Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Mugzeee on September 27, 2006, 09:03:03 PM
-
Why? ;)
-
Why? exactly...It needs raised IMO to at least 350-400 and NOT open a second LW arena when it gets full. Make them go to MW or EW since the numbers there never get big enough. Once all 3 arenas start getting full then go and open a 2nd LW Arena. If their not going to raise LW, at least don't open a 2nd LW arena until the other 2 get close to max numbers too.
-
Close but no Cigar. ;)
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
Close but no Cigar. ;)
All arena caps must be lowered to 2
This eliminates the horde and guarantees 1-1 fights.
--
JJ
Drink the kool aid
-
Quah JJ!!!!
Outstanding work...i hadnt even considered that option!!!
you are my hero!!!:aok
-
Jim Jones...that is totally awesome. :rofl
But no...that isnt the answer.
-
WTF?! :eek: My Kool-Aid tastes like
-
wow lol.. do you think your going to get 1on1?.... No matter what people will always fly where they see the dar bar= always get picked banged and ho'd..
-
Originally posted by JimJones
All arena caps must be lowered to 2
This eliminates the horde and guarantees 1-1 fights.
--
JJ
Drink the kool aid
Both will probably start capping the others base, trying to take it. Then come here to the BBS to cry about how strat needs to be changed so you can esier take bases...... :D
-
I agree Mugzee: It would tend to get LW2 more populated, and hence the over flow would no longer be an over flow, but wrather 2 constant durring higher load times.
Btw the above resone is why we intialy did 200,200
But allas, I think a riot would erupt.
HiTech
-
some one in LW2 once made a joke that we were in the MA waiting room and that feels true alot of the times.
-
As a test, you should enable only RVs and jeeps, lower all the arena caps, and load Beta2 in all arenas. What's the worst that could happen? Whines? The BBS exploding? C'mon, it'll be fun. ;)
-
nice b&z in the 109f hitech yesterday .. I make good bait :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
I agree Mugzee: It would tend to get LW2 more populated, and hence the over flow would no longer be an over flow, but wrather 2 constant durring higher load times.
Btw the above resone is why we intialy did 200,200
But allas, I think a riot would erupt.
HiTech
:) well done sir.
As for the riot....hmmmm...don’t think it could get any worse.
From my personal observations over the last week i note the LW1 maxed and the LW2 between 20 to 50 players.
250+50=300
Arena caps at 180 for LW1 and LW2 would be a nice place to start i guess.
But HT...its all you sir!
Ima feeling yer pain . :(
Maybe if you bump it 2 slots at a time they wont notice: noid
LOL
I would be all for raising them too. 375 would work. But in light of what has transpired. I guess lowering them would be more logical at this point...then they could be raised as clientele grows?
OK...now im really minding your business...Not my intention, so ill duck out.
-
I unhid the 2nd late war today. In hopes some squads will make it there home selection. With out it being open all the time ( or at least at a specific time) there realy is no way of being sure you can fly there.
Strange thing a lot of people do not seem to realize, is this issue realy can not be ignored, no matter where you think the limit of arena size is, it will eventualy be hit, and hence the same split up problem as we have been trying to over come the past few weeks would still have to be addressed at a different date.
HiTech
-
should be interesting.
-
As being pretty dedicated to the late-war (and I'm not ElGay or Spixteen dweeb, all my sorties have been Corsairs except I think one in an SBD, excluding GVs) I just want to share an observation:
I'm not so sure that the arena caps are going to relieve the hordeing and one country being heavily outnumbered as was hoped. The Rooks have been out-numbered BADLY in LW1 by the Nits and Bish during prime-time pretty regularly since the change. In fact, I think it was either this past or last Monday, we were outnumbered in excess of 3:1 by the Bishops ALONE. Now, this DOES change in cycles throughout the day, generally evening out in late hours of the night. However, often one or more country has at LEAST a 20-player advantage over the third. This was not as significant when there's 500+ players in one arena, but when we're looking at half that, 20 players is a SIGNIFICANT disparity.
The problem that I've been watching is that for significant periods of the US prime time hours because of the low arena cap one country is able to attain such an overwhelming numerical advantage that one, or both, of the others have almost no chance of finding a fair fight. And, because one country has virtually taken over the LW1 arena, when going to LW2 the result is ANOTHER country with overpowering numbers.
I genuinely don't think the arena caps are helping to restore parity. In fact, I think the effect has been SHOWN to be quite the OPPOSITE. The lower cap just allows one country to flood the arena and milkrun a reset virtually unopposed.
The only way I can honestly see the low caps working WITHOUT the disparity, is to ALSO cap the numbers of each country, but that I think will add even more fuel to the fire because for some people country loyalty IS important.
-
I still don't get it, is the arena split a technology issue, a gameplay issue or both?
If it is a gameplay issue, then the split would seem to address it (i.e. people who dislike large crowds can go elsewhere).
However, why the low cap on the LWA? Is this to artifically force people into other arenas?
-
In the immortal words of Jimmy Pop from the Bloodhound Gang:
'Cause my name ain't Quasimodo but I still got a hunch
That like the Jim Jones cult I'll take you out with one punch [/b]
-
I guess I dont follow the logic
You have three arenas. The third is the most popular. You dont want to up that to accomodate more players?
I mean, you realize customers are opting not to play if they cant play with their squads, right? Or many gravitate to where the most people are.
Explain the logic of making it harder for people to play?
-
Originally posted by JimJones
I still don't get it, is the arena split a technology issue, a gameplay issue or both?
If it is a gameplay issue, then the split would seem to address it (i.e. people who dislike large crowds can go elsewhere).
However, why the low cap on the LWA? Is this to artifically force people into other arenas?
game play/community health.
-
Originally posted by Mugzeee
game play/community health.
Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.
-
Originally posted by Saxman
As being pretty dedicated to the late-war (and I'm not ElGay or Spixteen dweeb, all my sorties have been Corsairs except I think one in an SBD, excluding GVs) I just want to share an observation:
I'm not so sure that the arena caps are going to relieve the hordeing and one country being heavily outnumbered as was hoped. The Rooks have been out-numbered BADLY in LW1 by the Nits and Bish during prime-time pretty regularly since the change. In fact, I think it was either this past or last Monday, we were outnumbered in excess of 3:1 by the Bishops ALONE. Now, this DOES change in cycles throughout the day, generally evening out in late hours of the night. However, often one or more country has at LEAST a 20-player advantage over the third. This was not as significant when there's 500+ players in one arena, but when we're looking at half that, 20 players is a SIGNIFICANT disparity.
The problem that I've been watching is that for significant periods of the US prime time hours because of the low arena cap one country is able to attain such an overwhelming numerical advantage that one, or both, of the others have almost no chance of finding a fair fight. And, because one country has virtually taken over the LW1 arena, when going to LW2 the result is ANOTHER country with overpowering numbers.
I genuinely don't think the arena caps are helping to restore parity. In fact, I think the effect has been SHOWN to be quite the OPPOSITE. The lower cap just allows one country to flood the arena and milkrun a reset virtually unopposed.
The only way I can honestly see the low caps working WITHOUT the disparity, is to ALSO cap the numbers of each country, but that I think will add even more fuel to the fire because for some people country loyalty IS important.
This does seem to be the trend doesn't it. I see the same thing as well.
I only suggested lower caps for a numbers issue, without regard for balance.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.
?
-
Originally posted by Simaril
?
Give him a call and ask him.
Wouldn't feel right about posting what was a private conversation between us.
But if he wants to, I have no problems.
I think if he just posted all the reasons for the change it would help everyone.
-
That's the point exactly, Mugz. When the change was implemented a lot of the "for" crowd said it was all about numbers, that the old MA had gotten too big. What I think is being discovered now is that while yeah, hordes were a problem, it was largely isolated to a couple bases on a side but for the MOST part numbers were balanced and it was easy to find a more balanced fight. Sure every now and then one country would have an influx or numerical advantage because of squad nights, etc, but otherwise the numbers were pretty even.
Now, instead of only overrunning a corner of a map, the horde has taken over an entire ARENA because a numerical advantage that may have only been minimal is now creating a BIG disparity (again, one country being up by 20 guys when the others have around 100+ is nowhere NEAR as significant as the same number advantage when the "small" countries only have 40).
Case in point:
In LW2, The Bish had ~38 players, which equalled Nits and Rooks combined. HALF the Bish made a horde vulch run on the Rook base at A8 (likely defeated only through the efforts of a lone Goon hunter and the Bish being more interested in vulching until out of gas than upping another Goon. Also, we had a CV nearby that we brought in as an ack battery). That raid equaled the ENTIRE player base for the Rooks, who were engaged at other locations already, leaving only about 4-5 to try and oppose it. In the old MA there would likely have been another 10 Rooks upping either from the CV nearby, another base, or from the one under attack in either planes or GVs to break the CAP.
The same situation is being repeated over and over again. What was largely an annoyance to some players on the old MA is now on its way to becoming a widespread issue.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Give him a call and ask him.
Wouldn't feel right about posting what was a private conversation between us.
But if he wants to, I have no problems.
I think if he just posted all the reasons for the change it would help everyone.
That would be nice.
Not that I'm entitled, but I'd like to know what these other pressing issues are/were.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not just that, as I found out from a long chat with HT this week.
There were other more pressing issues.
If you're saying that the reasons we were given aren't the actual reasons for the changes, I'd be interested in hearing more about this as well.
-
Never said that, I said there were more reasons.
Wasn't just gameplay etc.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Strange thing a lot of people do not seem to realize, is this issue realy can not be ignored, no matter where you think the limit of arena size is, it will eventualy be hit, and hence the same split up problem as we have been trying to over come the past few weeks would still have to be addressed at a different date.
HiTech
Why not set it at 500 or 700? (previously the biggest size)
What is the reason for choosing other much lesser numbers of 250 + 250?
I agree that all limits may be eventually reached but 250 when we know 700 is possible seems arbitarily designed to divide the arenas. Giving less choice during times when they are inproportionatly filled............ not more.
Is there a present problem that the 700 threshold is being reached?
And if there is why should not the MW or EW arenas be viable alternatives when the LW (Main) is obviously full?
Other than the above..................
I would suggest that you show the terrain used in the the arena choice window such that folk may be influenced this way. (and have different terrains across the various arenas)
I would suggest that these lists are also available from inside an arena with the number of folk etc.
I would suggest that it is possible to automate the logout/login on an FE to enable players to move directly between arenas (or at least seem as if they do)
All this makes it easier to move............ folk can look at the numbers and terrain type in an alternative arena and easily check it out.
-
TILT: Because I belive that 600 people in 1 arena was far beyond, not was is posible, but rather what makes for better game play.
The prime example that I see proves my case was the need to eliminate channel 1. (BTW) I think it will be back on soon.
To date I realy have not seen one post by anyone that disagrees with that premiss. The only ones that come close are the totaly streched argments of I play this game because it is a MMOG. Pryor to the change there were lots of people complaining about items, that realy were just symptoms of, "It is just to crowed in here"
I see lots of arguments that say, the lower limits cause us to have other problems , like not being able to play with my friends/ squads. But that realy is not a direct problem caused by the arena limits. It is caused more by a perception of the way things used to be. And unwillingness to change.
Now do not missenterpt how I view those issues. Im not pointing a finger and saying "It is these peoples fault" what I am saying is those items are just very natural people behavior.
On a side note everyone has heard the quote,
you can lead a horse to water but you can not make him drink.
I always wonder how many people have all so heared the coralary.
"True, but you can salt the oats."
So I am still looking for other ways to change the old perceptions. Time will possibly help. And I am still looking for other ways.
At the same time, we are reavaluting other previous changes that have been implented over time do to the "To crowed" syndrom.
HiTech
-
Deleted
-
Thanks HT. I appreciate your willingness to give insight to your process.
PS...now before anyone gets the wrong idea.
I didnt need HT to spell it out! Im just dancing to the fiddler.
well.Duuuhhhh :D
HT
-
Originally posted by whels
Deleted
lol typical
-
Well, I'll give you this...you've been very tolerant of the posts and I'm looking forward to seeing how you guys balance it all out.
Thanks for that.
-
Originally posted by hitech
TILT: Because I belive that 600 people in 1 arena was far beyond, not was is posible, but rather what makes for better game play.
HiTech
Strange to connect overcrowding with abuse on CH1............
The term over crowding is strange too.......bigger maps are never over crowded there are always zones with no activity even when the arena is near full.
However the zones of activity do grow larger and game play in these zones swings locally from domination of one side to domination by another.
This is poor game play ( a true battle balance is never reached)and I can see that local surges would be more easily fed by a larger pool of players than a smaller one. Hence with smaller arenas the problem is lessened even if it is not eliminated.
EW (particularly)and MW allows for very specialised game play just due to its ac set. In fact we note that a smaller % of folk are enjoying just this.
They benefit from this additional choice but it is not (IMO) driven by the absence of over crowding it is driven to the type of conflict forced by the plane set. Land grab is more difficult and so gameplay emphasis is different.
It seems clear to me however that a considerable % also want the LW/Main arena format and a % of them do indeed follow the numbers(freinds, opponents etc etc) and not the gameplay.
There are tools that spread arean density to prevent localised massive inbalances in game play and still keep large arenas.
Zone/ field limits are such tools. Admitedly the arena layout has to be sympthetic to the maths of zoning (many of ours are IMO). Similarly zoning maths should take into account the distribution of players across a sides front line when there is a missbalance in field numbers.
AS you say there would be some that consider zoning as they now claim to consider smaller multi arenas............folk resistant to change. Not wanting to tolerate any new restraint.
What would concern me is that whilst you have seen a correlation between a gameplay problem and arena population...........there are too many other variables between the two............ the correlation is not a direct one, neither is it necessarily proportional.
It would be a shame if an enhancement (EW & MW) to give more choice actually turns into a heavy handed approach at gameplay manipulation.............
back to where we are now...............
I think you could over come the squad problems............ you could "flex" the arena limit to allow "affiliated" squads access to one arena ( the one they are "affiliated to") regardless of how full it is. Just a tick box set by the squad leader would give any squad member access to the arena selected.
This would actually promote squad member ships and could be seen as squad membership adding choice.
I can see some additional problems to over come for this to work (phantom members and one man squads etc) however there are solutions here to.
You could also rebalance the arenas when opening a new one......lowering the limit on LW1 as you open LW2 causing LW2 to fill up faster.
I am sure you have thought of other stuff too.
-
Originally posted by hitech
I agree Mugzee: It would tend to get LW2 more populated, and hence the over flow would no longer be an over flow, but wrather 2 constant durring higher load times.
Btw the above resone is why we intialy did 200,200
But allas, I think a riot would erupt.
HiTech
That's quite a jump to Two Hundred Thousand Two Hundred!
-
Tilt: You are only addressing game play over crowding, and not addressing the social aspects of over crowding.
And have you ever considered that the social aspects effect the game play aspects?
HiTech
-
Most sensible reason right there. EW and LW are most used, and have most complaints on 200. MW is the most fun for everyone, including ENJOYABLE banter between countries with far more regularity than either of the other two arenas, and yet seems to be less populated on a regular basis. So I gravitate there if total numbers on MW are even close to reasonable.
-
I am still slightly wondering why you guys decided to make such a drastic change with the MA:s.
Obviously a single arena in the prime time (US time) was not enough, however, it was perfect in Euro time. Would it not be enough for prime time to have 2 arenas (instead of 3 or 4), because for other times the 3 or 4 arenas are simply too many.
I imagine that only 2 arenas (MAs) with large overlap of time periods could address the previous problems best without creating too many new problems.
That would be "EWA+MWA" and "MWA+LWA"... or simply "EWA+MWA" and "LWA".
Maybe the lone "LWA" could even be like the old MA? There seem to be pros and cons for both of these approaches.
The current EWA ans MWA have something like 20 or 30 player each in Euro time.. sometimes later a bit more. That is not really enough for enjoyable massive multiplay experience. But combining those 2 arenas would mean 50 players+ to begin with, which would then also attract more people... snowball effect.
The currently available planes would also fill better the time periods, meaning that EWA alone and MWA alone seem to have some gaps.
Also with just 2 arenas there could be enough people to also use the larger maps, which are now kind of wasted effort.
-
would be interesting to see how many people were in what...
How many were in tanks say or other GV's or fluffs at any one time in each arena.
Wonder what percentage of LW players are strictly fighter guys.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by hitech
Tilt: You are only addressing game play over crowding, and not addressing the social aspects of over crowding.
And have you ever considered that the social aspects effect the game play aspects?
HiTech
Well I may be guilty of assuming that poor game play leads to dissatisfaction which (when expressed) leads to poor social aspects.............
Dissatisfied communities will not promote better game play..............
ergo poor gameplay has a double hit on the total product ..........
and I will agree that penduleming of local dominence from one side to the other can be fed to greater detriment when there is a larger pool of players in the arena............. in this respect "crowding" worsens this aspect of poor gameplay.
Given this I surmise it is the ability to create massive local inbalance which leads to poor game play. Whilst this ability is worsened by higher numbers.......those numbers are not the cause they are a catalist to its worsening..........
I would focus on ways of limiting such local inbalance.........
alternatively
Do you believe that (regardless of gameplay influence) higher numbers leads directly to poorer cummunity?
Like overcrowding rats in cage?
or is it more the effect of an arena of total strangers with differing objectives?
I think its pretty important you find out why this may occur
I think that if you do believe this then may be a consultant sociologist could help.
-
Do you believe that (regardless of gameplay influence) higher numbers leads directly to poorer cummunity?
Like overcrowding rats in cage?
Yes this is what has been happening.
And I bleive that we have crossed the threshold of self governance / peir pressure for the community.
Tilt: I know you have been here for some time, if you were around when peek arena usage was 200 , start thinking back of how people interacted, vs how they do now.
Then start looking at the changes we made.Look at how player behavior changed as we grew. Were the changes fixing a problem our a symptem?
And just like your sugesten does it bandade a problem or symptem?
HiTech
-
My forum account looks new, I know, because I just registered it.
From old DOS Confirm Kill beta test, WB, AH, WW2OL. I've to say the best experience ever is having all my squady on side and rush into massive battle, some 80~100 aircraft in same airspace. So I never like the idea of "caps".
I do understand the "over crowded", "spam spawn" causing problem of gameplay. But there is better solution than just give arena "caps". Ex: given airfield maximum aircraft it host, like 20, so you can only have 20 aircraft in air tookof from that airfield. By doing this you can limite an airspace to have around 100 aircrafts. Of course if people welling to do long fly, you can get more aircraft into same airspace. But that's how it should work, right?
If you asking me what I prefer with, I would say a single arena, with history-rotation (1wk for each EW/MW/LW), airfield host cap, would be what I prefer. I also prefer allied-vs-axis or just 2 countries war, but no 3 countries.
Just my 2cents (and it's 3AM here, LOL)
-
I really think that a field cap would limit the 'horde' mentality (that it would limit LA7's from outlying fields due to their poor range is just a bonus:) --Would hack off all the mega squads tho, and possibly mess up missions too. (Hmm..Rooks don't do missions anyhow... Go FOr It!)
-
To prove HTs point.
Before the change my play time was dropping for the following reasons.
I like to fly with guys I know. Doesnt have to be squadies just familiar names and pilots that I can learn how they fly.
From say January till June Ive been able to recognize fewer and fewer names in the MA. Both on my side and on the enemies side.
I like to chat with my enemies. I like to recognize my enemies by their fighting style it adds to the fears, thrills and joys of AH. I like to know my enemy.
MA was becoming an extreamly annonymous place where I didnt know anyone anymore which made me less tempted to log in. When I did I really didnt care as much about calling sixes as I usually do because who the foook carse about Joe Doe anyways.
Now after the change everytime I log on (fly either EW or MW) I recognize a good portion of the people on all sides. This makes the game more socially enjoyable and it helps me commit to the fight much more as I really like saving people I know.
So from my point of view HT´s theory, about over crowding beeing the nr1 problem of AH, is spot on.
Tex
-
Because I belive that 600 people in 1 arena was far beyond, not was is posible, but rather what makes for better game play.
Better gameplay?
So you saying that splitting the community into 3 arenas will stop the Horde/HO/1 sided Gang mentality?
Think again HT.
I have been here 4 years and because the chnges you made in the manner that you made them and the ensuing deletion of posts when people showed a tendency to disagree with you, I have cancelled my account and have no plans to renew in the forseeable future.
I know i'm not the only one that has done this.
Good luck with the rest of AH, i really mean that,but I fear, its gonna be more than luck you need.
-
Hammy I have never deleted a post because some one disagreed with me.
HiTech
-
I think what will be interesting is to see if the landgrab "genie" can be put back in his bottle with the lower caps.
I know back when I first started, the landgrab was a means to an end - you went and 'attacked' a field to find an A2A fight. There were people who would just attack fields, but it seems to me that the pork n auger behaviour started after whatever game it was (AW?) folded and everyone came over here. Coincidentally, that was when behaviour started to degenerate (in my opinion). Prior to that, it was more of a "knights of the sky" attitude, after the huge jump in population it became more of a land-grab/horde focus (well, everyone can't be a knight!).
Now with smaller caps, the 'vets' will have more of an opportunity to teach new players how the game is played. The real question is if there are enough 'vets' that enjoy A2A to put the focus of the game back on it, or will the newer (even then 'newer' means up to what, 3 years?) players will teach newbies that the focus of the game is on "winning the war" and grabbing as many undefended bases as possible.
For the 'A2A' school to come out on top, there has to be a unique mixture of circumstances in place. As I see them, they are
- Small fights need to be the rule, not the exception.
- Older players are willing to help newer ones.
- Players need to be able to build up a reputation, for good or ill.
Small fights emphasize skill, as much as it can be. Sure, players will still gravitate towards the "easy planes", but eventually they'll come to the realization that if they are going to enjoy the game, they need to learn how to fight. That is where the second condition comes in. Most, if not all, people need someone to get them started down the road to learning. Lastly, a lack of anonimity promotes both civility, learning, and diversity in plane choice - if player A can get a reputation as being a great stick in plane X, other players may try plane X out as well, instead of just the 3 or 4 easiest planes.
For the land grab side to come out on top, only some of these conditions need apply
- large fights (when there are fights)
- large numbers in the arena
- a less than helpful attitude towards newer players.
I think two out of three would be enough to ensure that the focus remains off of A2A combat. Large fights de-emphasize skill, most kills are scored by blindsiding someone, or cherrypicking. Large numbers encourage anonimity, and apathetic (or actively antagonistic) attitudes towards new players will push them into the horde/landgrab school.
Personally, I've always felt like the focus of the game was meant to be on A2A combat. It seems evident that that area of the game is the most fully developed. Bombers are modelled nicely, but there isn't anything for them to bomb. Vehicles have been a sideshow for as long as they've been around, although the new terrain that was added made that aspect of the game more immersive.
I'm pretty well burnt out on the game personally, I was half tempted to come back when the format changed but I don't think I will for at least a few months. But I do still care about this game, and I'd love to see it thrive. I honestly think that smaller arenas are the key to it. As far as I am concerned, the highlight of my AH experience was in the 250 man small map arenas. Wow, I guess I need a glossery and an index to go with this post :).
-
Originally posted by Urchin
I think what will be interesting is to see if the landgrab "genie" can be put back in his bottle with the lower caps.
Urchin unfortunantly, low arena caps have made land grab horde easier.
now when a side get a big # advantage, and the cap is reached, there is no way for people to log in to the arena and balance the #s.
aon avg since the change, EW has had avg #s of 40 to 60 total with Rooks having #s advantage, usually 10 to 20, MW same # total as EW
with knits/rooks having #s, usually rooks with slight edge.
LW avg 100 to 150 during day time US with maxed out during evening time. Bish enjoy a healthy #s adv most time with it being 20 to 60 more
then either side. yesterday i saw bish have double Rook #s, and abour 40 more then Knits.
#s for the arenas show continually, we want the old MA arena, as the EW/MW very low #s, and LW(old MA style) is where we want to be.
EW/MW are just rank/score padder heaven as there is none there to confront them, and if you do log in to fight them, they just log off or to another arena. If HT is gona leave arenas like this, then score/Rank need to be arena specific, but let perk points still apply in all.
-
HiTech,
Out of curiosity, would you care to share with the rest of us the other more pressing reasons for the changes, or do you think that would probably not be a good BBS discussion? While I'm certainly interested, I doubt you want to spend your week fielding phonecalls answering the same question, but I can also understand if you don't want to try to tackle this on the forums.
Thanks,
hub
-
hubsonfire: There realy are no other resones than we have already stated.
And we have tried to state those as straight forward as we can.
HiTech
-
I guess I misunderstood Kev's post. Thanks HT.
-
Don't think you missunderstood him, just when I read it, I realy couldn't think of anything he could be refering to. I realy didn't tell him anything that hasnt' been posted, It is just much easyier for me to portray the issues via voice.
HiTech
-
Is it hard to see that the arena that has the most players....is the arena that everyone wants to be in????...so translating that....people want to fight in the arena with the most action...If they can't get in, they are left to play in and arena they don't want to be in!....so ....that being said......put it back the way it was and you have a happy community again!!
Now was'nt that easy to figure out??.........as far as as the community getting bigger,and the slop talk on channel 200....odds are If ya have more poeple your going to have more trouble makers!!...Is'nt that the way life in general is???
-
HT has indicated in other threads that the 5-600 peeps in an arena era is over-- they looked at the overall effects, and decided the negatives outweighed the plusses-- he obviously wants/NEEDS his account base to grow, and 1000 people in one room is gonna turn OFF more new people than it turns ON--- very intimitading for 2 weekers facing a horde of 500 enemies
-
Maybe.....maybe not;)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Don't think you missunderstood him, just when I read it, I realy couldn't think of anything he could be refering to. I realy didn't tell him anything that hasnt' been posted, It is just much easyier for me to portray the issues via voice.
HiTech
I misunderstood something, but I think we're all on the same page now.