Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Krusty on November 05, 2006, 12:56:22 AM
-
The arena I was in tonight had about thes numbers:
bish: 79
knit: 49
rook: 99
Bish and rook weren't even trying to attack each other (except in tank town) and both were steamrolling the SAME knit HQ from opposite sides. Last saw the map with 6 airfields left in knit hands, endless streams of bombers from 15(?) were hitting HQ and 16 (which only survived because it was a 163 field, Ghi was landing 6-kill sorties in 163s NONSTOP all evening). No less than TWO enemy CVs were parked at 12 and 17, both of which were being vulched and porked mercilessly, meaning if you wanted to take off without being vulched you had to (at the time) use A5, 2 sectors away. Oddly enough it was surrounded but left alone.
THIS is what's wrong with the arenas. There will always be gaggles, groups, large steamrollers ("hordes", if you insist), but they will never dare fight each other. I don't know if lower arena numbers are the answer. Maybe to other problems (they help in a couple of areas), but there will always be a 2-sided fight with both larger teams milk running, steam rolling, porking, and vulching the side with less people on it. There were (and I added them up at the time) 196 combined vs 49. And of those 49 at least 1 dozen were in TT GVs, and another dozen in TT fighters/bombers. There were 2 dozen (at LEAST) trying to defend A16, our HQ field, but there were hundreds of enemy attacking it. Countless GVs up the side of the hill. I was told there were no less than 6 *formations* of lancasters unopposed over it at a couple points.
Lower numbers fixes some things. It doesn't fix side imbalances.
Not a rant. Not a rave. An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.
-
:furious
-
Originally posted by Krusty
An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.
Quoted for emphasis :lol :aok
-
Which came first the chicken or the egg?:lol
Is it possible that Knits numbers dwindled after they started losing map ground? Or, were the numbers you posted the reason that both the Bish and the Rooks were on the sides of your HQ?
Not a bash, just a question. I have seen the same thing, where two countries pound on the third trying to finish it off. Meanwhile, the losing countrymen (and women) see the butt whipping and just goes to another arena. In that regard, I agree. The unfortunate side of effect of choice is people on the losing side leave rather than try to defend the losing map.
-
Well, considering that the numbers were pretty steady at 200, and the arena cap is usually lower than this, I'm guessing it was that way for a long time. This is born out by the fact we were down to our last 6 airfields (and 1 TT V-field).
EDIT: Just a guess, mind you
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Bish and rook weren't even trying to attack each other. . . There were (and I added them up at the time) 196 combined vs 49.
If this was when the rooks finally won the reset, it is a perfect example of how personal impressions are often wrong . . .
I would say at least 20 Bish and at least 15 rooks were having a ball up around 45 - 46 - 47 as the Bish were trying to gain some bases before the reset (sadly, we were too slow). I would wager this was not the only place Bish and Rooks were fighting.
Just an observation . . .
-
Krusty ...
Since I have been playing Aces High, it has always been ... the two most populated countries gang-bang the crap out of the 3rd country rushing to see who can get the reset first ... while satellite groups try and steal bases from each other to either close the gap between them ... or lengthen the gap between them.
bish: 79
knit: 49
rook: 99
I'll bet the Rooks were up in fields followed by the Knights, probably not by much ... so the race is on.
The reason why the 2nd place team won't attack the 1st place team is due to the possibility of the 1st place team winning before the 2nd place team can regain and take the lead, so they race to see if they can take more Knight fields faster than the 1st place team to regain the lead for the win.
Like I said before ... this isn't anything new ... it's the way in Aces High.
Because numbers are now lower, I believe the effects of this common phenomenon are a little more intensified, but never the less, the actions and results are the same.
And think about this ... all that effort to "race for the reset" and pound the crap out of the weakest team for a measly 25 perks in each category and the realization that you just won a war that will start all over in 5 minutes.
What needs to happen ... eventually ... is the reason for winning needs to be changed ... a different goal other than smash a country down until X bases are left ... until then, this is what you will always see and experience and arena numbers has nothing to do with it IMHO.
-
last night euro time i was in mid war ok bish had the higher numbers rooks had the most bases .
it was my squad night so we tried out new methods of base capture and i enjoyed it.
the numbers werent level but there was some good fighting.
the arenas wont get level numbers because people wont change sides so we got to make the most of it
-
The problem is the people from one country assume they have a complete and accurate view of the entire map and all interaction between all three countries. Further, when being overwhelmed, they assume that their situation is being duplicated exactly all over the map.
It is very common to be flying for country A, and be in a desperate struggle to survive or defend against country C, and hear a dozen different people from country B on channel accusing countries A and C of having an exclusive truce and not fighting each other at all. And being very nasty about it. And people wonder why some refuse to switch countries.
Krusty, I'm not picking on you or singling you out, but if I had a nickle for every time the above situation applied I'd have a free AH account for life for me and three friends or relatives. There are people on every side who swear they're the only ones that ever get ganged, and that their side never has numbers and never gangs. The thing is, they just don't see it, because they don't want to.
-
Deleted for hijack
-
Deleted for hijack
-
Deleted for hijack
-
Lower numbers fixes some things. It doesn't fix side imbalances.
Not a rant. Not a rave. An observation, that (hopefully) won't garnish too many angry replies.
Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved by your facts.
At best your facts show lower number did not improve side imbalance in the case you listed. But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance. Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance (that is yet to be seen, and other forces are creating waves in the system), I am just showing the difference between an observation (The numbers listing you did, is an observation) vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.
-
Krusty...i believe your observation is accurate.
I also know that this has been the subject of exam for very long time now.
HT has said in many ways many times that he wouldn’t force anyone to stay with a country for say a 30 day period.
But i think it is safe to say, that allocating new players to the low numbered country at signup and first log on, is the only way to balance the count.
While this may seem rash and a sure method to bring out the cries of many,
I don’t suppose it would be any different than what we are experiencing now.
The difference is that the sides would be balanced numerically and the crying would still be heard. But at least the numbers would be balanced.
As it is now, the sides are not balanced and the crying is being heard.
Now then, say the sides are all balanced 99% of the time. Would this address the problem of "Ganging" one side?
Some would argue that it wouldn’t...but the fact that the sides are balanced brings a dynamic to the game. The back door attacks (Flanking) bring the fronts into balance as they have many times in the past when the numbers were balanced.
Think back on the nights that the side’s numbers were balanced in the MA.
Anyone that was truly paying attention couldn’t argue the fact that the War was basically balanced on the fronts. (Stalemate)
Im not against stale mates because it brings out the fight in players.
I would not be against being forced to stick with one country for a 30-day period.
But even if you could get enough to switch countries to balance the sides, there would be just as many switching sides in an effort to create a country with a superior numbers advantage.
This is the key reason that "Switching sides" to even up sides is doomed from the beginning.
Expecting the entire player base to even up sides by switching countries is nothing more than a fantasy.
From what i see, the new setup has created WAY more problems than it has solved.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved by your facts.
At best your facts show lower number did not improve side imbalance in the case you listed. But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance. Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance (that is yet to be seen, and other forces are creating waves in the system), I am just showing the difference between an observation (The numbers listing you did, is an observation) vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.
OMG!!! Perfect spelling :aok WTG Google. :D
-
It used to be that an "imbalance" would occur and eventually would even itself out, as more of that side logged on. Now, with the caps in place once an "imbalance" occurs it remains as the arena fills up. Yes the cap adjusts but the other arena soaks up alot of people who would otherwise be of assistance to the screwed side.
-
Mugzeee:
But i think it is safe to say, that allocating new players to the low numbered country at signup and first log on, is the only way to balance the count.
It has been this way for over a month.
HiTech
-
I dont remember the thread it came from, but I've been thinking a lot about the "slots available per country" idea. I know HTC likes to move stepwise, letting the ripples settle before another change is made, but it seems to me that the slots system would address many problems -- and if the slots were as dynamic as the caps, the system would solve this trouble too.
-
Originally posted by Max
OMG!!! Perfect spelling :aok WTG Google. :D
Wrong ...
"But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance."
-
Originally posted by Simaril
I dont remember the thread it came from, but I've been thinking a lot about the "slots available per country" idea. I know HTC likes to move stepwise, letting the ripples settle before another change is made, but it seems to me that the slots system would address many problems -- and if the slots were as dynamic as the caps, the system would solve this trouble too.
Originally posted by SlapShot
Let me see if I have this right ... and I will use numbers that are easiest for explanation and not the real numbers.
If ...
LW1 and LW2 have a cap of 100 and when an LW arena population reaches 50% of the cap, the other LW cap is increased by 50 seats.
So ...
Once LW1 reaches 50 players, LW2 cap is increased to 150 and LW1 still has room of 50 more players before is reaches its cap.
Once the 100 cap is reached in LW1 no more entry is allowed.
Now that LW2 cap has been increased to 150, players will begin to fill up LW2. Once LW2 reaches a population of 75 players, LW1 cap will be raised to 150. At this point, people really have a choice of LW1 or LW2 because neither has reached their respective caps.
So at this instant we would see ...
LW1 - 50/150
LW2 - 75/150
==============================================
Now lets go back to the beginning and start again ...
Once LW1 reaches 50 players, LW2 cap is increased to 150 and LW1 still has room of 50 more players.
Once the 100 cap is reached in LW1 (current numbers in LW1 are - 60 Rooks - 25 Knights - 15 Bish) and someone selects LW1 while the cap has been realized, they are presented with another popup choice ...
LW1 - Knights (until they reach a population of 60*)
LW1 - Bish (until they reach a population of 60*)
LW2 - Open for all at the moment
*60 is set by the highest single population at the point that the cap had been reached ... in this case, the Rooks had 60 when the cap was reached.
This way, someone who wants to play in LW1 and is willing to join one of the weaker sides, is allowed entry. So ... If I choose Bish ... the the cap is now 101/101 ... so on and so forth until balance is achieved (180/180), and at that point, there is no more entry into LW1 until LW2 has reached its saturation point causing the cap in LW1 to be increased.
So if LW1 did reach 180/180 by people choosing the under populated countries and LW2 eventually did reach it 50% saturation point, the new cap for LW1 would be 180 + 50 = 230 so we would see ...
LW1 - 180/230
LW2 - 75/150
I realize that this would take some coading, but it could help to alleviate lopsided numbers in "capped" arenas using people who don't care what country they belong to.
Originally posted by Overlag
(http://www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk/Pictures/Aces/new/servers.JPG)
something like that would be cool
the numbers i used are just made up... percentages or hard numbers would have to be thought off after the coding is put in place.....:)
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The problem is the people from one country assume they have a complete and accurate view of the entire map and all interaction between all three countries.
Good point. From *my* perspective, we had countless rook and bish hitting us on our last island nonstop for over an hour, endless streams from both North and Southwest. We literally had a small pie-wedge of the map, and it was only 2 sectors wide at the edge of the map. I think I only saw 1 base blinking on the bish/rook front (on almost the exact opposite side of the map from us). I will chage my point to say "I don't know for sure, but if 1 or 2 fights did take place between rooks and bish, it didn't slow down or detract from the numbers that were hitting knit.
Originally posted by hitech
Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved by your facts.
Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance, I am just showing the difference between an observation vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.
Good point. I chose poorly when I worded my post. Sorry. However, my sample size was greater than 1. It seems there's always 1 weakest side, and it gets hit by both larger sides, since this arena split happened. Mind you I like the arena split and think it has potential, but don't see improvement in side balance as of yet.
Also, in regards to the country slots: I'm against that. Too prohibitive in general. It goes against my nature. That's my proverbial vote.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Btw it isn't an observation either, you have drawn a conclusion that isn't proved by your facts.
At best your facts show lower number did not improve side imbalance in the case you listed. But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance. Also I am not stating that lower numbers does improve side balance (that is yet to be seen, and other forces are creating waves in the system), I am just showing the difference between an observation (The numbers listing you did, is an observation) vs the conclusion you drew from the observation.
Actually have to disagree.
Krusty is spot on with his conclusion.
Like it or not the changes have resulted in imbalanced arenas, more so and more often than pre the changes.
If one country is getting hammered chances are a lot goto another arena further imbalancing the numbers in that arena, and doing the same on the arena they goto.
This has been pointed out numerous times.
Even with even numbers all sides have experienced the 'gangbang'.
Would suggest the only way to stop that particular happening is to go to only two countries, also has the added advantage in that it is easier to balance 2 countries than 3.
Until that happens I think your just flogging a dead horse.
-
The AH Main Arena has been unbalanced on a regular basis ever since I came to AH in 2001. It comes and goes, always has, and likely always will.
Just sayin.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Mugzeee:
It has been this way for over a month.
HiTech
Now to stop the bouncing ball effect once players are in.
I know it would take some time before things would settle in.
Logistically it would be a pain to empliment.
But a lock in of sorts would be the only way to balance numbers it seems.
Then you have the "Time issue" (at one time things are balanced. Next thing ya know its bed time for 60 players and the imbalance is there again.
I wish it were as simple as players switching sides to balance numbers...but i think we all know it isnt going to happen that way.
As usual...more questions than answers :(
In this great quest to balance the sides...I am seeing that almost every solution will further alienate Squads in AH2 as we know them.
With each and nearly every solution suggested there is an obvious negitive effect it will have on current squads.
They could form new ones once things settle down...but soon they will have yet another implication that will displace them yet again.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Wrong ...
"But that is not the same as stating as you did that it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance."
Nitpicker :cool:
-
I think I like the 2 countries idea, yet I fear that the inherent mentallity of the player base will still choose to make things uneven:huh
What would we call the 2 countries? Roobishights & Knibiooks?:rofl
-
Originally posted by Atoon
I think I like the 2 countries idea, yet I fear that the inherent mentallity of the player base will still choose to make things uneven:huh
Slap's idea is still better, especially when you realize that:
1. The slots can be set up to allow all those IN the arena to stay, but to favor the low country when new folks are added;
2. The slots idea, coupled with a queue, would perfectly address the potential conflict between squads' desire to fly together and everyone else's desire to have reasonable gameplay balance;
3. The slots system allows transparency (if you see the queue, you get to choose whether you'd like to wait, switch sides, or go elsewhere), avoids the blatant force of most online games' side balancing -- and so may encounter less resistance than other options.
4. Lastly, I'm pretty sure in remembering that somewhere along the way HT has had experience seeing what happens with 2 sides in MMO flight sims. His persistance with the 3 sides tells me that something about 2 sides is worse than what we see now.
Originally posted by Atoon
What would we call the 2 countries? Roobishights & Knibiooks?:rofl
:rofl
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The AH Main Arena has been unbalanced on a regular basis ever since I came to AH in 2001. It comes and goes, always has, and likely always will.
Just sayin.
yes and no. the balance would be out for a few hours at a time, and it would swap around between teams depending on the days, and times. Yes, we had a few months sometimes where one country would have more numbers (mostly rooks during RJO's, boy i "miss" those days with team work lol)...but generally, since ENY the balance has been relatively stable.
however the issue now, as Kev, Slapshot and i in other threads have mentioned is.... if you are loosing in 1 arena, you join arena 2. and if 1 arena is NEAR the cap, players cannot join to fix the issue.
Often i come on, and join LWblue, only to see knits with 20-30 more players. Id rather join Orange as I'm pretty sure knits would have 20-30 LESS in that arena, but its capped! I cant get in. Once when knits was 30 players less, in blue, i PM'ed a few "country men" in orange, and managed to pull about 15 players over..... and leveling the playing field, BUT not many players are like that, and with caps in there way how can they?
and, in the that other thread slapshot quoted from someone else posted the overall figures of the countries added up.... and it was something like 109-106-110...very balanced... However BOTH the LW's had terrible imbalance, one arena was a Bish arena, one was a Knit arena, and rooks was pretty even (they was on low side in both LW's, as they had more in EW/MW)
-
You guys all remember how the "old" MA used to go as far as the sides went, right?
Back then, when you would see up to 650-almost 700 in the Main, You had the potential to be unbalanced...But it would be by a smaller percentage than it is now. Well, that was caused by a lot of things...sometimes, some of the squads would be on a country rotation, tour-to-tour, and they would throw it out of wack when 2-3 of them landed on the same country, in the same rotation. However, this would usually be for about 3-4 hours, not enough time to really make a difference in either the furballers' scheme of things, or the Victory crowd. It would usually be decided late at night in the U.S., during euro time.
But now, you see more arena resets, because all of the arena's aren't just a little out of whack, they are alot out of whack, side-wise. And, in a comical way, I've seen people jump sides to make it even, but then, their friends/squaddies jump, then, your imbalanced the other way. this happened in LW1 not to long ago. And, since you can't immediately jump back to even it out, you now are stuck with another imbalance. It's like taking fine sand in a box, about half full, and trying to tilt it to get it even. It lumps on one end, and stays there. The only way to get it to balance out, is to take your hand and directly move it.
I guess what our question is now, Is what can HTC use as a hand?
-
Ahh, and one more thing.
And think about this ... all that effort to "race for the reset" and pound the crap out of the weakest team for a measly 25 perks in each category and the realization that you just won a war that will start all over in 5 minutes.
I've always had the impression, Slap, that it was more to see who would have flaming rights on ch. 200. People take to this game as if they were playing in a team-oriented sport.
-
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The AH Main Arena has been unbalanced on a regular basis ever since I came to AH in 2001. It comes and goes, always has, and likely always will.
Just sayin.
The thing is, as time went by, the cycles intensified. What started off as "in the hole" in 2001 (when I started as well) is a much different thing than the extended cycles the population went through in 2003 and 2004. In 2001, a country being a bit low on numbers for a month was "in the hole". By 2004, you had countries that were looking at being 20% of the population for 6 months at a time. I remember the Knights were low for a long while, then it was the Rooks turn. I haven't really paid attention for a couple years (hell, it has been a couple years since I played, really) but I imagine it just got worse.
I think the main focus of the format change is to bring back peer pressure as a way of influencing behaviour. In a 650 man arena, getting called out by someone for acting like a dink is meaningless, at best. At worst, you get into a juvenile flame war on Ch1 (or 200).
In a 150 man arena, people KNOW each other. I always thought it was funny when people would say "Score don't matter, people KNOW who the GOOD pilots are!", because in a huge arena, that isn't true. "People" know who some good pilots are, but mostly they just know who has the biggest mouth, and who can brag on themselves the best. Please note that my definition of "good" means only good as far as good in fighters, I never cared much for the other play formats.
In a 150 man arena, you get wasted by someone you go "holy crap, how'd he do that!?" You might even ask - and in a 150 man arena, he might even answer you. In a 650 man arena, you just think "meh, he got lucky", and even if you ask, odds are good you won't get a response, because it just doesn't matter to him. You are just another noob.
A small arena format fosters better behaviour, in my opinion. It will definately take some time to "breed out" the hording behaviour, and honestly I don't know if it is even possible, given the natural tendency towards the path of least resistance. But there is definately a possiblity of that happening in the smaller arenas, and not at all in the larger ones. For that reason alone I think the change is a good one.
-
If you stuck to one arena you might get to know some of them I guess, but if you switch arenas regularly its unlikely to happen.
Hoards aren't always the path of least resistance, thats just the usual flawed reason trotted out.
Somtimes it's a mission to try and take a heavily defended base, other times it's just a group of guys or a squad flying together.
If anything it's worse now than it ever was given the more severe numbers imbalance.
So sorry Urchin, a few of your observations are just plain wrong.
-
somebody from another game realized when he came here that if he got enough lemmings organized they could form massive squads and steamroll fields no matter how little tallent was in the lemming pool..
They then realized that if they avoided any real competitive or stiff resitance... they could survive and get points soooooo.... the circle jerk of milkrunning undefended or lightly defended fields with overwhelming numbers started... It works.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Well Lazs if you'd been in LW Blue last night you'd have seen how wrong you are.
A3 was constantly under attack for hours by a large number of Rooks and defended by a much smaller number of Bishop.
Wasn't what I would consider a hoard, but a larger force that was attempting to take a field, but in your book it would go down as a hoard.
When I left we (Bish) were still clinging onto it, barely.
But I guess in your book taking a field with even numbers is totally possible, if so I'd like to see it sometime.
If the defenders have a clue what they are doing you wouldn't stand a chance in hell of coming even remotely close.
-
kev... what you fail to realize is that often when you see a "spirited defense" it is nothing more than furballers fighting each other.
My point is that the strat girls don't do their part. As a furballer I often kill 3 or more attackers but the strat girls don't defend against the suicide porkers... I don't see em fly cap... if they "defend" it is simply that there is no real attack.... maybe a few low level fluffs or GV;'s that the furballers have no trouble taking care of...
Nope... never seen the strat girls "defend" worth a damn... the furballers are doing all the killing..
If the strat girls were really wanting to defend... they would fly the high cap where the furballers don't really go. they would be ineffective of course but they could at least try if what you say is true.
It is the furballers doing all the "defense" if you mean killing the attackers.
Course.. they aren't really defending so much as just killing red planes but...
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
-
Originally posted by Max
OMG!!! Perfect spelling :aok WTG Google. :D
Incorrect Max, Line #3, it dose not fix (improve) side imbalance. "dose" instead of does. Even with a spell checker! :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl
Ooops did not see Slapshots reply, oh well.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
kev... what you fail to realize is that often when you see a "spirited defense" it is nothing more than furballers fighting each other.
My point is that the strat girls don't do their part. As a furballer I often kill 3 or more attackers but the strat girls don't defend against the suicide porkers... I don't see em fly cap... if they "defend" it is simply that there is no real attack.... maybe a few low level fluffs or GV;'s that the furballers have no trouble taking care of...
Nope... never seen the strat girls "defend" worth a damn... the furballers are doing all the killing..
If the strat girls were really wanting to defend... they would fly the high cap where the furballers don't really go. they would be ineffective of course but they could at least try if what you say is true.
It is the furballers doing all the "defense" if you mean killing the attackers.
Course.. they aren't really defending so much as just killing red planes but...
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Lazs what you fail to (and continue to fail to see) is that even the EW is not some kind of private furballers only sandbox.
The guy sank the CV, so what, there's other fields unless HT has snuck in a map with only 1 field and a CV on it.
You have three totally opposite statements in that little bit of dribble above -
1) "they would fly the high cap where the furballers don't really go"
2) "never seen the strat girls "defend" worth a damn... the furballers are doing all the killing"
3) "As a furballer I often kill 3 or more attackers but the strat girls don't defend against the suicide porkers"
Kinda hard for furaballers defend a field against porkers given #1, yet claiming #3 and #2.
What you forget as usual is that the majority don't play AH2 so one-dimensionally as you do.
You'll find me (and loads of others) high and low over a field being attacked, yet I wouldn't class myself as an out and out furballer.
So no the furballers aren't doing all the killing, as much as you'd like to claim they are.
Of course sometimes the best defence is a 'quick' pork of the surrounding fields, or getting some guys together to up from another base to hit the field the attackers are coming from. Still doesn't make me an out and out furballer.
-
kev367th, didn't you post some goodbye cruel world post a long while back?
-
Originally posted by storch
kev367th, didn't you post some goodbye cruel world post a long while back?
Nope, but I did take a short break just prior to the changes, came back just after them.
Also if taking a short break due to my Mother being rushed into hospital and spending 5 weeks in ICU is a "goodbye cruel world" post, well then I suggest you just keep that big mouth closed, less chance of putting both feet in it.
-
I think Slapshot's idea is a good one.
While I don't believe there is a perfect solution, it would keep the numbers within a range of being fair.
While ENY was intendend to be some sort of equalizer when numbers were unfairly lopsided--numbers are still numbers, and I don't know many players wearing "I LOVE ENY" t-shirts.
It just seems that some nights in some arenas, the side you log onto needs a new chess piece---The ALAMO.
Some have been saying "change sides"...well, I'm a Knight...my SQUAD is Knight, and loyalty means alot to us.
Until then, for my NEXT impression....Davy Crockett!
ROX
PigStompers
-
Originally posted by lazs2
They then realized that if they avoided any real competitive or stiff resitance... they could survive and get points soooooo.... the circle jerk of milkrunning undefended or lightly defended fields with overwhelming numbers started... It works.
lazs
Public Relations Officer for the BK's
Sounds to me like a well organized offense against a poorly organized defense....Perhaps you should have organized the Defense instead of posting 17000 times....
-
Still no reply from storch after that little stumble....;) :aok
-
raider and kev... let's face it... the gameplay so far as strat is extremely simplistic and made so that a lone newbie has a chance of "making a difference" so that he doesn't get bored and quit... to do this he has to be able to kill some kind of strat using a mouse and half a brain.
This is anoying but fine... what is not fine is a whorde of guys who should know better organizing these lemmings.
Now... anyone who doesn't want to deal with this silliness is told to "organize" and oppose it.
the hypocracy is silly... the guys who claim to like organization and strat won't and can't defend against it so they just do the same to the other sides undefended fields.
As I have said... the strat gameplay has devolved into three whordes all racing around in a circle jerk of capturing undefended fields... Who wins has to do with who does it the fastest. This is dependent on how many lemmings you can get to buy into it and how lopsided the numbers are..
the new arenas are a big improvement on the situation.
lazs
Public Realtions Officer for the BK's
-
sometimes the best defense IS a good offense....
-
Originally posted by lazs2
raider and kev... let's face it... the gameplay so far as strat is extremely simplistic and made so that a lone newbie has a chance of "making a difference" so that he doesn't get bored and quit... to do this he has to be able to kill some kind of strat using a mouse and half a brain.
This is anoying but fine... what is not fine is a whorde of guys who should know better organizing these lemmings.
Now... anyone who doesn't want to deal with this silliness is told to "organize" and oppose it.
the hypocracy is silly... the guys who claim to like organization and strat won't and can't defend against it so they just do the same to the other sides undefended fields.
As I have said... the strat gameplay has devolved into three whordes all racing around in a circle jerk of capturing undefended fields... Who wins has to do with who does it the fastest. This is dependent on how many lemmings you can get to buy into it and how lopsided the numbers are..
the new arenas are a big improvement on the situation.
lazs
Public Realtions Officer for the BK's
I'm sorry but all hordes do not Always "Go after undefended bases". Especially on these small maps where that is not even possible...
And anyway don't you have dar? If your side sees them coming and refuses to mount a defense, whose fault is that?
Again I have to say it's on you as the defender who is at fault, and not on the guys attacking.
For all the cryin you do about the horde, I have never 1 time seen anyone in the game complain. I only see it from a select few on these forums.
And as far as the new arenas, they suck and the imbalance is 50x worse than it ever was because numbers in the arena are so low.
when it was 200 vs 200 vs 150 even the country getting ganged could defend reasonably well because they had 150 guys. Now its more like 70 vs 50 vs 30 and those 30 guys stand no chance against the other 2 sides.
Have you ever been in LW?
I see the EW arena and it looks like its always next to empty. The game has taken a huge step back from MMOG when all it needed was an EW arena for you L337 fighter jocks and a few gameplay tweaks.
-
Last night was one of the few nights I finally logged off in frustration. I often don't mind fighting against superior odds, but it was virtually impossible to find a base that wasn't getting pounded by the Rooks and Bishops last night late in the evening.
What happened to all these people switching sides to prevent this? The knights had 18 people on in the LW arena I was in. The other sides had a huge population advantage...and they decided for some reason it was fun to gang the knights. Vulching, toolshedding...it was a hmm...knightmare, lol!
Anyways...it's not really a rant, just something I noticed. If I was frustrated enough to just log off, I wonder how many others this happens to? I could have switched to one of the sides that was running a 58-18 advantage, but that didn't appeal to me either.
I guess I should have just popped into the EW or MW arena where there were 2 or 3 people and worked on my score by bombing undefended CV's or factories, but scores don't really mean much to me. How do we fix this to encourage people to keep playing?
-
The imbalance is not new......it happened before.
The difference now is that an inbalance is frozen into the arena when it hits max numbers.
Go to the next arena and an inbalance favouring another chess piece will most probably be in play...........
Country orientated milk runners will not stay in arenas where the balance is agin them.......they will move. Hence the player choice mechanism makes the inbalance worse not better
If you want to correct imbalance by force then you have to cap country numbers as a % of the max arena population.
One idea is suggested above....... another is to allow the arena to over populate (when the arena is maxed out) provided it addresses balance ie an attempt to join an over populated but inbalanced arena will force you into the minority country. You and others will find it impossible to change country (whilst the arena is in this "state") other than toward the minority country.
I disagree that smaller arenas per say promote a "sub comunity" where folk know each other better. For this to happen the player must be able to choose which arena he wishes to play in.
Most often I have no choice re which LW arena I play in ........I am forced into the one that is not maxed out. Indeed this may separate me from those I know best.
....and of course we see here that some would change the gameplay to suite their version of how things should be....infact it seems that some would prefer no game play provided they could enter mass duels add nausium and others would (or so some claim) like to play in some sort of "off line mode" the sole out come of which is to spoil the fun of those others.
The truth that is repeated every day is land grab. It is a contest between three sides to capture territory..one that requires the exploitation of all types of weaponry for a side to win. This is the gameplay that should be perfected IMO to create an environment where the mix of rides not only the provides variety but also provides a place for all players (types, skills and interests) in the main thread of game activity.
-
For this to happen the player must be able to choose which arena he wishes to play in
Or forced to always pick the same arena of like types.
btw I am open to any suggesting on how to accomplish either, while still maintaining small arena numbers. If a way can be found arena country % will also stabilize.
-
dont know wether it would help but.., maybe limitng number of planes up for each country at one time may help stabilise, maybe put in beneits for squads to rotate or switch teams now and then,as these are the "lng termers". also 3 arenas may make it easier to stabilise than 4. whatever is done, keep it simple, confusing things just get you bogged down. dont know about others but.. when i log in, i want to browse map, go to hangar, and fly. no swanning about with looking at areans e.t.c :)7
regards , and things like squad roster are usefull :)
-
Slapshot has an excellent suggestion, posted on another thread.
ROX
-
Do you ever achieve three LW arenas?
Some mechanisms
Subscription.
Basically each month the player is asked to choose his preffered arena. His choice gets coded into his settings somewhere.This arena then has #% higher max limit for him than other arenas and he can only visit those other arenas when they are #% below the max.
Purchase
If you want into a max'd out arena you have to buy in with perks. (and then only if the population is no greater than #%)
Balance this with a change to the perk multiplier that allows greater perk rewards in arenas with smaller populations.
Both the above
........... subscribe to one, pay for others when they are near full.
Problem here is that the two LW arenas have no real uniquely identifying features. So you would have to create some.
eg terrains
LW1 = Baltic, ND isles, etc
LW2 = another set of terrains.
eg theatres
LW1 = ETO (east & west)
LW2 = PAC & Asia
eg game play
LW1 = Land grab
LW2 = Furball (no bombers or gv's)
eg Realism (shudder)
you get the drift...........
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or forced to always pick the same arena of like types.
btw I am open to any suggesting on how to accomplish either, while still maintaining small arena numbers. If a way can be found arena country % will also stabilize.
HITECH,
let me begin by saying how much i appreciate what you are trying accomplish.
i have had a great time playing your game and i have met some really stellar people. i am so glad to hear that you are open to suggestions on the matter of it's structure and i would like to share a few thoughts. nothing too special, but there may be a few kernals in them to toss around.
i keep thinking that the separate arenas are becoming more like a bowling alley where you might have to reserve a lane in advance. is there a way to do this for squads and such on squad nights? to reserve a space? or even to have a squads only arena perhaps?
i know it's a stretch but...
second thought. let's say that you could view ALL of the arenas simultaneously...sort of like how it is in the DA at present...
a larger WAR MAP or table that covered all of the arenas as they exist real time.
it would essentially be the old MA, but with limits placed within it so that gameplay could exist in a better state of being.
that we have the .commands right now is better, but i think that one of the major issues that might be happeing is that people suddenly feel separated from all of thier friends and enemies alike. it's as if individual cells have been drawn between people.
a full roster of all players playing aces high (in real time) might be a great addition.
i read where you said that you had begun creating the game from the clipboard and worked outward...perhaps it, being the core,is where the first new steps would best be focused? all of these issues seem to stem from what is happening and what is presented on that clipboard.
okay..
so, lets say that a player could view numbers, they could see where everyone is playing etc...still each sector or area has a number cap like it is now...real time...
maybe a request is made. a reservation made. dear computer, we need 10 players to get into arena x. it puts those 10 in que.
to move wouldnt require a relog to move into a different part of the war, just a bit of patience.
also, visually, when maps or arenas are placed side by side, there is probably a better chance that people will spread out over them than if they are written and placed in hieretical order. i keep thinking about the word "flow"
if i were playing and i just wanted to find a good fight, i might look on the overall war map and see that there is a good fight brewing in the mid war arena...
i feel that the problem with splitting the main arena into two is somehow antithetical to the engrained mindset of the community (due to its even properties) the teams are in now threes..i know this sounds strange, but if there were another late war arena...i really do think it would balance out.
i also feel that one should be required to play for the same country unless they switch sides for ALL arenas...for some reason i feel that this would help balance it out too.
lets say the nits are getting thier butts handed to them in one arena...they just send out an SOS and a bunch of nits come from elsewhere. or rooks or bish...just a thought.
but i digress.
thanks for listening and thank your for the great game.
88
-
JB88: I believe you are working in the opposite direction as me, I.E. Your still trying to put everyone in a single virtual world.
s there a way to do this for squads and such on squad nights? to reserve a space? or even to have a squads only arena perhaps?
Keep in mind you still will have arena caps of 200 - 300 range.
Only way I see to accomplish squad arenas , is to force squads to one arena or other. Then what happens during lower peek times? Btw, this is looking like the least of all evil options to me.
Also keep in mind that the point of this is to absolutely not return to 600 people trying to interact with each other during game play. But rather creating groups of 250 who play with each other most of the time.
-
Btw, this is looking like the least of all evil options to me.
That maybe true ... but your ears a gonna bleed !!!
-
SlapShot: You didn't know I have HiTech Kevlar Ear plugs?
-
Originally posted by hitech
SlapShot: You didn't know I have HiTech Kevlar Ear plugs?
LMAO ...... :D
CHECKERS
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or forced to always pick the same arena of like types.
btw I am open to any suggesting on how to accomplish either, while still maintaining small arena numbers. If a way can be found arena country % will also stabilize.
me slap and kev posted a great idea in a 4 page thread called 4 unbalanced arenas (at least i think it was that one)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or forced to always pick the same arena of like types.
btw I am open to any suggesting on how to accomplish either, while still maintaining small arena numbers. If a way can be found arena country % will also stabilize.
If I follow the current line of thought correctly, 1 imbalanced arena leads to other imbalanced arenas b/c members of losing side simply switch to another arena where they are a winning side? Generalization, I know, but if only 10-20% of players do this, it leads to big changes in smaller arenas, correct?
I don't know if this addresses the imbalances or arena numbers per se, however, I think it might limit hordes with imbalanced countries. And therefore, makes it more attractive to stay and fight, or at least have a fighting chance:
Could LOCAL fuel and ord be linked to ENY and SECTOR population imbalances?
i.e. If total populations are A-100 B-80 C-40 we might find 2 types of scenarios:
I. A's and B's have a good solid back and forth battle with a few on each side attacking C's. Fine, no problem with limits
II. A's and B's decide to crush C's. So what do we find in sectors of C countries? Huge populations of As and Bs against a much smaller population of C's
So fuel availability for A's = 125% x (sector pop of C) / (sector pop of A) x (ENY factor??)
Similarly ord availability (size of bombs or max bombload available) follows similar formula.
A couple of key points:
1. You are NOT limiting plane choice...so no whining about that
2. Local population AND ENY are both factors, so if As and Bs want to fight each other...no limits on fuel and ord
3. If only 20 As + 20 Bs are fighting the 40 Cs, then again, no penalty on fuel and ord b/c local population is balanced
4. Missions and ad hoc missions would probably not be affected? Why? Any good mission planner goes to a base slightly farther away so that the planes can up without getting vulched. So if you take the time to properly plan, you can still up with ord and fuel.
5. Furballs are not affected. If the sides are roughly balanced (or even 2:1) you can still up with 50% fuel which is enough to furball when bases are only 1 sector apart (1/2 sector flight to fight...)
Alright...please pick apart :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Or forced to always pick the same arena of like types.
btw I am open to any suggesting on how to accomplish either, while still maintaining small arena numbers. If a way can be found arena country % will also stabilize.
Could cause even bigger problems if squads are forced into specific arenas.
What happens if a few don't show up? Bigger numbers imbalance.
Dunno, maybe what we have is as good as your get it, given the inherent problems balancing 3 sides.
Should even out in the long term as/if the player base increases.
-
I know creativity makes us keep coming up with new ideas -- but wouldnt Slap's idea involve less force, more choice, and squad preservation?
It seems to me that seeing WHY immediate entry was denied would reduce to "pizzed off" effect. And, giving the squad a choice -- to go to another arena, hang out wating for slots, or split the group up -- gives even less room for complaints.
The slot formula could get pretty sophisticated, and could allow the cap to go higher for balancing purposes. For example, in an arena of 250 lets say that current numbers were: B120 N90 R40. The goal would NOT be to get all sides to 83. Instead, it could prohibit Bish from entering, allow up to 40 rooks to join (EVEN IF the cap set by the other arena would be exceeded), and only allow nits to join if the spread between the 3 countries had narrowed. If a Nit squad wanted to join, they could enter a queue as a unit of 15 guys and wait...or they could try another arena....or they could (ONLY if they wanted) switch to rooks to stay together. If their main goal was to stay together, then they'd be willing to pay the cost of flying in MW instead of LW...etc.
Lets say that squad of 15 decides that they only want to play as knights, so they look at LW2. There, the numbers are more even right now: B60 N80 R100. They could join immediately as bish, but they are side loyal. So, they get in the queue as a 15 slot block, and lets say they are first in line. While they wait, Bish can enter as they arrive, but rooks who leave couldnt be replaced until the spread was narrowed. Single nit players wouldnt enter even if a slot was available until the squad was in...and lets say the whole process takes 15 minutes. All 15 are taken to the arena, even if they were AFK at that moment. But lets also say they knew a squaddie couldnt be there until 40 minutes after quese time --- you could allow them to save a spot for him when they entered info for the queue. By time limiting and quantity limiting holds, you can prevent abuses; likewise, using the same dynamic slot system to limit side switches INSIDE the arena transparently allows better balance and minimizes gaming the caps.
Most online combat games have side balancing thats FAR more intrusive than this. Dynamic slots accomplish most every goal I've seen discussed here: squads can stay together, "alamo syndrome" is minimized, and players get to choose (even if it means choosing the least painful alternative).
In short, what's bad enough about the idea that it shouldnt be implemented?
-
This will not be popular with HTC because of the major map re work required.............however.
Consider three LW arenas each as follows
Bishops v Rooks (red arena)
Bishops v Nights (white arena)
Rooks v Nights (blue arena)
The arenas are interactive. ie to win/lose the war a side must be reduced to its minimum in both of its arenas.(eg 5 fields across two arenas)
Look upon each arena as a "front"
the "status" of all arenas can be seen from a tower in any arena.
each arena has its max limit as now.
subject to the total cap limits, players can move between arenas.
subject to the country balance limits, players can move between arenas.
subject to country balance limts, players can move between countries.
players in smaller arenas enjoy greater perk multipliers.
perk mulitipliers and eny benefits/penalties still in place per arena to influence balance.
There is no communication between arenas.
Removed from gameplay is three way combat zones:(
Arena communities are smaller :)
Land grab objectives are unchanged everyone is still fighting for the same side :)
Side balancing influences remain and are added to in order to balance arena numbers.:)
Even if a side had massive numbers the system would force those numbers to be split more evenly across two arenas.
edit.
There maybe a way that this can be done on one map.
Consider the typical big map split into 3 countries ...... from the start point the fields are designated as red/white/blue fields.
Players can only spawn from a blue field if they are in a blue arena.
They can only communicate with blue arena players.
They can see and fight with non blue players at the "joins".
They can bomb and capture non blue fields and facilities..but they cannot use them for the advance of their country into red/white arenas because they cannot spawn from them.
Obviuosly maps with a large central void are better for this.
-
Why not just go to 1 MA again and eliminate 1 country.
-
sort of like this
(http://www.tilt.clara.net/pics/redwhitebluearenas.jpg)
as you can see the white arena only gives spawn access to bishops and knights (yeah i know spelling) on one front.
It only gives communications across this front
etc etc
same for red and blue..........
-
Not bad at all Tilt.
Still uses 3 countries but because each arena only has two of the three in it, it eliminates two problems
1) No 2 v 1 gangbangs
2) More importantly, its a hell of a lot easier to balance an arena with 2 rather than 3 sides.
Although I don't know if we have the playerbase yet to support 3 LW arenas.
-
What happens if say the bish over-ran the white arena, how would they get to next one round.. or cant they?
But very nice concpet, solves all problems really.
and makes it like a real war with serperate fronts, e.g, the europe, african and japanese front, 1 map all players, fighting diff front lines. maybe even diff planes in each front i dunno. but good idea
-
What prevents planes from flying into a different arena section? i.e. towards the middle of the map, I up as Rook in Blueland and fly eastward to attack Nits in Whiteland. What prevents this? Invisible wall? Wind?
Don't get me wrong, I like the idea, but perhaps "pie slice" maps don't work well for this setup...
-
My victory condition was not thought thru sufficiently....it would have to be that reset was triggered by a minumum number of fields held by one side in any arena.
hence red knights could seem very healthy but if white knights were over run then the reset would be triggered.
There would be no benefit in knights leaving the white arena to play in the winning red arena because they would still lose.
There may even be a balancing mechanism in place preventing the move.
Hence the movement would be the other way from red to white presumably balancing the white Bish onslaught.
Equally a mass horde would be prevented gathering within the ranks of the white Bish (ie swarming for the kill as white knights are consumed) as the numbers balance would force newly joining bish to the blue arena.
I think there are several options re how the flanking regions interplay.
We can see that as white bish advances into white knight territory then red knight has access to the white bish flanks...................
Red nights and white bish cannot use fields of another colour and cannot communicate.
Lots of options/ gameplay set up choices then come into play...
do we allow a red to capture a white field? even if the reds cannot use it. (red knights could then capture border fields for white knights to use.)
Do we allow red knights to combat fully with eg white bishops? they cant communicate but their bullets are still effective. (this would make fighter town (on donut) still viable although rather quiet :aok )
If a white player is killed by a red player does the system still advise who it was? well why not?
Would red knight bombers still be able to porkwhite bish firlds along the flank? well probably yes
The above options suggest a truly common terrain split int 3 fighting fronts with movement and communications restricted to form communities within these fronts.
and yes flanking effects would be greater on "pie" maps than "ring" maps.
Folk enter the fronts thru differing doors. The choice of door gives them their colour and limits their communications across all radio bands (should squad band be an exception?) to just that colour and only gives them access to fields of that colour. Would be handy if they were oblivious to the radar in other areas too.
Players in one front know little of the detailia of the other fronts other than the the usual map data that they can pick up off the clipboard and occasional interaction at the flanking fringes. (there would be no vehicle spawns between fronts)
The other option is to have truly separate arenas where there is no interplay between players at the fringes. Where the only objects to respond in the white arena are white arena objects ......actually this is more problematic that the above IMO as you have to consider 2 HQ's etc and re arrange terrains considerably.
-
You could take the concept one step further.
As above we have split each country into two
White Bishops v White Knights
Blue Bishops v Blue Rooks
Red rooks v Red Knights.
Actualy we have 6 nations but they are paired of into "alliances" and paired off (differently) into fighting fronts.
We could have the following
Alpha Bishops & Zeta Bishops
Delta Rooks & Gamma Rooks
Beta Knights & Omega Knights
now we can really mess about with stuff after resets...............
Previously the white arena may have been Alpha Bishops v Omega Knights but after reset we could mix up the competing groups such that now the Zeta Bishops get to fight the Omega Knights. (probably in the red arena where neither fought the previous war)