue arena, i'd rather fly elsewhere and at times have chosen IL2 1946 sturmovik or go do other real world activities. All because of caps which will become worse.
Get it now?
The higher 80% will just ruin more squad nights. Make those who are individuals, less likely to join a squad, and perhaps less loyal to AH (perhaps).... At the most, they will camp online more often so that they can find a spot when the peak of squads get online (and this will ruin side percentages and ENY).
Hello? Knock knock...
Oh and for those other naysayers, there will always be a horde mentality when one side (bishops) always run coordinated ops against the rooks who quite frankly mostly prefer to furball. Obeservable fact.
-
The problem is squad camraderie. Caps ruin it if the squad is deeply intrenched in 'your' war and cannot disengaged from One arena to move to another to accomodate those left behind. Plain and simple.
It sucks to fly in another arena, separated from your dedicated wingmen and squadmates.
Caps will not force me to go into blue arena, i'd rather fly elsewhere and at times have chosen IL2 1946 sturmovik or go do other real world activities. All because of caps which will become worse.
Get it now?
Flying with your squad is up to you. Your squad flying with you is up to them.
If that is the priority, YOU can make it happen. Go to the arena where you all fit. Duh!©CARLOS ESTEVEZ
Explain "Can't disengage" to me. Your over enemy territory hours from home? No, you are at home.
The ability to fly together as a squad is there. It's really up to the squad to do so. I guess it's more important where you fly than who you fly with.
Wait. I forgot. You can't disengage.
Hello? Knock knock...
wrongway
-
It sucks to fly in another arena, separated from your dedicated wingmen and squadmates.
They don't sound like very dedicated wingmen/squadmates if they won't fly together where there's room for all of you.
-
Are yall seriously that jaded to see his real point? His point wasn't just that he wants to play with his squad. His argument mentions that he wants to stay in the fight he has already committed to. I sympathize and agree with this. I don't want to spend hours doing bombing runs and taking towns only to take a short break and come back to find that I have to go to a different map and start all over again. I want to see the influence I have made on the game. If I help take an airfield and log off, I want to come back to see that my country mates have used that airfield to attack other nearby airfields.
This is a MMO after all, people play it to get a sense of a real war and taking territory. If you just want to run missions or dogfight in small groups, play IL-2 or join the Duel Arena.
-
This is a MMO after all, people play it to get a sense of a real war and taking territory. If you just want to run missions or dogfight in small groups, play IL-2 or join the Duel Arena.
Myself, I play to fight in WW2 equipment. Sometimes it's "mindless" furballing, or it's helping take a base, or it's defending a base. Sometimes it's in a plane, other times it's a GV. Sometimes it's just helping a new guy get off the ground. It doesn't matter what arena I'm in or what map is up (although some maps are more fun than others).
Everyone has their own reasons for playing. If you want to help the green wave wash over the map, so be it. But there's also a map in the other arena that could use your help too; it shouldn't be that big a deal which arena you're in, as you'd be helping the green guys take territory.
-
The problem is squad camraderie. Caps ruin it if the squad is deeply intrenched in 'your' war and cannot disengaged from One arena to move to another to accomodate those left behind. Plain and simple.
It sucks to fly in another arena, separated from your dedicated wingmen and squadmates.
Caps will not force me to go into blue arena, i'd rather fly elsewhere and at times have chosen IL2 1946 sturmovik or go do other real world activities. All because of caps which will become worse.
Get it now?
The higher 80% will just ruin more squad nights. Make those who are individuals, less likely to join a squad, and perhaps less loyal to AH (perhaps).... At the most, they will camp online more often so that they can find a spot when the peak of squads get online (and this will ruin side percentages and ENY).
Hello? Knock knock...
Oh and for those other naysayers, there will always be a horde mentality when one side (bishops) always run coordinated ops against the rooks who quite frankly mostly prefer to furball. Obeservable fact.
Poking a bear with sharp stick is never good idea when a more diplomatic tongue is in order.
-
Are yall seriously that jaded to see his real point? His point wasn't just that he wants to play with his squad. His argument mentions that he wants to stay in the fight he has already committed to. I sympathize and agree with this. I don't want to spend hours doing bombing runs and taking towns only to take a short break and come back to find that I have to go to a different map and start all over again. I want to see the influence I have made on the game. If I help take an airfield and log off, I want to come back to see that my country mates have used that airfield to attack other nearby airfields.
This is a MMO after all, people play it to get a sense of a real war and taking territory. If you just want to run missions or dogfight in small groups, play IL-2 or join the Duel Arena.
Wrong, wrong, wrong......people play this game for many reasons...yes there are a bunch that like to attack Bases and shoot down static objects...more power to em....but there are many who enjoy a good ariel fight between planes of a by gone era...and absolutly do not give 2 hoots about the "war".....AH is about COMBAT land sea or air..its not about WW2....or "war", you cannot get a "real" sense of war from AH, there are other games that could do that for ya...if its even possable to get a "real" sense of War, from a game.....get black ops or something like that for a "war".....AH is about Combat, and there is not a game out there that can give you the combat AH can :aok
-
Wrong, wrong, wrong......people play this game for many reasons...yes there are a bunch that like to attack Bases and shoot down static objects...more power to em....but there are many who enjoy a good ariel fight between planes of a by gone era...and absolutly do not give 2 hoots about the "war".....AH is about COMBAT land sea or air..its not about WW2....or "war", you cannot get a "real" sense of war from AH, there are other games that could do that for ya...if its even possable to get a "real" sense of War, from a game.....get black ops or something like that for a "war".....AH is about Combat, and there is not a game out there that can give you the combat AH can :aok
Yea, that's my point, huge furballs and such. Plus without the people attacking static objects, you wouldn't have bomber formations to attack and COMBAT. MMO = BIG FIGHTS, otherwise they need to update the graphics since there is no need for dated graphics when the number of players is small.
-
Hoff now that you've been here a couple of days can you tell me why there is a split arena with caps?
-
Just for the record, Titanic Tuesday was more Lag Tuesday as usual. It seemed worse tonight. I am so glad that HTC was wise enough not to run 1 LW Arena all the time. I would leave the game if they did.
-
Are yall seriously that jaded to see his real point? His point wasn't just that he wants to play with his squad. His argument mentions that he wants to stay in the fight he has already committed to.
Sometimes those who want their cake and eat it too lose their heads.
I thought his point was :cry , :cry , and :cry
He expressed it very well.
wrongway
-
Hoff now that you've been here a couple of days can you tell me why there is a split arena with caps?
It's obviously a lag issue, but 200-300 people seems to work fine. Also, only certain people lag, which may mean it isn't really a server issue and it's just a player issue (I'm sure there are some people from UK and I know I would never want to play in a FPS tournament with 200+ ping so I'm sure this is no different). I don't mind the two server thing when it's at 200/200, but when it's capped at 100/100 that's just silly.
-
I don't mind the two server thing when it's at 200/200, but when it's capped at 100/100 that's just silly.
Or, you could look at the big picture.
Why cap at 100? To keep the numbers close to even in both arenas.
Before the off-hours switch the problem was you would have one arena with 200/200 and the other with 50/250.
No one wanted to be in the 50 person arena, never realizing if they all went there it wouldn't be a 50 person arena. Instead, they would try to refresh over and over and over trying to be the one or two who managed to get into the full arena when a space opened up.
Now, everyone gets booted instead of just opening a new arena. The numbers stay closer. The "everybody is over there" whine is less valid.
Remember, no one wants to be one of the 50.
wrongway
-
Are yall seriously that jaded to see his real point? His point wasn't just that he wants to play with his squad. His argument mentions that he wants to stay in the fight he has already committed to. I sympathize and agree with this. I don't want to spend hours doing bombing runs and taking towns only to take a short break and come back to find that I have to go to a different map and start all over again. I want to see the influence I have made on the game. If I help take an airfield and log off, I want to come back to see that my country mates have used that airfield to attack other nearby airfields.
This is a MMO after all, people play it to get a sense of a real war and taking territory. If you just want to run missions or dogfight in small groups, play IL-2 or join the Duel Arena.
Exactly..... thanks for agreeing with my post seeing the light.. As for the 'go to blue arena' mentality, quite frankly the maps in there in the past have sucked from time to time, and I like having the alternative ability to check out the 'other map'.
As for the 'furball' argument, that holds no water as observed most times the Bishops and Knits are constantly taking bases. Just sit back in the tower and watch how often knits and bishops capture flags. That's not combat, that's strategy/war/ base taking.
The ones who are mostly 'combating' land sea and air are the rooks, the rooks mostly furballing, hard to herd cats to take barely 1 base.
And as the arena resets, you see a major push by Bishops to attack the rooks, and Knits to attack the rooks. Barely they fight one another until theyve both gone after most of the rook bases.
The small arena caps of 100 and 200, hurt squads (at least on the rooks side) that care about fighting back, or as you say 'doing combat' by doing fighter sweeps
I've played Il2 where people both 'combat' and also achieve objectives set out by the arena to win the map. I see the same thing in the Main Arena. It's a war using all tools available. The 'sense' of war is the bloodshed taking something, defending something, using what tools are presented. That is the definition of war and you certainly have that in the Main arena.
-
The ones who are mostly 'combating' land sea and air are the rooks, the rooks mostly furballing, hard to herd cats to take barely 1 base.
And as the arena resets, you see a major push by Bishops to attack the rooks, and Knits to attack the rooks. Barely they fight one another until theyve both gone after most of the rook bases.
I don't agree with you here. This is because you're only seeing this from a Rook's perspective. You should go fly in a different country for a couple of weeks. I mean seriously fly! You'll see the SAME exact thing!
Do you seriously believe that the behavior of the game play of the three countries are different in even the slightest?
If you were a Bish, you'd think that the Bish were the furballers, and that the Knights and the Rooks both pick on you! If you were a Knight, you'd think the Knights were the furballers, and that the Bish and the Rooks picked on you.
As one country, we don't really get to see the fighting that the other two countries are doing with each other.
-
That is the definition of war and you certainly have that in the Main arena.
This game is so far from "war", it's not even funny, and to compare it to war is even funnier.
-
I don't agree with you here. This is because you're only seeing this from a Rook's perspective. You should go fly in a different country for a couple of weeks. I mean seriously fly! You'll see the SAME exact thing!
Do you seriously believe that the behavior of the game play of the three countries are different in even the slightest?
If you were a Bish, you'd think that the Bish were the furballers, and that the Knights and the Rooks both pick on you! If you were a Knight, you'd think the Knights were the furballers, and that the Bish and the Rooks picked on you.
As one country, we don't really get to see the fighting that the other two countries are doing with each other.
Most certainly different. At least up until in the last few weeks where some rooks seem to begin to work together.
IN the past when flying or sitting in tower, I've seen much more base captures across the buffer from the Bishops and from the Knits than I see from the rooks. Like 1 rook capture to 3x the bishop captures. I've seen silly runs by the knits attacking and capturing rook field after field after field and rooks not going to defend or taking forever to defend. Hardly see knits perform that kind of attacks on the bishops. It's just silly watching at times. Then there's map watching and seeing how much more bases the bishops own. Also seen many many times where more rook bases are flashing due to bishops and more rook bases flashing due to knits. I've seen this as actual fact that most of the time will see less bases flashing on the knit/bishop front. Observable fact during the time I'm online flying.
But now finally some rooks are starting to pool resources, but the pace of captures are still held with bishops in the lead due to their coordination.
Perhaps its the tides of observations between you and I, or the times you fly.
-
During my time flying and sitting in tower, I see much more base captures across the buffer. And then once in awhile a rook takes a base. It's just silly watching at times. Then there's map watching and seeing how much the bishops own the maps. I've seen many many times where more rook bases are flashing due to bishops, and more rook bases flashing due to knits. I've seen this as actual fact, that most of the time will see more rook bases flashing than will see the bishop / knit bases flashing due to attacking one another.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
-
This game is so far from "war", it's not even funny, and to compare it to war is even funnier.
War, by definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
"In all wars, the group(s) experiencing the need to dominate other group(s) are unable and unwilling to accept or permit the possibility of a relationship of fundamental equality to exist between the groups who have opted for group violence (war). The aspect of domination that is a precipitating factor in all wars, i.e. one group wishing to dominate another, is also often a precipitating factor in individual one-on-one violence outside of the context of war, i.e. one individual wishing to dominate another"
Aces High main arena exhibits this, except in the dueling arena and at times in the AvA arena,
by this definition as each group tries to take from the other group capturing bases, killing carriers, etc. Either to psychologically disrupt or win the map.
If there was no war, we wouldn't be flying around shooting each other down in the attempt to defend a base or attack a base, or sink each other's carriers. Instead, the goal is using aircraft, seacraft, and ground vehicles to achieve an objective: Take from the enemy. Some other folks, however, view online time as to just dogfight or trade shells in tanks without the care of supporting an objective. Those folks don't view it as war, and that is their perception.
There is no military heirarchy to force you, and you don't fear being killed if you get dominated, but the concept of war is played out every day whether or not you participate in it. Even chess can be seen this way, taking out the opponent (just like dogfights).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/04/2
The build-up to the war in Iraq coincided with the first results from the chess simulations run by Jason Scholz and his team. "We watched with great interest the dialogue between General [Tommy} Franks, who wanted to use more materiel, and Donald Rumsfeld who wanted a fast tempo and lighter units,"
-
War, by definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
"In all wars, the group(s) experiencing the need to dominate other group(s) are unable and unwilling to accept or permit the possibility of a relationship of fundamental equality to exist between the groups who have opted for group violence (war). The aspect of domination that is a precipitating factor in all wars, i.e. one group wishing to dominate another, is also often a precipitating factor in individual one-on-one violence outside of the context of war, i.e. one individual wishing to dominate another"
Aces High main arena exhibits this, except in the dueling arena and at times in the AvA arena,
by this definition as each group tries to take from the other group capturing bases, killing carriers, etc. Either to psychologically disrupt or win the map.
If there was no war, we wouldn't be flying around shooting each other down in the attempt to defend a base or attack a base, or sink each other's carriers. Instead, the goal is using aircraft, seacraft, and ground vehicles to achieve an objective: Take from the enemy. Some other folks, however, view online time as to just dogfight or trade shells in tanks without the care of supporting an objective. Those folks don't view it as war, and that is their perception.
There is no military heirarchy to force you, and you don't fear being killed if you get dominated, but the concept of war is played out every day whether or not you participate in it. Even chess can be seen this way, taking out the opponent (just like dogfights).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/04/2
this GAME is about COMBAT.......it does NOT simulate WAR, no GAME can, now I agree that there is an aspect of "war" in this game, but the real deal is no game can simulate "war" unless of course we are allowed to go to the persons house we just "killed" and actually take them out.....this game is about competition/Combat using WW2 equipment plain and simple.
-
War, by definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
"In all wars, the group(s) experiencing the need to dominate other group(s) are unable and unwilling to accept or permit the possibility of a relationship of fundamental equality to exist between the groups who have opted for group violence (war). The aspect of domination that is a precipitating factor in all wars, i.e. one group wishing to dominate another, is also often a precipitating factor in individual one-on-one violence outside of the context of war, i.e. one individual wishing to dominate another"
Aces High main arena exhibits this, except in the dueling arena and at times in the AvA arena,
by this definition as each group tries to take from the other group capturing bases, killing carriers, etc. Either to psychologically disrupt or win the map.
If there was no war, we wouldn't be flying around shooting each other down in the attempt to defend a base or attack a base, or sink each other's carriers. Instead, the goal is using aircraft, seacraft, and ground vehicles to achieve an objective: Take from the enemy. Some other folks, however, view online time as to just dogfight or trade shells in tanks without the care of supporting an objective. Those folks don't view it as war, and that is their perception.
There is no military heirarchy to force you, and you don't fear being killed if you get dominated, but the concept of war is played out every day whether or not you participate in it. Even chess can be seen this way, taking out the opponent (just like dogfights).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2004/mar/04/2
Nice try ... you conveniently left this out ... which goes directly to the point I was trying to make ...
War is an openly declared state of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.
I have been playing since 2002 and have yet to spill one drop of blood or kill some mother's young son as a result of playing this GAME.
Yes this game has a variety of "conflict" points but they are there to promote "combat" as Ink has already pointed out.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
How convenient about YOUR perception kvou.
Friday night in the Orange main between 9pm and at least 2am:
Bishops attacked and captured 4 rook bases. Bishops attacked 1 knit base, and I didn't see them capture 1 knit base during the 4 hours I was online.....
Knits attacked at least 3 rook bases. I saw them capture at least 1 base on text buffer. Knits attacked only 1 Bishop base.
----> Most bases flashing that night were the rook bases, not the bishops or knit front...
----> More captures in the buffer were from Bishops, than rooks.
As for the arena caps:
More people dominated the Blue arena which was CAPPED at 200 and closed to new incomers..... Why? Because it was a larger arena while the Orange map was small and sucked and most people couldn't switch to Blue...Therefore most were STUCK. With the traditional enemies gone from Orange, it allowed the underdogs (rooks) a chance to flourish and quickly reset the map.
Saturday 5pm EST: Rooks had less bases than knits and Bishops. There were 6 rook bases under attack. But there were only 2 bases under attack/ flashing on the knit/bishop front. Knits and bishop fronts didnt move except for 1 base.
** I WILL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO PROVIDE SCREENSHOTS OF CAPTURES on the text buffer** if that will confirm your own confirmation bias of yourself.
-
War is an openly declared state of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.
I have been playing since 2002 and have yet to spill one drop of blood or kill some mother's young son as a result of playing this GAME.
Yes this game has a variety of "conflict" points but they are there to promote "combat" as Ink has already pointed out.
Virtual blood buddy... Especially for those that covet their 'points'
There may not be some mother's young son, but many hours are fought 'dying / getting shot down' protecting one's base and your squadron losing their strength because of it. And your squadron losing their ability slowly of being able to protect or capture a base.
Secondly -> The agreesssion is in of itself the fighter cap, providing cover for the Jabo's the bomber's, the guys flying troops into a dangerous environment. They are spending their time (and money) flying on a suicide mission of sorts. They are wasting their time hoping that the escorts / cap are paving a way for them to drop bombs / troops on a target. Hoping they are successful. They don't die in vein.
It hurts (virtually), hopingly, emotionally, that their efforts are crushed against an enemy.
People say 'wtg' and cheer and hoot and hollar when a base is captured or the 'agressor' is beat back.
If that is not war (computer version of it), then I don't know what is.
societal disruption : nothing is more obvious than killing their ordnance or their fighter cap or fighter hangars and watching the enemy go attack elsewhere, or go attack another enemy country. 'nuff said.
-
That's not societal but strategic disruption. The only societal disruption in the game is for anyone who takes it so seriously that that strategic action makes em act erratic on the forum or on channel.
-
this GAME is about COMBAT.......it does NOT simulate WAR, no GAME can,
But COMBAT means people killing each other. It's precisely the one aspect of war that can't be simulated in a game.
Strategy, OTOH, translates quite nicely to games.
-
But COMBAT means people killing each other. It's precisely the one aspect of war that can't be simulated in a game.
Strategy, OTOH, translates quite nicely to games.
really so in the UFC where combat is the norm they all die?
Combat can be many forms, and this one is virtual.
-
Nice try ... you conveniently left this out ... which goes directly to the point I was trying to make ...
War is an openly declared state of organized violent conflict, typified by extreme aggression, societal disruption, and high mortality.
I have been playing since 2002 and have yet to spill one drop of blood or kill some mother's young son as a result of playing this GAME.
Yes this game has a variety of "conflict" points but they are there to promote "combat" as Ink has already pointed out.
You have to remember Slap, that you are comfortable with the size of your hard drive. Lots of the folks in this game aren't and are compensating :)
-
blah blah blah, my chess piece is the best! All others cheat and horde etc etc blah etc blah
Same old crap...
-
We have been considering doing some method of limiting this, but please do not post ideas that are just a hidden attempts at putting more people into one arena. The current method that I am leaning to is if the cap is 99, then once a country has 33 people no more people of that country can enter. There may also be a choice to enter if you switch sides on entry (of course change country times would also be adjusted).
HiTech
<S> Sir I may be late in this discussion, and I honestly am too lazy to real all the posts... but here's my thought on this, I apologise if it has been brought up already:
Country limits are a great idea, and I would be all for that; on a condition. Let me preface this by mentioning the obvious, I haven't flown more than 2 times in the past 2 years, but I still have my subscription and intend on flying more in the near future.
The squad I fly with has no chess piece affiliation I am aware of, and 99% of the time I log in I don't know what country I will be a pert of, nor do I know what country they are currently flying for. Upon logging on my first message on test is usually: "Yo Yo!" "what country and location?" Sometimes I just pull up the roster, see all squadmates as chess piece "X" and hop over there, then do a "goto".
The point is I would join an arena my squad is in if I knew what chess piece they were playing for, and if I was allowed to join that chess piece. To do that I would need to know what chess piece I was currently affiliated with. Problem is until I log in I don't know what that chess piece is.
I apologize on my ignorance on this, but is affiliation based on player or arena? I could swear I was a knight in LWOrange, and a bishop in LWBlue at one time.
Anyway, one would have to be shown "You will log in as a 'chess piece X' in LWxxx" in the lobby. A simple squad message asking what chess piece my squadmates were would assist in knowing whether I could / should log into an arena.
Oh well, just my thought, let us know what chess piece we would be logging on in advance.
-
really so in the UFC where combat is the norm they all die?
UFC isn't combat, it's a sport. A rough and dangerous game, but still a game.
Virtual combat is the same as virtual war.
-
UFC isn't combat? haha
oh ok :rofl
-
UFC isn't combat? haha
oh ok :rofl
Is the goal to kill the other combatant? If not, it's a combat sport. World of difference.
-
Virtual blood buddy... Especially for those that covet their 'points'
There may not be some mother's young son, but many hours are fought 'dying / getting shot down' protecting one's base and your squadron losing their strength because of it. And your squadron losing their ability slowly of being able to protect or capture a base.
Secondly -> The agreesssion is in of itself the fighter cap, providing cover for the Jabo's the bomber's, the guys flying troops into a dangerous environment. They are spending their time (and money) flying on a suicide mission of sorts. They are wasting their time hoping that the escorts / cap are paving a way for them to drop bombs / troops on a target. Hoping they are successful. They don't die in vein.
It hurts (virtually), hopingly, emotionally, that their efforts are crushed against an enemy.
People say 'wtg' and cheer and hoot and hollar when a base is captured or the 'agressor' is beat back.
If that is not war (computer version of it), then I don't know what is.
societal disruption : nothing is more obvious than killing their ordnance or their fighter cap or fighter hangars and watching the enemy go attack elsewhere, or go attack another enemy country. 'nuff said.
You really need to get outside more .... buddy.
-
But COMBAT means people killing each other. It's precisely the one aspect of war that can't be simulated in a game.
Strategy, OTOH, translates quite nicely to games.
The word Combat is derived from the French (combattre) and simply means "fighting" and in no way means that death must be a result of combat, so UFC fighting is a form of combat between 2 opponents.
-
The game is whatever the majority of the customers make it to be. If the majority of the customers only battled in tanks it would be a ground vehicle game.
-
The word Combat is derived from the French (combattre) and simply means "fighting" and in no way means that death must be a result of combat, so UFC fighting is a form of combat between 2 opponents.
Thank ya Slap :salute
I don't know why I bother....just cant help myself sometimes :confused:
-
I don't like the cap but I accept the way it is.
Maybe if they limited the amount of planes that can be launched from a field this might not be needed?
Splitting the community in any way is always a bad idea and will cause a lot of problems, I remember Ultima Online back in the day; when they added Trammel that split the game up: That really annoyed the community, tons of people left and was the beginning of the end for them.
-
You really need to get outside more .... buddy.
Nice try at a jab. HTC allows for more complex things that require more time and patience than just a simple dogfight. And my observations are also a result of things witnessed by the community that partake in these activities, more than the simple time it takes to up a fighter, shoot someone down, get shot down. Rinse repeat and log off without nary any investment in the cumulative time taken other than just climbing to altitude and RTB'ing (except for a score you may or may not care about).
Without these things, bombers wouldn't be needed or wanted or modeled, FSO's would then detract into dogfights because there would be no one wanting bombers. Saturday events would halt to exist because there'd be no players who care about objectives to withstand a 5 week scenario. The MA arena is the fostering ground, that brings in a wide variety of participants which also feed the scenarios. There'd be no persons online who enjoy planning/implementing for scenarios. It would be a plain game.
These complex aspects require time, patience, and yes people log off when their efforts are thwarted. Or they switch things up (like me) in a fighter just to have fun for awhile.
You get your jollies your way, and other's get theirs.
-
Nice try at a jab. HTC allows for more complex things that require more time and patience than just a simple dogfight. And my observations are also a result of things witnessed by the community that partake in these activities, more than the simple time it takes to up a fighter, shoot someone down, get shot down. Rinse repeat and log off without nary any investment in the cumulative time taken other than just climbing to altitude and RTB'ing (except for a score you may or may not care about).
Without these things, bombers wouldn't be needed or wanted or modeled, FSO's would then detract into dogfights because there would be no one wanting bombers. Saturday events would halt to exist because there'd be no players who care about objectives to withstand a 5 week scenario. The MA arena is the fostering ground, that brings in a wide variety of participants which also feed the scenarios. There'd be no persons online who enjoy planning/implementing for scenarios. It would be a plain game.
These complex aspects require time, patience, and yes people log off when their efforts are thwarted. Or they switch things up (like me) in a fighter just to have fun for awhile.
You get your jollies your way, and other's get theirs.
Listen ... I have played this game for over 9 years now. I have participated and lived all the experiences that this game has to offer so your not telling me anything that I don't already know ... been there done that ... got the t-shirts and caps from 3 conventions.
Never, and I repeat never, have I ever assimilated and/or felt that this game could ever reflect the horrors of a "real war". I have never lost sight that this is just a game and this is probably why those of us that have been here for the length of time I have been around and some since beta are still here.
People who take this game seriously don't tend to stick around too long ... it eventually wears them down.
-
I was wondering if HTC could implement some sort of threshold based on population as to when arenas or terrains are swapped?
Let's say the large (850) capacity off hours arena contains a certain percentage higher than the population capacity ONE of the two arenas that will replace it at certain times of the day........maybe delay swapping closing the arena/swapping terrain.
Many people are left hanging without a place to land when doing long buff missions.........or hunting those high altitude buffs when the arena/terrain change happens.
-
The change happens the same time of day everyday. Plan your trips accordingly. If they changed it to a "certain percentage" you would never know for sure when the arenas would be changing, you could never plan for it.
-
Combat can be many forms, and this one is virtual.
So can war!
"I have been playing since 2002 and have yet to spill one drop of blood or kill some mother's young son as a result of playing this GAME.
Yes this game has a variety of "conflict" points but they are there to promote "combat" as Ink has already pointed out."
And no where in any of the posted definitions does it say that war must be real life or spill blood. Psychological warfare does not necessarily spill blood, economic warfare does not spill blood, and simulated warfare does not spill blood.
This game is a war simulation like it or not. It does not copy real life, but it is still a war. There is conflict, aggression, society, and mortality, it may be simulated mortality, but it is still mortality. Every aspect that defines war.
-
Not even close. The only cost of this 'war' you speak of, is $14.95 a month. There is no risk, no nothing, outside of the occasional divorce, or heart attack from sitting at the computer too long and not getting any exercise
-
People who take this game seriously don't tend to stick around too long ... it eventually wears them down.
I was at Warbirds for 6+ years with a squad and other squads that made it fun, not always serious. Never got bored with the action in of itself until found other 'stuff' that AH provides. I don't always take it too serious and plan on being in AH for a long awhile until the 'same' thing comes along but more realistic eye candy and my machine. I have already more than the 2 years in AH, in fact I mix it up all the same as others. But being 'wwii' there is always an element of nostalgia, otherwise I and others wouldn't be here. WOuld be playing other mindless ground grunt capture the flag games if I like ground grunting (but dont). Flying WWII planes, participating in WWII scenarios, is as close at it will come to be than inventing a time machine back to the 1940's.
This isn't a real war, you got that right, but it still is a 'war', a 'combat (albiet a virtual one with limited brutality). This is true no matter how anyone slices it. People take from others, kill others, re up, spawn camp, and vulche to 'upset' other people, mess with their heads. Force them away. It's as close at it will come to being there for Aces High. Games were invented so that people can 'pretend' as silly as they want to.
So, applaud your online experience, but others can 'pretend' as much or as little as they want. Each getting what they want out of any game. Unless you play Mario Kart for no killing, you'll find a majority of games that are battle simulations, killing objectives, stealing objectives, objectives to win, just like chess. And..all 'games' advance to the next level or reset a map/arena, have an end point. Eventually move on to other games that have the same exact point in a different setting and perspective.
-
Not even close. The only cost of this 'war' you speak of, is $14.95 a month. There is no risk, no nothing, outside of the occasional divorce, or heart attack from sitting at the computer too long and not getting any exercise
There IS a risk but that has nothing to do with 'war'. Someone can really ruin their life over this game - and their childrens in the process too. Watch the hours folks.
-
War is not supposed to be fun, a game is. Hence to try say one is the other, is an insult to both.
HiTech
-
Therefore we are a kinetic military simulator.
HiTech
-
Do that again HiTech and I will have to slap a "Rule #14" violation on you. Just saying....
-
I was at Warbirds for 6+ years with a squad and other squads that made it fun, not always serious.
What squadron were you with in WB?
ack-ack
-
Therefore we are a kinetic military simulator.
HiTech
Do that again HiTech and I will have to slap a "Rule #14" violation on you. Just saying....
LOL!
ack-ack
-
Do that again HiTech and I will have to slap a "Rule #14" violation on you. Just saying....
:rofl
priceless
-
What squadron were you with in WB?
ack-ack
The Menacing Ferrets
-
:lol Ferret Face!
(Anyone get the Frank Burns reference? :lol)
-
War is not supposed to be fun, a game is. Hence to try say one is the other, is an insult to both.
HiTech
War has so many connotations: "Example: 4. any conflict or contest: a war of wits ; the war against crime", it can also be construed as a struggle of will. Base taking allows for such struggle, air superiority also allows for struggle. All with tidal change.
Kinetic military simulator? According to some websites, kinetic military operations is the application of force for offense and defense operations. The simulation of such, is for training to be ready for war, which is not fun.
Simulations are the closest watered down thing possible to conflict flying/Ground/sea support of WWII short of being transported back in time. Flying troops to a base is not always 'fun', knowing that you most likely will get shot down. Neither is resupplying a base. It's more 'work' / labor ends to justify the means. So is attempting to advance the front via fighter / bomber / troops when after awhile the 'work' aspect creeps in. People log off to give themselves a break. If it were always fun, they'd be logged in 24/7
Some squads I've seen (not mine), require minimum time of experience on a plane and demonstrations of skill to get airborne and remain qualified to stay airbone with the squad (I know this is true of at least one squad in WB and more than one in Il2). Perhaps it also exists in AH. That is work.
And for the community out there used to shoot em ups, the steep learning curve to fly is not necessarily fun. It's more learning, practice, frustration, all to get better.
If we didn't want to be online to mimick a war, we would not participate in FSO or Axis Allied, or Snapshot events where they attempt to recreate history, track points of which side wins (military struggle). It's not 100% war, but again its also not 0% war.
There would be no point, and according to your definition a grave insult to recreate historical events for gaming purposes all to make a profit (yours) . FSOs, Weekend Avas, and Ava arena such as this example: http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310383.0.html
-
The Menacing Ferrets
LOL!
Used to fly with MOL (Men of Leisure) when I flew WB.
ack-ack
-
:lol Ferret Face!
(Anyone get the Frank Burns reference? :lol)
Actually, the squad name represents fun, casual flying, but flying in a preferred arena of things a tad more real of inflight radar and fly historical profile of axis vs allies 24/7 from early to mid to late war rolling plane set. They accomplish both silly fun flights (come and shoot me down) and valid objectives. They give fun to folks who find capable of flying 'blind', vectored to the fight by their buddies, and have fun defending a base or attacking.
They also brought more fun to Warbirds for being the only squad to host quarterly racing events, which Warbirds president always sponsors prize giveaways of 1st place = 1 month free flying. Still a very successful event.
Unlike the Ferret Face Frank Burns reference, Ferrets would probably best resemble M.A.S.H's Hawkeye Pierce's personality of pulling pranks amid a cloud of seriousness.
-
War has so many connotations: "Example: 4. any conflict or contest: a war of wits ; the war against crime", it can also be construed as a struggle of will. Base taking allows for such struggle, air superiority also allows for struggle. All with tidal change.
Are you really so obtuse as to try to use different definitions (you did not mean connotations, because connotations of war are NOT FUN, VERY BAD, SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT) of a word that have nothing to do with the use in my context?
The word war when used by itself only has one meaning. And that would be this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
2nd read more current events. You might discover humor.
HiTech
-
Are you really so obtuse as to try to use different definitions (you did not mean connotations, because connotations of war are NOT FUN, VERY BAD, SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT) of a word that have nothing to do with the use in my context?
The word war when used by itself only has one meaning. And that would be this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
2nd read more current events. You might discover humor.
HiTech
And yet on that same wikipedia page, it also defines
In all wars, the group(s) experiencing the need to dominate other group(s) are unable and unwilling to accept or permit the possibility of a relationship of fundamental equality to exist between the groups who have opted for group violence (war). The aspect of domination that is a precipitating factor in all wars, i.e. one group wishing to dominate another, is also often a precipitating factor in individual one-on-one violence outside of the context of war, i.e. one individual wishing to dominate another.[7]
You can argue that Aces high does not allow a virtual interpretation of this, when in fact it promotes organized squads to virtually 'shoot down others' as well as the virtual destruction of objects and virtually capturing bases...
The one constant factor is war’s employment of organized violence and the resultant destruction of property and/ or lives that necessarily follows.
(And yes some mmorpg's have been termed as violent with violence ratings).
Going back to archived issues, war and play were used interchangeably, as a venting method:
http://books.google.com/books?id=dkYEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA8&lpg=PA8&dq=playing+cowboys+and+indians+interprets+war?&source=bl&ots=lRoLE1dMHt&sig=H8By4abtM9yyqkvxp43Tbg_A_DY&hl=en&ei=RN-bTYz5GcLJ0QHp853mAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBUQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Not destruction of lives directly, of course., but Aces High allows for virtual recreations of historical events, and encourage battling against one another. From a virtual perspective, it is a watered down attempt to wage war (in a fun way). It is also what you advertise as Take part in special events such as historical scenarios where famous battles are recreated and reimagined
. Why bother recreating battles of a war if it is an insult to do so?
Most games out there allow for fantasy at waging war and even advertise as so. It's not real, but all want players to feel as if they can wage war (albiet in a safe environment). Killing and strategy has always been a constant of the human condition, and these elements have been taken virtual and more graphically than ever (such as your virtual blood splattered on the cockpit). This is where I'm coming from (elements of war recreated). I'm not obtuse, rather taking a valid point that 'W a r' is not restricted to the 100% end-game definition of real death. That is why you have 'war' woven into advertising of toys whether physical or online, hand held things, board games, they all have the sense of domination.
-
It's not war if it's in a safe environment. Esthetic blood and "killing" doesn't make a game a "war".
-
....@sigh@... Well that's 7 minutes i'll never get back :(
My compliments to the hijack about definitions on war and war games... :uhoh
-
Capping any arena at 100 is just plain stupid, that is all.
-
Are you really so obtuse as to try to use different definitions (you did not mean connotations, because connotations of war are NOT FUN, VERY BAD, SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT) of a word that have nothing to do with the use in my context?
The word war when used by itself only has one meaning. And that would be this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
2nd read more current events. You might discover humor.
HiTech
Orange Arena tonight locked out solid to extent it appeared stuck.
Normally you can drop out of server log in and try again and eventually you can get in...
System froze tonight...whatever creative mechanism you guys use to "balance" was/is broken
My hunch is that the 100/100 for orange had no bearing whatsoever on the actual population of the arena
Time to check those functions
Out
Oneway
-
Logging in and out doesn't matter, only that the relative player numbers are such that they trigger cap change. E.G. if enough other players also log in and out.. but unless I'm mistaken on the math for effect of low-end population numbers on caps, that'd just be playing musical chairs.
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,309083.msg3993102.html#msg3993102
So it's 80% of larger arena cap that needs to be filled before the smaller arena ups its cap. But what's the lowest number that a larger arena needs to be populated with, for the smaller arena's cap to raise? Or is that not a possible state, IE the only way for the smaller arena to raise its cap is for the larger one to be at =>80% capacity?
-
Orange Arena tonight locked out solid to extent it appeared stuck.
Normally you can drop out of server log in and try again and eventually you can get in...
System froze tonight...whatever creative mechanism you guys use to "balance" was/is broken
My hunch is that the 100/100 for orange had no bearing whatsoever on the actual population of the arena
Time to check those functions
Out
Oneway
Nothing is broken, when an arena is full it will not show you the extra people in the arena.
HiTech
-
http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,310993.msg4024937.html#msg4024937
Works for me...
-
Are you serious?
-
n/m wrong thread
-
Must...get...into...locked... arena... :x
Otherwise I'll just come here and complain. :rofl
:headscratch:
-
Are you really so obtuse as to try to use different definitions (you did not mean connotations, because connotations of war are NOT FUN, VERY BAD, SOMETHING YOU DON"T WANT) of a word that have nothing to do with the use in my context?
The word war when used by itself only has one meaning. And that would be this.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War
2nd read more current events. You might discover humor.
HiTech
Your wiki definition doesnt say anything about war not being fun or something to avoid. And it did not say that it only has one meaning. "war is a universal phenomenon whose form and scope is defined by the society that wages it" meaning you could call a sporting event war if thats how two opposing societies chose to settle their differences.
And what do our armed forces call it when they practice warfare? "WAR GAMES." And guess what, they ARE FUN. It doesnt matter if it is real life manuevers or an actual video game like "Americas Army." Yes a video game where people dont actually die is considered a "war" or combat simulation. And Air Force flight simulators arent that different from AH, are you going to tell us that they arent participating in simulated warfare? Bet the AF is going to :bhead over that revelation.
And who ever told you that war wasnt fun? I think there are more than a few people in history who thoroughly enjoyed war. They may not be politically correct as some of you pretend to be, but I would bet most special forces guys look forward to it, most fighter pilots can't wait to become an ace.
-
That amalgam of semantics is what you call a better definition than HT's?
-
Nice words. They dont fit well together, but looks impressive.
It's not HTs definition is it? It was wikis in this particular case and he's the one who contradicts "his" own definition! And I consider it a very good definition, wouldnt change it for the world.
-
You miss the point that AH is a game. That war is by theoretically and practically supposed to be unfair, which is what a game is supposed to not be.
Two groups in conflict choosing to resolve their differences thru games, are not at war.
The war games used for training are war games -- Games. No one is killed.
That people get a kick out of war doesn't change the fact that it's war, and not a game.
Using an AF simulator isn't war -- there's a reset button. You could argue that it is virtual war because it's not meant to be fair IE it's meant to reflect WAR conditions, but there's your amalgamation: that's just what AH does not intend to reflect.
The politically correct quip is irrelevant, just an opportunistic snipe.
You've taken a bunch of different contexts and meanings to words IE semantics, and mixed em all together indiscriminately to get the result that supports your POV.
-
And who ever told you that war wasnt fun? I think there are more than a few people in history who thoroughly enjoyed war. They may not be politically correct as some of you pretend to be, but I would bet most special forces guys look forward to it, most fighter pilots can't wait to become an ace.
Spend some time talking to the guys who got shot at for real, and then come back and tell me that it was fun for them.
I could quote any number of Spitfire pilots I've talked to, but I'll refer to my Nephew who is with the 101st in Afghanistan and has seen a lot of combat. His comment, in all seriousness, and in reference to having killed and having watched friends die was that 'it wasn't any video game'.
Going in, lots of folks romanticize war. Coming out, those that survive, don't.
-
Even the most war-like part of AH, events and scenarios, are carefully crafted to be fair - for the two strategic sides to start on an even ground and to have no loopholes to exploit (a hallmark of genuine all-out war). Even the boredom of war is minimized by design, for the sake of gameplay.
-
You miss the point that AH is a game. That war is by theoretically and practically supposed to be unfair, which is what a game is supposed to not be.
Two groups in conflict choosing to resolve their differences thru games, are not at war.
The war games used for training are war games -- Games. No one is killed.
That people get a kick out of war doesn't change the fact that it's war, and not a game.
Using an AF simulator isn't war -- there's a reset button. You could argue that it is virtual war because it's not meant to be fair IE it's meant to reflect WAR conditions, but there's your amalgamation: that's just what AH does not intend to reflect.
The politically correct quip is irrelevant, just an opportunistic snipe.
You've taken a bunch of different contexts and meanings to words IE semantics, and mixed em all together indiscriminately to get the result that supports your POV.
Who said war was supposed to be unfair? What definition of war did you find that in? What definition did you find that said warfare required death?
I am perfectly capable of seeing that AH is a game. A game that simulates warfare. I never said an AF simulator was a real life war, it is simulated war. No it is not always programmed to be unfair. They use multiple scenarios and they are not ALWAYS set up to be "unfair" scenarios.
By EVERY CRITERIA in the definition that hitech himself posted, AH is warfare. TECHNICALLY it is not even a "simulation" because again, the game fits the DEFINITION of warfare. It is a video game that has a sole purpose of allowing players to engage in a war!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Whether it is on the ground, in the air, or on the water, players engage in warfare.
All of your twisted, excessive, vainglorious verbiage doesnt change the fact that several people, for some ridiculous reason, are arguing that AH is not a war simulation. Im done. Call it what you want. When you get webster to change the definition, you can have it your way.
Spend some time talking to the guys who got shot at for real, and then come back and tell me that it was fun for them.
I could quote any number of Spitfire pilots I've talked to, but I'll refer to my Nephew who is with the 101st in Afghanistan and has seen a lot of combat. His comment, in all seriousness, and in reference to having killed and having watched friends die was that 'it wasn't any video game'.
Going in, lots of folks romanticize war. Coming out, those that survive, don't.
The politically correct comment was completely relevant and Guppy here just proved it. He is following the politically correct doctrine by pointing out the many men who have seen warfare and came away with haunting experiences. The truth is, the vast majority of vets will probably come away with those feelings.
As you should have seen, I didnt say ALL men enjoyed war. I didnt even say it had to be a sane man who likes war. But that doesnt change the fact that there is a small percentage of men who enjoyed it. How many spec ops guys did multiple combat tours in Vietnam when they didnt have to? I knew one. He didnt romanticize it, but he neither did he shy away from talking about his experiences and even laughed at memories. He didnt bow his head in some politically correct display of grief or regret. He enjoyed his combat experiences and military service and that's why he made a career out of the Army for at least another eleven years that I know of. And now I'm done with the ridiculous tangent!
-
When you talk about the meanings of words context is important. Nitpicking definitions while ignoring the obvious intent and context of usage is asinine.
-
This thread is still going, wow.
-
No it's all done because Muzik has run out of BS and clever ways of twisting words.
-
Um, ever read the homepage?
"Aces High takes the art and science of vintage WW1 and WW2 air combat and sets it in a high intensity online multiplayer environment. Hundreds of players simultaneously battle it out against each other in massive aerial dogfights and bomber raids.
High fidelity flight simulation is the heart of Aces High but it doesn't end there. A war rages on the ground and at sea. Engage enemy armor in tank combat. Protect your fleet as a gunner or make a torpedo run in a PT boat. Lead an assault in an amphibious vehicle. With over 100 warbirds, vehicles, and boats available, you have access to a vast virtual arsenal..."
-
Can you put that in context so we know what your point is? It seems to be saying that there are ships and ground vehicles in addition to the aircraft but I don't think that's how you're reading it.
-
It's obviously a lag issue, but 200-300 people seems to work fine. Also, only certain people lag, which may mean it isn't really a server issue and it's just a player issue (I'm sure there are some people from UK and I know I would never want to play in a FPS tournament with 200+ ping so I'm sure this is no different). I don't mind the two server thing when it's at 200/200, but when it's capped at 100/100 that's just silly.
Sorry I missed your answer. No it's not lag. More people subscribe with a split late war arena. This requires a way to populate both arenas with enough players so we have the caps. It also creates other issues so we have the off peak arena. It's one of those evolutionary developments whose need isn't immediately obvious.
-
:lol
Muzik is that it, backpeddling already? What war have you ever seen that was fair? What war-maker of any kind would not use the most unfair means to win, if he found em?
Which verbiage is twisting, vainglorious, excessive? Is it amalgamation? That one's common in my native language, and the meaning fits where I used it. So if it fits, how is it excessive or twisting or vainglorious? I think you have some serious trouble with words.
-
Nothing is broken, when an arena is full it will not show you the extra people in the arena.
HiTech
Why is this advantageous?
-
Why is this advantageous?
i wont try to speak for hitech, but personally i've noticed blue and orange are more equally populated. the fact that blue has often become the new orange in the last few weeks tells it. It seems that people don't waste their time trying to get into the bigger arena, because they can't tell which one is actually more populated (especially with the new 80%).
it almost has the same effect as just having an arena show "Full", which I also would have been in favor of.
if his intention is two evenly populated arenas, it seems to work.
-
i wont try to speak for hitech...
...if his intention is two evenly populated arenas, it seems to work.
This
-
Arena CAP's are better for HTC business.
End of discussion.
I guess it was not the end of discussion. :old:
-
I guess it was not the end of discussion. :old:
It is the final answer.
-
Muzik: I'll give you the quick version, for any more go do some reading on social dynamics.
When groups are small they can manage them self, a group of 10 people can play together and moderate themselves. If one person is going out side the bounds/rules of the group. The 10 people can deal with the person and either have him change his behavior or remove him from the group.
Has groups get larger and larger people start becoming anonymous and start viewing the group as only a group and not individual people. As this effect gets larger the social structure of the group brakes down and people become more disruptive with out many social consequences.
As far as the business side it really is VERY simple, we had hit an artificial ceiling and the player count had reached it's maximum in one arena. It had reached a point where more people would degrade the play, and as people came more people left and more people choose not to become subscribers, the number of total players of AH had STOPPED growing.
As soon as we split the arenas, even with all the complaints and whines when we did, we started growing again the same week we split the arena.
HiTech
:aok :old: :cheers:
-
I don't run my squad so you'll have to talk to dhyran about it. Give it a shot I don't mind.
The problem is, when a large squad migrates into a low-populated arena, it automatic set ENY to 40 for that country ,( unless you split up the squad into 3 countries :huh )
We have been there, done that, coming into an arena with less than 40 online.
Fighting tempests/51d's in Bf109e's or P40's might not be what we want switching arena to keep our squad together.
Also the reminder pilots in the non-capped arena spots the opportunity to jump to 100-capped arena, since 14 seats are just available in the 100-capped arena instead of fighting low vs many numbers giving us 40 still there , where 1/3rd is from our squad.
-
The problem is, when a large squad migrates into a low-populated arena, it automatic set ENY to 40 for that country
Don't you think completely exaggerated and non-factual statements like that could discredit your argumentation as a whole? ;)
Fighting tempests/51d's in Bf109e's or P40's might not be what we want switching arena to keep our squad together.
First, no need to fly a 109E if you do not want to, much more capable planes are still at your disposal. And you nicely skip the fact that to get max ENY, you have to massively outnumber your opponent. So its more like 3-4 of you vs one single tempest :)
And in LW, even ENY values >20 are quite rare btw, and very temporary.
-
Lusche we are been capped 26-40 , 30-40 mostly after the other countries guys log and go to the 10-15 free seats in the other arena now open.
We have seen that happen more than once.
Also valid still is Ripley's comment that we overpower both the other countries together, since we are not the only guys flying Rooks exclusive, and we don't want to split squad into countries to fight each other ( even though, we do that in the AVA to have some hardcore action sometimes.)
What normally happens is the Europeans part of the squad log.
In Warbirds this was common too during Euro TZ , Dhyran's squad 'Parrots' easily outnumbered the others side alone.
-
Lusche we are been capped 26-40 , 30-40 mostly after the other countries guys log and go to the 10-15 free seats in the other arena now open.
Still you never ever get an ENY of 40. Maximum ENY is limited to 29. You are never forced to fly 109'Es
ENY above 20 happens, but is very rare to last for longer than 15-20 minutes.
-
Ok thanks for the clarification Lusche, I stand corrected.
I normally fly a the FW190a8 or A5 , and they are not always available, so i resort flying 109G2/6
When that happens getting results against spit16/La7's hiding in field acks are slim for me as an individual ( thinking K/D).
-
What about taking the split score and getting rid of that? Make the arenas truly split and knock off the semi- split arenas we have. Maybe some squads will make an arena a home?
-
Nothing is broken, when an arena is full it will not show you the extra people in the arena.
HiTech
Trickery I say , hear now , lol . So it's fixed now but we can't see it .... J/K , Had np lately .
-
Nothing is broken, when an arena is full it will not show you the extra people in the arena.
HiTech
Boo. Did you happen to stumble across my proposal to do just that, except show the over number if it's within 5 players? So if it's capped at 200 and there are 203 players in, show 203/200, show 205/200, but 206/200 and up will read 200/200. That at least gives the guys who are desperate to get in a particular arena a measuring stick whether it is close or they should just mail it in and head to the other arena. I know you like to ignore all my ideas/improvements so just tell me it sucks so I can keep the hamster churning in other matters. K thx bye <3 Congrats again <3
-
Boo. Did you happen to stumble across my proposal to do just that, except show the over number if it's within 5 players? So if it's capped at 200 and there are 203 players in, show 203/200, show 205/200, but 206/200 and up will read 200/200. That at least gives the guys who are desperate to get in a particular arena a measuring stick whether it is close or they should just mail it in and head to the other arena. I know you like to ignore all my ideas/improvements so just tell me it sucks so I can keep the hamster churning in other matters. K thx bye <3 Congrats again <3
I would imagine the angst caused by those who see 200/200 will be no different than when they see 206/200.
-
I would imagine the angst caused by those who see 200/200 will be no different than when they see 206/200.
The only disadvantage from a player perspective is you don't know how close that full arena is to having a spot open up. If I log in and see 4 squaddies in blue but the population is 202/200 I may just sit tight for a few minutes and try and get in. If it's 212/200 I may just log into Orange and see if they want to join me there. I preferred the old system because of this, I had more info to make a decision with.