Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: hubsonfire on December 06, 2006, 11:35:47 AM
-
Got anything in mind for this, HT? While I like the new system, the constant lopsided numbers can't be doing much good. I remember hearing something about a tweaked ENY system in the works, but haven't noticed any changes since.
While I normally like the odds a little bit against us, this is getting to be a bit much, and I can't imagine the newer players still trying to learn the ropes are getting much enjoyment out of it. On top of that, with the new system in place, taking and holding territory becomes far more challenging when one country can field as many people as the other 2 combined. In the current setup, this dramatic imbalance provides for very pronounced advantage, something which the current ENY system simply doesn't do anything to remedy.
Is there something in the works for this, or is this even a concern at the moment?
While I like that the new setup keeps people from milkrunning all over the place, and brings them into one area so I can shoot at them, I think the lack of balance is going to create the same avoidance strategies as were used before, except now it will be 30 guys attacking a single lightly defended field, instead of 10 guys each attacking 3 undefended fields. I'm not sure that's in improvement.
-
:cry
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
:cry
I know, I know, I should just fly for the country with the highest numbers like you do. :rolleyes:
-
:cry
-
Hmm Bk squad furball/vulch thread ehh.
This could get interesting.
Bronk
-
Gonna have to agree with hub on this one. "Revenge of the Horde" does get old after a while.
Not sure what the answer is though when 'winning the war' is the ultimate prize for so many.
-
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
-
Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
Probably the only real answer with the least draw backs, other than extreme whining on the BBs. LOL
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
Create even more timidity.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
Maybe your best bet once new changes are effective in all the arenas. At least we'll have another place to go if one arena is just plain ridiculous.
Looks like our last chance as a community to keep HT from having to do anything and balancing it ourselves people.:aok
-
BURN THE ENY!!!!!!!!!!!:t
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
i pick # 3 !!! i pick # 3 !! no matter what you do hitech, somebody is always gonna complain about something. if you fix this problem, guess what?? another problem will rear its ugly head.
God bless ya hitech. i don,t envy your postion at all.
thanks for trying to work all this out. i,m sure there are other things you would rather be doing.
good luck.
your buddy,
Boner
official "member" of the AH bb s.
public relations officer for Boner
-
I dont think ENY will make any difference in balance at all, simply because it doesnt now. Even when downright punative -- and the only options are hugely outclassed fighters -- the vast majority jsut complain, and those that do something tend to log rather than switch.
A suggestion, HT --
1) Multiple arenas let those who prefer the swarm to shift till they find the arena their team is "winning". If all other players randomly distribute themselves among arenas, the net effect will be guaranteed imbalance in each game zone -- by mathematics alone.
2) The stated goal of ENY was to encourage side balancing, but even as an ENY proponent I have to say that recent events show it doesnt work well at evening sides.
3) Having multiple arenas HUGELY changes the dynamic of more restrictive limits. Players are simply not going to be faced with the draconian alternatives of logging off or (draconian for some) swithcing countries. Now, if there are too many Knights in one arena, you can always go to another.
3) Sooooo.....would you consider a dynamic country cap WITH ENY LIMTS DISABLED?
Maximizing enjoyment for the many should easily outweigh the relative annoyance of being diverted to another arena for the few. Balaning goals shouldnt be absolute parity (maybe all countries within 25-30% of each other), so it shouldnt be too painful anyway.
And, if the ENY was removed at the same time the effect on the Whine-O-Meter should be fairly balanced out.
I know there would be complaints from squads that couldnt squeeze everyone in under a cap. HOWEVER -- I cannot imagine a better example of "limiting the few for the good of the many." (Don't misunderstand me ....If a megasquad flies together without skewing arena numbers for the OTHER 2/3rds of AH players, that's absolutely no problem IMHO.)
-
Simaril: Write the can't fly in this arena, is a dynamic country cap.
-
I suppose ultimately, with the way things are heading, you'll end up having:
-One genaric 'plane' so that everyone has the same aircraft profile, which leaves it to pilot skill in the end.
-Eliminate squads completely
-Put into effect a country randomizer that places players in whatever country has the low number as they come into the arena
-Eliminate perk points and scores and 'name in lights' messages.
Then maybe we'll get some balance in the arenas :)
Clearly the player base has no desire to try and even out gameplay, as the race to the reset, winning the war trumps any other considerations.
That or say screw it and throw it back to the free for all old MA with no ENY or expectations of anything but hording. In the end, a new wave of players will appear to fill the ranks of those who leave who have no concept of anything but horde wars, and won't expect anything else or consider any other way of playing.
-
ENY limitations are all but useless. Rooks have had 2x the numbers of bish and knit combined(? not exactly, but pretty close) and still only have an ENY limitation of 5.1.
That rules out n1k2s and p51s, and perk rides. That's about it.
Last night in LW Orange Rooks had as many planes over a single knight field as the entire knight team had players in the air. That's how bad it is. They had little to no ENY effect.
ENY needs to be done away with if it has no effect. I did find that I was sick of the total gang bang-ness of the Orange and left for Blue. I actually had fun there. It was refreshing to only deal with a localized horde.
Hitech, how about instead of this current base capture limitation, an "onion peel" setup? You have to peel away at the front line bases, but you can do so anywhere on the front line? This prevents 5-sector in HQ v-field steal attempts (and these have been happening more often lately) and general milk running. It does, however, spread the 2:1 ratio of rook horde pilots out across a larger area.
By this I mean you have base X can be captured by the enemy if it is "connected" to an enemy base. You can't island hop fields to pick the one you want, you have to take them in order.
This gives folks the freedom they liked before, limits the milk running, and lessens the horde. What do you think?
-
HT any possibility of arena caps being lifted in LW?, seeing as theirs 2 diff choices of gameplay style now, and the one i enjoy most is usaully full :( or maybe say when 50% of other is full lift caps. pwettyyy please,
P.S. pick 3, people always complain whatever happens, just leave it alone ;) is probably best idea, + restricing people flying never gonna go down well with players,:)
-
Why can't you just let people switch around as when needed to balance the sides? Then get rid of the time limiter that makes you wait for however long it is?
-
b/c some people loyal to there country / squad and dont go side hoping just to fly their La7s
-
Originally posted by Hawco
Why can't you just let people switch around as when needed to balance the sides? Then get rid of the time limiter that makes you wait for however long it is?
Spying comes to mind immediately.
I think a percentage imbalance limiter (lockout) is the way to go. Like CorkyJr says, clearly the playerbase as a whole has no interest in balanced gameplay (as long as they are on the side of higher numbers). Not surprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
Perhaps the problem with ENY is the relatively crude ENY rating scheme of the planes... maybe looking at usage patterns, k/d ratios etc. a more discrete (i.e. other than 5, 10, 15 20 40) so that planes are excluded on more of a sliding scale, so people on the overwhelming side have more of a clue as to how bad it really is and planes are blocked more gradually but still pretty harshly once percentage gets silly.
That or ENY is just not working.
-
i think wirbelwinds could be the solution to your problems HT.
-
Example:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1165431228_mapidea.jpg)
So you couldn't use A4 to take 153... You'd have to take 150 then 153, BUT you're not limiting the fight to 1-2 bases on a single front, EVERY base that borders an enemy base is fair game, just not the ones "behind the lines".
-
Every once in a while I get these wild ideas that things like "fair and balanced gameplay" are good things. After falling off the roof and cracking my head on a rock, I realize now how foolish I must have sounded. Apologies to all involved.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Example:
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/858_1165431228_mapidea.jpg)
So you couldn't use A4 to take 153... You'd have to take 150 then 153, BUT you're not limiting the fight to 1-2 bases on a single front, EVERY base that borders an enemy base is fair game, just not the ones "behind the lines".
Holy threadjack, Batman. :D
Krusty, I don't know if HT was planning on using it for medium maps... I think he was looking for a way to use the large maps in the MA with the 350 player caps without it feeling like a Kevin Federline concert.
-
Or maybe the way to go (forgive the unintended pun) is to lose one of the chess pieces and go with 2? If chess piece A has higher numbers then you slot into the other piece, I think something has to give here guys, Maybe some people will finally see this as a game and that the planes are not real and that we are all after some balance and fun.
Long shot I know.
-
I don't think that will work. 3 sides (a triangle, if you will) is self-supporting. Generally it's more stable than 2 sides. With 2 sides things can collapse much faster, especially if sides go unbalanced.
Hrm... maybe a perk multiplier incentive? If rooks have 120 players, knights have 60 players, and bish have 70 players, then bish and knit get a higher perk multiplier for ROOK KILLS. They get standard multiplier for knit/bish kills.
That would add incentive to even things out, right? EDIT: I mean, the bish and knit would both be inclined to attack the rooks, and it would help lessen the strength of the rooks to fight on 2 fronts. Sort of like an unofficial alliance, created by perks.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Hrm... maybe a perk multiplier incentive? If rooks have 120 players, knights have 60 players, and bish have 70 players, then bish and knit get a higher perk multiplier for ROOK KILLS. They get standard multiplier for knit/bish kills.
That would add incentive to even things out, right?
That's a very interesting idea.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
I love these three ideas!! The last one will work!:D
-
Dont fool yourself the 3 sides collapse just as fast as 2 sided war would. Really with the rooks needing to fly with 2 to 1 number imbalance we have only 2 sides and the problem is exasperated because the two countries with the lower numbers can't fight together.
Maybe what could be done, is when the numbers are greatly reduced let the AI shut down the fronts between the two least numbered countries and only open the fronts for those two countries against the country with the largest numbers. This way you have a pseudo 2 country set up when needed but keep the with three countries.
And countries like rooks that have to fly with that many people on one side take a huge penalty.
-
I say leave as is and let people complain if they don't want to switch sides in order to balence things out.
Options 1 and 2 would really rot, and not having any eny does no good either.
Switch sides to even things out..... its not that hard.... If you don't want to then just deal with it
-
Switch sides to even things out..... its not that hard
It is for the Rook dweebs :aok
-
ENY does not change behavior or side allegiance.
Perks do not change behavior or side allegiance.
Those who are willing to switch sides are generally already doing so...there just arent enough of them.
"Forget it and let people complain" may be tempting, but unbalanced games don't stay fun over the long haul. Since HT believes in the "most fun for the most people" principle, I can't believe he'll go this route.
If he does, I'll go to LW with the "Go to BBS and sign the petition to restore the MA" thing....
I suspect we have country limits in the future, gentlemen and ladies....
-
Originally posted by JimBeam
b/c some people loyal to there country / squad and dont go side hoping just to fly their La7s
Chess piece loyalty is a thing of the past! Just like tha old MA! With a growing community it will eventually stagnate itself if the chess piece loyalty continues. Now the good question is how to change the mentality of someone who thinks they have loyalty to said chess piece. :aok
-
That one's easy!
HTC inserts some malicious code into the game, and gives the player a pop up message that says, "Hi, you will now go to the country with the least numbers, and you will play nice with all the other kids for the next few days, or I will wipe out your computer! Thanks and enjoy!"
After a month of this, if they played nice, you let them choose where they want to fly, and if they go right back to the horde, you wipe out their HDD!
-
Originally posted by Krusty
Hrm... maybe a perk multiplier incentive? If rooks have 120 players, knights have 60 players, and bish have 70 players, then bish and knit get a higher perk multiplier for ROOK KILLS. They get standard multiplier for knit/bish kills.
That would add incentive to even things out, right? EDIT: I mean, the bish and knit would both be inclined to attack the rooks, and it would help lessen the strength of the rooks to fight on 2 fronts. Sort of like an unofficial alliance, created by perks.
This could work But only for the Greedy "I want Moar purkz" type of flyers...
What about the type like me that could give a S*** about perks or score and are only in it for the fun?? how would it work out then?
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
Number 1 is way to restrictive ... whineage would be deafening.
Number 2 is the way to go !!! ... not easy to do but best bang for the buck
Number 3 ... turning off ENY won't solve anything ... whineage would almost reach Number 1 levels.
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.....:)
-
Well, if the perked ordinance system ever comes to life, and the price of ord load outs is affected by the perk modifier / ENY - the perk point will become more of a commodity than it is now. If perks points become more valuable, there will be more incentive for people to switch side for the perk mod.
Also, reseting perks every tour would be one way to increase the value of the "perk point" .
So creating more incentive for gathering perks..
or punishing the outnumbered side by harsher ENY,
.....or even once a certain ENY is reached -
"our side has too many planes in the air now, our supply can't keep up, you can only take 25% fuel"
"our side is having problems delivering ordinance due to our overwhelming numbers, no ordnance is available"
if you can't catch a rat with cheese, try a stinkier gourmet cheese...
if that don't work... buy a cat.
-
Vote for #2.
Other games use this successfully without the gripes.
-
I really like that idea ^ of Overlag and Slap's (or whoever should be credited).
-
Originally posted by SkyRock
Chess piece loyalty is a thing of the past! Just like tha old MA! With a growing community it will eventually stagnate itself if the chess piece loyalty continues. Now the good question is how to change the mentality of someone who thinks they have loyalty to said chess piece. :aok
its not really the chess pieces its the loyalty to my squad. most of our members myself included frown upon side hoping. unfortunately i forsee the MA's turning into mass dweeb arenas with no stradegy and only fight town for a map. in which case squads and chess pieces are irrelivant
-
I agree with Slapshot that the caps might be the way to go. Heck, try it in Orange and see what happens.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
1. Wait time between flights would probably work for a short time, until the folks on the horde end realized that they just need to stop at the rearm pad instead of ending their sortie.
2. Cant fly in the arena unless you change sides will probably cause as many problems as it solves. What happens if I get this message more than once a day? How many times can I switch sides and go back to the same arena?
3. Screw it - MODIFY the ENY a bit to get a better, more balancing formula, and maybe re-ENY some of the rides as well. Everyone will complain anyway - you aren't going to escape that ;)
4. Take Krusty's idea - a perk bonus / horde bounty bonus multiplier sounds like it wouldn't hurt either. Its OK to have half the arena be one country if the other two are attacking it.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
ZOMG I HAVE AN IDEA!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!1111111111
Seriously, HiTech...check it out:
How about combining some elements of Combat Tour (i.e. the characters I saw in another thread) to help limit #'s imbalances? Here's the scheme:
#'s are something like 80:40:40 (realistic based on the last few days at the times I've played)
For the big # country, when you go to the hangar and select you airplane to go attack the low # country you get a little crew chief character or supplies officer that shows up and says (or cartoon bubbles):
"The number of flights out of this base are taxing our supplies, Cap'n. Can't fill ya up 100% and you can just forget about loading bombs (rockets, whatever). Unless I get some more supplies here, we'll be throwing rocks at the NME"
This then gives the offending horde member the option to: 1) Drive and M3 or fly a goon to bring gas and ord to the base (field supplies or something) effectively taking this individual out of combat. Or 2) Switch countries where the supply lines haven't been "stressed" in the high # country.
It gives a "friendlier" face to forcing players to stop gangbanging. You have a little character explaining in somewhat realistic terms that supplies are limited b/c of all the activity in that sector. Obviously, the fuel and ordinance load would be linked to ENY and scaled in an appropriate fashion.
-
#2. "Chesspiece Loyalty" is pathetic.
-
Originally posted by kamilyun
ZOMG I HAVE AN IDEA!!!!!!!111111!!!!!!1111111111
Seriously, HiTech...check it out:
How about combining some elements of Combat Tour (i.e. the characters I saw in another thread) to help limit #'s imbalances? Here's the scheme:
#'s are something like 80:40:40 (realistic based on the last few days at the times I've played)
For the big # country, when you go to the hangar and select you airplane to go attack the low # country you get a little crew chief character or supplies officer that shows up and says (or cartoon bubbles):
"The number of flights out of this base are taxing our supplies, Cap'n. Can't fill ya up 100% and you can just forget about loading bombs (rockets, whatever). Unless I get some more supplies here, we'll be throwing rocks at the NME"
This then gives the offending horde member the option to: 1) Drive and M3 or fly a goon to bring gas and ord to the base (field supplies or something) effectively taking this individual out of combat. Or 2) Switch countries where the supply lines haven't been "stressed" in the high # country.
It gives a "friendlier" face to forcing players to stop gangbanging. You have a little character explaining in somewhat realistic terms that supplies are limited b/c of all the activity in that sector. Obviously, the fuel and ordinance load would be linked to ENY and scaled in an appropriate fashion.
LAWL :lol ...I like teh Idearz :aok
-
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
This is probably the best idea.
"Chess piece loyalty is a thing of the past! Just like tha old MA! With a growing community it will eventually stagnate itself if the chess piece loyalty continues. Now the good question is how to change the mentality of someone who thinks they have loyalty to said chess piece."
I've always been a Bish but not for loyalty to a chess piece as much as familiarity with the others who have always been Bish too.
That said if there were automatic side balancing (i.e. your automatically placed into the country most needing the numbers) I wouldn't have a problem with it. In fact it would probably improve the sense of "community" within the game getting to fly with others and against friends.
The squads would have problems but how about if whatever country the first squad player got logged into then the rest of their squad was automatically directed to the same country? Still a problem for mega-squads with different squads within a squad but then it might just limit the size of squads to whatever the initially intended limit was (not sure if there is a limit because I'm not in one and don't want to be).
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Every once in a while I get these wild ideas that things like "fair and balanced gameplay" are good things. After falling off the roof and cracking my head on a rock, I realize now how foolish I must have sounded. Apologies to all involved.
Fair play....You would like folks to switch sides to balance the arena. ?
Fair play....You would expect folks to stay on their side instead of bailing to another arena :rolleyes:
Fair play ...You want me to switch sides to make up for the quitters. ?
Fair play....2 LW arena's promotes arena quitters leading to side imbalance.
Look! Two late war arena PROMOTES side imbalance a couple of way. If side "Z" is taking a hammering in 1 arena side "Z" will be doing the hammering in the other arena.
Folks being hammered in 1 arena bail to the other arena which in turn widens the imbalance. 1 arena dominated by side "Z" and the other arena by side "X".
Some are even switching sides the wrong way :huh
You can just check rosters and follow them around.....
yet you want me to switch sides because of arena quitters.
Well, I pays to play for rooks. I pays to play to use all the plane/vehicles. I pays to play to be able to switch from spit 16 to p47 to lancs to tigers in the same arena. Equally I pay not to be hoarded or do the hoarding. I have been logging off. I'd rather log than be USED to fill in for a quitter.
FAIR PLAY.... with 2 late war arenas. You gotta be out your tree mate. The argument don't stand up.
You give these guys the opportunity to go to another FULL PLANE SET arena and they go.
Over all the 3 sides have near enough equal numbers....OVER ALL. Yet Bish are favouring LWb while rooks favour LWo. Poor old Knights numbers spread thin in all both arena.
Your argument would stand on merit if there was just 1 LW arena but there are 2.
Either make it 1 LW arena or deny access or place the player.
I'll make you this promise "I ain't switching to stand in for arena quitters".
-
Nothing can be done to avoid complaints, since anything that fixes the imbalance will restrict folks from joining the side they want, which for most players is whatever side is pummeling it's foes with the bigger numbers at that time.
Only fair way to do it is have the host autoassign you to a side when you select the arena....
1.) No chesspeice will be marked as "joinable" if it has more than 1 or 2% higher number of players.
2.) If the arena you choose is full of whatever chesspeice you want you'll get a popup asking if you want to join the lower numbered side of same arena or try to join your favorite chesspeice in another arena. So if your first choice is not allowed you will have 5 other arenas and two other chesspeices to try, no way to say you have no choices anymore.
I can hear the crying already, but the game needs to be balanced if we want it to last.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
Fair play....You would like folks to switch sides to balance the arena. ?
Fair play....You would expect folks to stay on their side instead of bailing to another arena :rolleyes:
Fair play ...You want me to switch sides to make up for the quitters. ?
Fair play....2 LW arena's promotes arena quitters leading to side imbalance.
Look! Two late war arena PROMOTES side imbalance a couple of way. If side "Z" is taking a hammering in 1 arena side "Z" will be doing the hammering in the other arena.
Folks being hammered in 1 arena bail to the other arena which in turn widens the imbalance. 1 arena dominated by side "Z" and the other arena by side "X".
Some are even switching sides the wrong way :huh
You can just check rosters and follow them around.....
yet you want me to switch sides because of arena quitters.
Well, I pays to play for rooks. I pays to play to use all the plane/vehicles. I pays to play to be able to switch from spit 16 to p47 to lancs to tigers in the same arena. Equally I pay not to be hoarded or do the hoarding. I have been logging off. I'd rather log than be USED to fill in for a quitter.
FAIR PLAY.... with 2 late war arenas. You gotta be out your tree mate. The argument don't stand up.
You give these guys the opportunity to go to another FULL PLANE SET arena and they go.
Over all the 3 sides have near enough equal numbers....OVER ALL. Yet Bish are favouring LWb while rooks favour LWo. Poor old Knights numbers spread thin in all both arena.
Your argument would stand on merit if there was just 1 LW arena but there are 2.
Either make it 1 LW arena or deny access or place the player.
I'll make you this promise "I ain't switching to stand in for arena quitters".
:aok alleluiah!
-
Originally posted by Edbert
Nothing can be done to avoid complaints, since anything that fixes the imbalance will restrict folks from joining the side they want, which for most players is whatever side is pummeling it's foes with the bigger numbers at that time.
Only fair way to do it is have the host autoassign you to a side when you select the arena....
1.) No chesspeice will be marked as "joinable" if it has more than 1 or 2% higher number of players.
2.) If the arena you choose is full of whatever chesspeice you want you'll get a popup asking if you want to join the lower numbered side of same arena or try to join your favorite chesspeice in another arena. So if your first choice is not allowed you will have 5 other arenas and two other chesspeices to try, no way to say you have no choices anymore.
I can hear the crying already, but the game needs to be balanced if we want it to last.
I don't know, Ed. I know that you and JAXXO and lasz and Hubs don't mind flying against each other...but asking just about anybody else in this game to fly against their squaddies, might have almost disastrous consequences.
And that's what autoassign will do.
-
4. Combine ENY and PERK approaches so that the more numerous countries start paying perks even of the normally free planes!
Additionally, don't prohibit available planes with ENY, but make them cost even more PERKs.
-
This would work in the new orange arena. If one countries got the same #'s as the other 2 combined don't let them attack anything. Just let them defend. That will balance it out quick enough.
-
Ummm I 4got as to the reason why 2 late-war arenas were implemented :huh
-
Originally posted by Platano
Ummm I 4got as to the reason why 2 late-war arenas were implemented :huh
HT's analysis of measurable indicators (subscription retentions, feedback from non-renwers, etc) showed that the large arena was not healthy, from a business standpoint and from a gameplay standpoint.
Whether the vocal minority likes it or not, large arenas are gone. According to HT (Mr. "I Dream of 500 arenas with 300 people in each"), they're gone forever.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
Fair play....You would like folks to switch sides to balance the arena. ?
Fair play....You would expect folks to stay on their side instead of bailing to another arena :rolleyes:
Fair play ...You want me to switch sides to make up for the quitters. ?
Fair play....2 LW arena's promotes arena quitters leading to side imbalance.
Look! Two late war arena PROMOTES side imbalance a couple of way. If side "Z" is taking a hammering in 1 arena side "Z" will be doing the hammering in the other arena.
Folks being hammered in 1 arena bail to the other arena which in turn widens the imbalance. 1 arena dominated by side "Z" and the other arena by side "X".
Some are even switching sides the wrong way :huh
You can just check rosters and follow them around.....
yet you want me to switch sides because of arena quitters.
Well, I pays to play for rooks. I pays to play to use all the plane/vehicles. I pays to play to be able to switch from spit 16 to p47 to lancs to tigers in the same arena. Equally I pay not to be hoarded or do the hoarding. I have been logging off. I'd rather log than be USED to fill in for a quitter.
FAIR PLAY.... with 2 late war arenas. You gotta be out your tree mate. The argument don't stand up.
You give these guys the opportunity to go to another FULL PLANE SET arena and they go.
Over all the 3 sides have near enough equal numbers....OVER ALL. Yet Bish are favouring LWb while rooks favour LWo. Poor old Knights numbers spread thin in all both arena.
Your argument would stand on merit if there was just 1 LW arena but there are 2.
Either make it 1 LW arena or deny access or place the player.
I'll make you this promise "I ain't switching to stand in for arena quitters".
Thank you, Lynx. A perfect example of the mindset that led to this situation in the first place. Now be still.
-
Lynx --
I see a different interpretation of the same info. You noticed how some people switch sides "the wrong way" -- but I think you completely misunderstand WHY. It's not lack of loyalty, its not a love affair with the La-7. It's because a significnat number of players like having a big number advantage.
The old MA was hardly ever the perfectly balanced haven you imply we'd see, if only HT would agree with you and return to a single arena. When we had only one arena, the Nits had been low side for 4-5 months, consistently, and with a meaningful imbalance.
These hide-in-a-crowd fliers used to log off or switch countries "the wrong way", but now they stay on and just move to an arena that meets their needs.
PS --
I had to chuckle at your patriotic (and self righteous) "I PAY TO FLY FOR ROOKS" though....If that's the case, why ever did you send money to HT for all the years you flew for Bish?
:rofl
-
Originally posted by hitech
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
Sorry for getting off-topic in the other test capture system thread. I ALMOST started a new thread but I was in a rush, and the idea came to me when reading THAT thread.
So do/did you like my suggestion? I really think it is viable.
(recap as it was deleted)
If you try to log into an arena and your country has high #'s (or based on a certain ENY #) you get the message
"Your country is full in this arena. Would you like to fly for the (insert lowest #'s side here)"
1. It would help balance out the sides, as the lowest #'d country would get pilots.
2. The players still have choices. They can choose to fly in that arena for the lowest population country. OR they can go to the other LW, MW, EW arena.
By constantly feeding the lowest #'s country, it would help to balance out the arenas. MIGHT also consider codein' that you can't switch to a country if it has a certain ENY level.
-
That idea sounds good to me Lute, pretty much what I posted here earlier. But I'm becoming cynical lately, it occured to me that since the majority of the subscribers prefer imbalance and prefer fighting team-mates for scraps over fighting for their (virtual) life...we'll see the dedicated (insert your most hated chesspeice here, lol) joining the other side and sitting in the tower so their buds can roll terrain without having to fight as much.
I keep coming back to the fact that the core problem with imbalance (nay, 99% of the gripes you see on BBS and ch200) are the result of the playerbase gaming-the-game in some way to win without taking chances. Until we can tweak and upgrade the players we'll be chasing the proverbial trail by trying to bring fairness.
I can't help but feel all the changes HTC is experimenting with to make us play fair are simply because we behave like children, I take no issue at all with their changes designed to bring fairness to the game and acheive the "level playing field" concept.
-
vote for #2, as for the same reasons as other. number 1 might be affective, but i bet few would like to join an arena and then sit in the tower waiting.
#2 is good, if a squad wants to fly together so badly, then they can all just move to the lowest number country. so i guess that takes care of the "i can't fly with my squad/friends" argument.
the problem with #2 from what i would assume lynx may have been getting at, is that if one country is losing with fair numbers, and many just log off, then the imbalance is created by the losers quitting. but with #2 the winning country could still retain its numbers, but could not get any extra numbers.....why would they need it anyway?
#3 though i'm sure is easier, would lead to everyone complaining. looking through the past years, someone was always complaining about their country being outnumbered....and it's happened to them all for significant time periods. eventually we will have just one overwhelming horde demolishing everything in its path. no challenge, no gameplay, just huge numbers of people vulching/fighting 4 v 1, and bombing buildings all day.
your game, i won't be the one telling you how to run it:) i think we all appreciate the amount of time and effort you and the AH team has put into this game and the effort to make it even better. after reading the message boards and seeing some of the things i've seen, i'm sure there must be days when you feel like saying "ahhhhhhh f it.":)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
arena balance idea that i came up with a rather rubbish edit in MSpaint:
(http://www.ajwebb.eclipse.co.uk/Pictures/Aces/new/servers.JPG)
this way the server "browser" can be setup to limit side advantages to... lets say 10%. and also, with the country numbers displayed on the server page, people will know which one to join to even the numbers up...
you could also display the map name on the server too.... since certain maps bring in more numbers (like TT map in MW bringing in 300 players when its normaly 80ish)
im not sure if all this extra information getting polled to bring it up on the server browser would cause issues.... as ive heard you dont want the auto refresh of numbers due to constantly pinging the server.... so im just wondering if asking the server for all this info (side balance, current map) might cause issues or is it something that will take forever to code correctly?
also.... with tod coming soon, is that going to be one "server" you join, or many little ones? because the sort of info desplayed on the MA's could be useful for the tod servers also.
Originally posted by WMLute
Sorry for getting off-topic in the other test capture system thread. I ALMOST started a new thread but I was in a rush, and the idea came to me when reading THAT thread.
So do/did you like my suggestion? I really think it is viable.
(recap as it was deleted)
If you try to log into an arena and your country has high #'s (or based on a certain ENY #) you get the message
"Your country is full in this arena. Would you like to fly for the (insert lowest #'s side here)"
1. It would help balance out the sides, as the lowest #'d country would get pilots.
2. The players still have choices. They can choose to fly in that arena for the lowest population country. OR they can go to the other LW, MW, EW arena.
By constantly feeding the lowest #'s country, it would help to balance out the arenas. MIGHT also consider codein' that you can't switch to a country if it has a certain ENY level.
cool idea.
edit: didnt relise slap posted it on page 1 lol
-
how bout a limit on number of planes that can up from a base? say 30 planes from a base...anymore than that must up from different base? number is arbitrary and should prolly change...but you get the point.
very late AW style I suppose.
-
Originally posted by killnu
how bout a limit on number of planes that can up from a base? say 30 planes from a base...anymore than that must up from different base? number is arbitrary and should prolly change...but you get the point.
very late AW style I suppose.
thing is, we've been forced to all up at the same base now (basically) so that wont work.....
but yes, that idea would be been cool... design a supply/blueline system that allows the server to know what is a front line base and what is not.
these front line bases (depending on how many) can only up a certain amount of fighter planes.
1: If a country wants local air superiority they have to up from 2nd/3rd line bases.
2: Heavy Bombers would NOT be allowed to up from front line bases (to reduce suicide dive bombing)
the system could also account for a bases position... so lets say its got 3 enemy bases next to it, it can up more planes. if it only has 1 it can only up a few
that sort of idea would be better than a forced road of war.
-
I'm not going to fly if I have to "Switch" sides and fight squaddies. Just not my thing.
I fly for knights tho.:lol Not likely Id have to worry about it anyway. It's not loyalty to a chess piece but to the guys I fly with. If we want to fight one another we go to the DA. When in the arenas we all try to fly together , have a laugh , cut up , get killed alot , and so on.
We all pay and play for different ideas of fun. But when I have to fly with people I don't really fly with alot because of a race to reset , then I'll just play more golf. I have been on the side with numbers. It's ok and all but most times my squaddies and I are looking to start a fight away from the place where you get nothing but sloopy 8ths.
Make the side with lowest numbers get double the perks when they land kills. Triple even. Make resets worth much less. I mean how many perks do we get for a reset? 75? Most of the guys I fly with make that in a squad night. And LOSE the war!!!!!!
Krusty's Idea was pretty good.
ENY matters not to me. Cut it off. So what If I have to fight more 16's and Lalas. I am anyway. Make anything under a eny of 15 a perk ride. No eny factor anymore.....
LA's = 5
Spit 16= 7
Nik's = 6
51D's =7
Any way ya like it based on that list we used to see on Fighter Usage and kill stats.
Everyone has a few perks. Lots of people fly higher eny planes.
Your giving perks for a reset....and I for one have 17000+ fighter perks and could care less about em.
But don't make me change sides , because some night the rooks may be in the barrel and I log on to be told I have to fly there or not fly.
Just my 2 cents.
and BTW.....The Hordes...well Just lets me know where I need to go to to find a fight. The WAR means NOTHING to me at all.
-
I would vote to remove the ENY limiter
-
Originally posted by Meatwad
I would vote to remove the ENY limiter
something else needs to go in its place though.
a new edit on my server balance "plan".
(http://www.adamjwebb.aquiss.com/Pictures/Aces_High/servers_B.jpg)
However, i didnt really work the maths out correctly, and this picture of our ideas is way to restictive..... only noticed once i done it that all servers was basically full..:lol :eek: ..anyway.
the point is, the arena cap is still there, although slightly less important. Sides are worked out by the ammount of players in the server. I choose 28% for min size, 33% for target and 38% for max. However i think they are maybe a bit restictive.
the idea is that if a country has 38% or more no one else can join that side and new players can only choose the other two sides to join, or another server.
if theres a country with less than 28% of players, the other 2 sides are locked out.
so basicaly
red = overpopulated (locked)
green = good
blue = underpopulated (other 2 are locked even if they are "green")
However im not sure 28% for min, and 38% for max is practical. Maybe 26% and 40% would be better.... i dunno... i just throwing up ideas.
my picture is also a bit too clutterd and has a bit too much information really... its a bit of a mess lol
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Thank you, Lynx. A perfect example of the mindset that led to this situation in the first place. Now be still.
Now there's a challenge if ever there was one. OK threadie R U sitting comfy?
the constant lopsided numbers can't be doing much good.
You used the word "Constant". Two late war arenas inadvertently allow / promote lobsided arenas. Give these guys TWO (2) full plane set arenas and they'll use them. As I said above if one side is taking a beating some of those guys being beaten move to the other arena. You can watch this happening. Not rocket science. Not exaggeration.....fact. With in no time you have one arena being dominated because players moved next door. Then the next doors arena becomes dominated by quitters from the first.....fact. It's self perpetuating.....fact.
I think the lack of balance is going to create the same avoidance strategies
Would that be because 3/4 of one side are in LWo and 3/4 of the other team are in LWb ?
Personally I like the upgraded, upgraded, upgrade. Err, the latest upgrade. It still retains the essence of the Big Fight for a base whilst adding a bit of diversity. Allows a little free thinking by members, squads, missions or indeed, sides. The single base capture is to restrictive in my opinion. The only surprise you can mount is "How" and not "where"...... OOooppps of topic.
Solutions in my opinion, for what they are worth. Are not about filling in for arena quitters. I'm not here or paying to "fill in". It's about restricting the ability to dominate and TWO late war arena allow that to happen....fact.
You can either restrict "flights" per side as HTC has said or restrict the option of "bailing" from one late war arena to another. Personally I advocate doing away with one of the late war arenas.
An alternative would be to keep both Late war arenas but having a 1 hour restriction from swapping from one late war to the other. No restriction on going to Early or Mid or even back to your original Late war arena. Thus stopping PASSIVE imbalance.
Hubs note the original concept above :p "Be still" indeed! Tusk :rolleyes:
From Simaril
I had to chuckle at your patriotic (and self righteous) "I PAY TO FLY FOR ROOKS" though....If that's the case, why ever did you send money to HT for all the years you flew for Bish?
Oh, how sweet!. Let me phrase it thus. In a not so "self righteous way :rolleyes:
Irrespective of what side I play for for I HAVE CHOSEN to fly for that side. In my case nearly 3 straight years as Rook. As a "Rook" player I don't see why I should change to Bishop, for example, because they've taken a beating and some of the Bishops have quite to go next door. Whats me 15 bucks for ? To make you happy "filling in" or to make me happy. Now, I don't need to grab you by the nose and lead you to that answer do I ?
:O
-
Lynx, I couldn't care less about your rationale, or why you think the numbers are imbalanced. I merely used your statements as an example of the type of mindset people now possess. ie, "I'm now loyal to the chesspiece with more numbers. **** those other guys".
HT has allowed people to do what they want, with regards to where and who they fly for, but it's still people like yourself that have taken that opportunity and caused the problem we have.
-
Wow....
No offense, guys, but you're over complicating things from the players stand point.
I fly rooks because I've flown bishops. I've switched over to the bishops a couple of times, trying to balance the numbers. They frustrated me to no end, so I would go back to being a rook.
I like being a rook. I like the team work and camaraderie I've found with the rooks, after flying for the bishops for a year. I miss the communication and team work when I've "side balanced".
For those that say that there's no difference between countries, I beg to differ.
Maybe I'll try flying for the knights for a few days and see if they're any different.
Either way, like Lynx said, I pay to be happy and have fun. I GET PAID[/b] to be frustrated and annoyed.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Lynx, I couldn't care less about your rationale, or why you think the numbers are imbalanced. I merely used your statements as an example of the type of mindset people now possess. ie, "I'm now loyal to the chesspiece with more numbers. **** those other guys".
HT has allowed people to do what they want, with regards to where and who they fly for, but it's still people like yourself that have taken that opportunity and caused the problem we have .
I don't want to question your abilities to rationalise either but you just ain't doing yourself justice. :rolleyes: Your making me look bright.
Have you taken on board what I wrote... Err no you haven't. You asked HTC the question about imbalance. I said Two late war arenas allows / promotes imbalance. I also submitted 2 idea to stop Passive imbalances.
You can swap sides all bloody night mate but bounce this around your cavern... I ain't here to "FILL IN" for a bunch of arena jumpers. If you see that as "and caused the problem we have" then I suggest you are either 1) deliberately avoiding my suggestion for limiting arena jumps 2) avoiding my suggestion for JUST ONE late War arenas 3) have nothing to submit yourself 4) can't bring yourself to agree with me. 5) just spoiling......oh forget it.
It's way late here... enjoy allocating blame at any bodies feet except your own.
-
Hubs,
I'm sure your right about people heading to the most numbers. Or , staying there no matter what. As I said I have been on the side with the numbers. (Cant for the life of me remember when that was tho. But Im sure I have been). It wasn't then and sure won't ever be becausee of loyalty to a "Chess" piece. If my squad wanted to go to Rooks for a while I would be fine with that. No problem at all actually.
It's more for the comraderie of flying with the guys you become friends with over winning the war. At least for the squad I fly with anyway. Yes there are times when we are so out numbered that it gets a lil frustrating. But the most frusrtating part is listening to the generals yell and scream on range or flood the country channel with rants of how we all suk because we lost a base.
I just know for me , and the squaddies , we fly for US and the laughs and jokes. Not the shess piece. I certainly won't advocate making anyone fly someplace just to "Balance" the teams.
I don't have numbers to back this next statement at all. Nor will I look it all up or research it. But my gut says...that each side as squads that are pretty much even in numbers. Squad size wise. Its the people that fly along with those squads when they are doing something that thurns it into a huge horde.
It's also , and again no data , the ones that like to win the war that tend to flock together more than people like my squad who are just wanting a fight. The fighters go looking for something to shoot. Even when outgunned they go. The horders just go toshut things down and keep it down , vulch , and move on to the next.
I'm sure I will hear a flame or 2 , but this is just an opinion.
Whether or not the numbers are on the side I happen to be on or not , I simply want to fly with my squadmates. And getting everyone to change countries is more of a hassel that trying to earn or save perkies.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
Surprised no one has yet pointed out, you list three thoughts. :D
Had some power outage issues so I wasn't able to get on this past weekend to see for myself how this works. But it seems to me that before implementing any more changes, you should wait a month or so to see how the current changes have or have not evened things out. Changes have been coming fairly quickly lately, so there hasn't been a lot of time to adjust before the landscape changes again.
I can see the possibility that with choke points / restricted avenues of advance, some players will develop into defense specialists. It should be possible now for outnumbered sides to stop the opponents' advances at these choke points. The player base just needs time to figure this out and adjust before the next big change throws them back into a mindset of "find what is most familiar and keep doing that."
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Whether the vocal minority likes it or not, large arenas are gone. According to HT (Mr. "I Dream of 500 arenas with 300 people in each"), they're gone forever.
Not according to this.
We are testing out a new field capture system
in the LW Orange today.
This system should allow us to use large maps
with lower populations. - HT Himself
http://hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193413
only the populations are lower. not the arena.
-
Originally posted by RedTop
Make the side with lowest numbers get double the perks when they land kills. Triple even. Make resets worth much less. I mean how many perks do we get for a reset? 75? Most of the guys I fly with make that in a squad night. And LOSE the war!!!!!!
Krusty's Idea was pretty good. . .
Your giving perks for a reset....and I for one have 17000+ fighter perks and could care less about em.
Crazy suggestion to add on to those that think modifying the perk system will help balance sides . . .
It might -- If (here's the crazy part) everyone's perks are reset to zero at the end of every tour. (Too brilliant to not have been suggested before -- surely someone has).
If you start a tour with zero perks, and perk rides are your thing, then you have an incentive to fly for the lowest side to first gain the perks and then spend the minimal amount to use them. This may also mean that the lower sides not only benefit from ENY restrictions on the high sides, but they also attract those that like the perk rides, exponentially increasing their technology advantage.
But, the only way this definitely works is if you would also make resets worth ZERO perks. The reset and "winning the war" as a goal should be enough incentive for those that are goal oriented. Perks for resets are redundant IMO.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Not according to this.
We are testing out a new field capture system
in the LW Orange today.
This system should allow us to use large maps
with lower populations. - HT Himself
http://hitechcreations.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=193413
only the populations are lower. not the arena.
large arenas are gone in the sence of players... thats what he ment.... stop being picky ;)
-
Originally posted by Simaril
The old MA was hardly ever the perfectly balanced haven you imply we'd see, if only HT would agree with you and return to a single arena. When we had only one arena, the Nits had been low side for 4-5 months, consistently, and with a meaningful imbalance.
These hide-in-a-crowd fliers used to log off or switch countries "the wrong way", but now they stay on and just move to an arena that meets their needs.
I dont think we can ever expect perfect balance. Its just not acheivable.
Well I guess it is but I dont think thats what anyone REALLY wants.
What I think alot of people including myself really want to see is at least some sort of reasonable balance.
People would like to feel as though they at least have a reasonable chance when they play.
I know I do.
When you log on and you see more enemy planes at one feild then your entire side has.
You know you dont have any kind of reasonable chance
When you log on and see numbers like
Red team 95
Blue team 40
Green Team 35
which is pretty close to what I saw last night when I logged on to Orange
You know you dont have any kind of reasonable chance.
Now it may be fun for players of Red team when the only competition you have is against your own side and who can get the kill first.
But if your blue or Green. Seeing how long you can stay alive before you get obliterated by one of the 14 guys chasing you only stays fun for a little while.
Then it gets old real fast.
Then whats the point of upping?
As I said in another thread I've never been a fan of ENY. When your facing those kind of numbers it doesnt matter if its 90 LA7's or 90 P40's.
When you outnumber your opponents 3-4 to 1
A horde is a horde is a horde.
Doesnt matter the type of plane
That being said I dont agree with the ones that complain about Eny either.
There are plenty of capable planes that rarely if ever get effected by Eny.
For example
I have had what I consider at the very least reasonable success with the 109F. And I dont ever remember that plane being effected by Eny.
I proposed having some sort of Zone limit as to how many planes a base could have airborne at any given time.
This would accurately simulate the real world as no base couldnt nor can one currently support an infinate number of planes at once.
It would also force the mob to spread out a bit so that you dont end up with everyone in the same place at the same time
The players would have two choices. If they wanted to enter that particular fray they could up from a different area farther away and fly there.
Those that really want to be in that particular fight would spend the time needed to do that.
If they didnt want to do that. they could simply fight in a different area where it wasnt so crowded
You could still have your furballs. Landgrabbers could still land grab and everyone still gets to fly whatever plane they want whenever they want.
the difference it it would be more spread out as opposed to everyone from one side steamrolling one base from the opposing side
We could combine this with the new base capture system and set the Arena number limit so that it would max out with each forward base
To keep the sides relitivly even we can use much the same formula as ENY only use it as a side limiter instead of a plane limiter.
I think this would work particularly well inasmuch as we now have more then one MA and squadmates have the ability to contact each other from one arena to the next.
"ok Orange arena is full tonight. squad ops will be held in Blue instead"
Nobody is anchored to one arena
And nobody is forced to change sides.
You can be as loyal or disloyal to whatever chess peice you want.
I dont really see the arguement there either.
If you want ot be loyal to a chess peice great. if not. thats great too.
Personally for me I stay loyal to the Knits
Not out of any dislike of the other sides.
but simply because it adds to the immersion factor.
by the same token I have no problem with those that dont feel that way.
If you want to change sides. be my guest. I dont really care and I certainly wont hold it against you.
I'll try and kill you just as hard as I tried to save you when you were on my side. and when you come back. I'll still try just as hard to save you just as if you never left.
Its all about whats fun for you
-
Originally posted by Overlag
large arenas are gone in the sence of players... thats what he ment.... stop being picky ;)
Well you know me.
People keep telling me I shoulda been a lawyer.
then I could argue the meaning of "is"
;)
-
Originally posted by E25280
Crazy suggestion to add on to those that think modifying the perk system will help balance sides . . .
It might -- If (here's the crazy part) everyone's perks are reset to zero at the end of every tour. (Too brilliant to not have been suggested before -- surely someone has).
If you start a tour with zero perks, and perk rides are your thing, then you have an incentive to fly for the lowest side to first gain the perks and then spend the minimal amount to use them. This may also mean that the lower sides not only benefit from ENY restrictions on the high sides, but they also attract those that like the perk rides, exponentially increasing their technology advantage.
But, the only way this definitely works is if you would also make resets worth ZERO perks. The reset and "winning the war" as a goal should be enough incentive for those that are goal oriented. Perks for resets are redundant IMO.
Yanno thats not a half bad idea.
I had felt that your perks should be side oriented
That is whatever perks you earn can only be used on the side you earned them.
this would prevent people frm jumping to the side with higher numbrs just to have numbers.
undortunately the folly to this is it would also deter anyone from switching to the side with less numbers as well.
Unless...........
Hmmm now here is an idea to go with yours. Or by itself
To continue
Unless you got some sort of per bonus or award for switching to the lower side. Like say 100 perks per catagory Both AC and GV.
Now that might be an incentive to switch.
Hmmm I like that idea. Even with thew way things are set now. Offer a perk reward for switching to a side with lower numbers.
the side with the lowest numbers gives you the greatest perk award
Say 75 perks per catagory for the next lowest numbered and 100 for the country with the least number.
bribe em off
Hey. works in government. Why not here?
-
Burn the ENY where I can fly what I want, and when I want and I'll re-open my account as will a few others I know.
I'm not gonna pay to be grounded though.
:)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
Any attempt at forcing balance will be met with much moaning, wailing, gnashing of teeth, and rending of garments.
I'm becoming convinced that the majority does not want balance. I guess they want an easy button.
I'm not real sure that attempts to create or encourage balance, regardless of the intent, method, or belief in the cause, do not create more bitterness and resentment, making balance worse, instead of better. I don't swap sides, but I do log off most often if I can find a decent balanced fight of some sort. I'm not good enough to get kills if there are too many friendlies around anyway.
I am beginning to believe that the two late war arenas make balance worse. Possibly the "you can't fly HERE for THAT country" code MIGHT help that. I don't much care for the LW arenas anyway, although I do like flying a few of the later planes.
Perhaps one "open" arena (with no ENY, a 300 player cap, and no country cap) for one group and a "limited arena" with a 300 player cap and a 10% differential cap (maybe progressive percentage differential cap, according to overall numbers) would work. Or maybe that should read a "horde" arena and a "no horde" arena, respectively.
Hell, if you can figure out how to get everyone to complain, you probably have it close to right. I guess.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
Don't give up! Side balance is good, and balancing sides is just a matter of finding the right factors to motivate decent balance.
I'd suggest having the ENY limit keep chugging away until no planes are available, which is effectively the "you can't fly until you change sides" method. I'd put an explanation in the message box that pops up when a person tries to launch a plane over the ENY limit about why that's there and what's going on, something along the lines of:
"Planes under XX ENY are currently unavailable. This is to help with side balance. In extremely lopsided situations, this might result in no aircraft being available in your country. You can get access to other aircraft by changing sides (use clipboard area o'club->change country)."
Also, one reason people might be reluctant to change sides is that they fear getting stuck and not being able to change back, or having the side they switch to then become the numbers-dominating side and not being able to switch again to the side with fewest numbers.
This can be solved by allowing country switches every so often, maybe such as allowing a country switch only after 1 hour (or 30 minutes or 15 minutes or whatever) subsequent to the previous country switch.
Also, right now, ENY limit hits the outnumbering side. Perhaps the lowest-number side should get a benefit, like perk planes become progressively become cheaper until they are free. Then there is positive feedback (positive for the low-number side) and negative feedback for the high-number side. The low-number side could be flying around with free Tempests, F4U-1C's, say (although I'd be careful about making 262's free).
I think the system in place has merit -- it just needs tweaking toward stronger motivation for switching.
-
Originally posted by moto61
Burn the ENY where I can fly what I want, and when I want and I'll re-open my account as will a few others I know.
I'm not gonna pay to be grounded though.
:)
Fly for the country with the fewest people.
-
And on the up side the #'s were almost perfectly balanced in orange last night. :)
-
Originally posted by Flayed1
And on the up side the #'s were almost perfectly balanced in orange last night. :)
The Huge FurbaLL over the 156/214 area (Center of map) in Orange was fun last night.....I kinda played more than I was planning too thus overslept and now im late :( ....
-
Originally posted by LYNX
Two late war arenas inadvertently allow / promote lobsided arenas. Give these guys TWO (2) full plane set arenas and they'll use them. As I said above if one side is taking a beating some of those guys being beaten move to the other arena. You can watch this happening. Not rocket science. Not exaggeration.....fact. With in no time you have one arena being dominated because players moved next door. Then the next doors arena becomes dominated by quitters from the first.....fact. It's self perpetuating.....fact.
I agree with much of this but you're mistaken as to the causal relationship here...you need to rephrase that a bit...it is not the two arenas that casue this, it is the players who CAUSE the imbalance...two arenas just make it easier for the players to cause the imbalance...it makes multiple easy-buttons for the players to push.
Originally posted by LYNX
Personally I like the upgraded, upgraded, upgrade. Err, the latest upgrade. It still retains the essence of the Big Fight for a base whilst adding a bit of diversity. Allows a little free thinking by members, squads, missions or indeed, sides. The single base capture is to restrictive in my opinion. The only surprise you can mount is "How" and not "where"...... OOooppps of topic.
I thought the same when I first saw it, but having played a few hours in two consecutive evenings (both around 9-11PM central time) all I saw a result of the newfound "freedom to operate" was a daisy chain of unbalanced base-taking. Even when teams were even (which they were NOT most of the evening) team A was walkin on team B while team B was pummeling team C and team C was rolling over team A. We still had large forces concentrated, but since most would rather be on the high side of a 3-5:1 fight there was little defensive actions going on (we did a little to push back the vulchers a few times but they'd come back even higher and with even more friends a few minutes later, got old pretty quick), but calls to defend go unheeded by the gree-dot-conga-line heading to base A999 where there's no red bardar to begin with.
I am not sure any of the mechanisms HTC can implement to encourage fairplay and an even playing field will do much if the players just want to take un(der)defended bases, but I'm looking forward to the efforts. So option 3 is the worst of them to me, the one that says "Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain."
-
Originally posted by Platano
"IMO HOing, driving la7's, or spits is like playing "madden 07" and leaving it on easy mode and winning every game 217-0 and playing it for hours on end every night."
-Slapshot on E-Z moders
For some reason, you got mixed up in that thread.
I could care less what anyone flys ... and have never chastised anyone for what they fly. As long as the guy is red ... and wants to fight ... I'm ready ... regardless of what they brought to the fight.
La-7s, N1Ks, HurriC, and Spits are 50cal fodder against my FM2 ... for the most part.
I worry less about what type of plane that I am fighting ... I worry more about who is behind the stick.
-
ok...
its still funny though :D
-
Edbert what time are you playing again?? I was on for several hours about 4pm to 11:00pm mountain time and the #'s were good and the fronts seemed to be fine... The fronts were not being rolled though the knights managed to push farther into bish land but not without a fight.. On the west end bish were still working on rooks and slowly making progress. And we managed to get a foothold on rook land down on the middle of the map and it was a good fight for it though we were having trouble advancing past that point.. It also looked like rooks were managing to push Knights back off of their land...
Over all I saw good game play and really think we are close to a middle ground between forcing fights and sneaky play.
You have to admit that even if there is/was a steam roll going on that I'm not seeing that it is taking much longer than befor to reset things.
-
I don't get as much time as you do Flayed (wow 7 hours a night?!), there seems to be overlap...9-11 central is the time.
There were many bases where the local numerical superiority was overwhelming. When I logged on I was nit, they had a huge arena-numerical superiority at that moment (last time I looked was that moment). As well; they had multiple conga-lines of green dots headed into low red-darbar sectors.
Contacted the 3-4 other BKs on who were spread out in three countries (typical, like herding cats with these jokers). We all decided to head to bish. When I got to bish we saw two bases where our green line was headed into a low con sector. We decided to up at a base that was being overrun instead of joining the gang. We beat back the enemies (with help and over time) despite the vulchers and eventually chased them to their own base. Then it all sorta dried up (those who had been attacking with numerical advantage went to find the other easy-button), so we went to defend a CV from incessant 110 attacks. Then had a nice evening furballing with Golfer and Creton (hell of a shot there with that tater!) over in a corner somewhere until waves of bumbers started showing up.
I had fun, not saying it sucked or threatening to quit, not really even complaining, but saw there was a great deal of locally unbalance play going on, for and against all sides. Only point I'm making is that this paradigm is WHAT THE PLAYERS WANT, so any countermeasures to this are going to have some degree of ineffectiveness.
-
Ok I get ya :) But I would say this is still better than the old hide constantly way...
Oh and I'm usually on all day :) I'm a stay at home dad and 3 of the 4 kids are in school. The wife has managed to keep us all but broke so I really don't have many options of things to do at the moment untill I can get the cash flow worked out :)
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
I'd go with #3. I think we over complicated the issue. If everything goes back the way it was, we go back to the old complains. But, we already know how to deal with them. I think game play was a litle better before the latest changes.
Milk runners could do what they wanted where they wanted
Furballers could do what they wanted
Griffers could do what they liked
GVers were free to attack any base they felt like
More and bigger maps
etc
I think in the effort of trying to fix a problem that seemed Big, we created a bigger one. Now the old one does not seem that bad, lol. The arenas can stay split or be put back. I dont think that has any effect on game play other than scoring. ANy way, just my opinion
-
Anouther idea:
5) If the biggest country has 100% more player than the smallest country, the smallest and 2nd smalles countries start seing each other green, and become ALLIED!
They could not capture or destroy each others objects, and they would have the killshooter enabled between them.
- When such imbalance occurs, there will be a SERVER: announcement of an alliance being formed after 5 minutes.
- When the biggest country again becomes smaller, e.g. only 90% bigger than the smallest country, there will be a 5 minute warning of the alliance being bisbanded.
- Also if during an alliance, the 2nd largest country becomes the larges, the smallest country will swicth alliance after a 5 minute warning.
This would affect only the major imbalances, but would work particularly on arenas with small amount of players.
-
What would cause the maps to rotate if the game is always balanced?
-C+
-
to proove the point multi arenas are the main issue with balance, look at it now
3 almost empty arenas, and 1 with good numbers in.
the 1 with numbers in, is basically balanced.... within 10 of each country.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What would cause the maps to rotate if the game is always balanced?
-C+
better tactics and pilots.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What would cause the maps to rotate if the game is always balanced?
-C+
The Friday ;)
I doubt the Orange Late War is ever fully captured anyways.
-
Originally posted by Overlag
better tactics and pilots.
hmm... rather better co-operation (read: coordinated hordes)
-
Originally posted by BlauK
hmm... rather better co-operation (read: coordinated hordes)
germans over GB
allies over germany
both hordes
-
Might be semantics or a language barrier but, hordes are by definition NOT organized :D
...and I do think LW-orange will be reset, folks said the large maps would never be reset when they first came out too.
-
Originally posted by Charge
What would cause the maps to rotate if the game is always balanced?
-C+
Stratigery
-
Actually I have seen more movement tward reset on this map now than we ever did with the free form style.. Though it seems it's easier to push north for some reason....
This was always a stale mate map when it cam up in the old MA.
-
Flayed1, I don't know where you were last night. I was in Orange from about 8:30 until about 10:15 PM Central. When I logged on there were about 115 Knights, 110 Rooks and 75 Bish. After a while it went to 110 Knights, 75 Bish and 70 Rooks. Bish were hitting Rooks, Knights were hitting Bish and I can only assume Rooks were hitting Knights. I fought against the Knight side and we lost 3-4 bases over the time i was on. We were outnumbered along that front all night.
So far I like the following ideas:
Limit what arena you can log into based on balance but this still doesn't address what was happening in orange last night.
Limit how many planes can up from an airfield (less at small fields, more at large would be realistic). This might help with balance along the fronts.
Perk bonus for voluntarily side-balancing.
I'm not sure any of these alone will do it but maybe a combination of them is the answer.
-
I like the recurring statement that people are paying to have fun, not to be frustrated. I especially like seeing this statement come from the mouths of the safety horde. I notice the vastly outnumbered side doesn't seem to share this sentiment. I wonder why.
-
I choose to always fly with my squaddies which means a bit of piece loyalty because the squad always flies as knights.
But I'm more than willing to stand in line and wait for that opportunity in order to achieve side balancing.
Support a queuing system for logging into a particular arena for a particular side. First come first serve and as sides even out the players in the queue get placed in the arena on their side. If you absolutely must fly a particular arena/particular side because of your personal preferences I don't think those can take precedence over game balance.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I like the recurring statement that people are paying to have fun, not to be frustrated. I especially like seeing this statement come from the mouths of the safety horde. I notice the vastly outnumbered side doesn't seem to share this sentiment. I wonder why.
then there is the ultimate question.
which side is the "whiners"?
And which side has the legitimate gripe?
Toss a coin on that ne and it will land on its side LMAO
One mans legit complaint is another mans whine ;)
-
There seem to be two sides as previously suggested.
Why not try an areana that is strictly for furballers. All bases are non-capturable and an arena for folks like myself that like to play a game to win.
You can then seperate the two competing entities in this game.
I like to play to win, I am a Bish and do not care to change sides for any reason, and I am probably not unique in my game play or loyalty to a side.
Why not try this?
Moto61
-
Its not about labels, furballers vs toolshedders. Its about fair, balanced (within limits) gameplay. I was in EarlyWar and MidWar arena last night for a couple of hours, 9:30 CST to about 11:30 CST. Midwar had 6 bish, 5 Knights, and 23 Rooks. Vbase near Knight HQ was captured, DAR down, 8 Knight bases left, 11 Bish bases left, Rooks had 40 or 50 bases. Just rolling up the map. Lots of fun :rolleyes:
You had to wait for a base to flash to find a enemy and then it was usually a couple of guys in tanks running around and just porking bases then capturing them. I spent about an hour or so going from base to base, then Knights numbers dropped to 3, rooks went up to 24, bish was 7 I think.
Just what is fun about 23 Rooks running across the map? this is fun? this is playing to win? Playing against what, a bunch of buildings and AI ACK.
dont focus on the map or the arena thats not the issue.
-
Originally posted by moto61
Why not try this?
Because not everybody (in fact there's very few) fits completely into one or the other of the two camps you mention...those who like the fight and those who like the win. In fact the win was instituted to encourage folks to fight (give them a reason outside of fighting for the sake of fighting) and it has come to a matter of actively avoiding fighting to win.
See, the majority of the players like to all of the above...land grab, base capture, doghfighting, battle a few buildings, and get enjoyment out of winning individual fights and battles as much as winning the "war".
-
Originally posted by moto61
There seem to be two sides as previously suggested.
Why not try an areana that is strictly for furballers. All bases are non-capturable and an arena for folks like myself that like to play a game to win.
You can then seperate the two competing entities in this game.
I like to play to win, I am a Bish and do not care to change sides for any reason, and I am probably not unique in my game play or loyalty to a side.
Why not try this?
Moto61
This has nothing to do with "furballers" and what they want ... geesh ... get over it.
I am supposedly a "furballer", or have been told so on numerous occasions. Since this new "capture" format, I have 4 personal captures myself and have spent more time in GVs in the last week or so than I have in the past two years.
When I am not doing that, I am usually on station for base defense and the best part about that now, is that I am not the only one or 1 of maybe 3 or 4 that might up for defense under the old format. The new format is steering people to be together and fight together.
Last night I was defending a base against a pretty well fleshed out attack group. Well guess what ? ... we had a pretty well fleshed out defensive group. The fight between the 2 fields waned back and forth between the mid-point for quite some time. It was a blast ... it wasn't a genuine furball, but it had all the attributes of one ... couldn't ask for anything better.
This format should appease both side of the fence ...
"furballers" cause now you know where the fight is and there will be plenty of targets.
"strateegerists" cause now you have a real challenge. It's gonna take more than a handfull of 110s and a goon in 5 minutes to take a base on the "blue line". Real strategy needs to be employed to take bases.
-
OOps posted in the wrong thread :)
-
I fly bish because my squad fly bish and always will.
also, a lot of good friends are of mine i've made in this game are in bish, for me this game aint just about shooting down 3d images, its about the people, the community, the laughs. 15-20% of my time is spent chatting on this game, discussing things and having a laugh.
won't be moved by a silly system to level out sides because lil jonny's dropped his ice cream and he don't think its fair.
don't have a problem with being outnumbred, thats just life, it aint always perfect and you can't be spoon-fed all the time. queing syrstem would just take up more of HTC's time for AH, wich is low anyway atm ,due to combat tour.
grow up a bit guys, tis just a game, isn't gonna kill you if other team has 20 more players for a few hours, cos theres a good chance tomorrow you'll have the numbers advantage, most of them are usaully in the tower most of time anyway ;).
:noid
-
Laurie,
I've been Bish forever too. I remember when Bish were ALWAYS outnumbered. Once I changed over to Rook for a day to see what it would be like to be on the side with numbers. That's where I found out about the eny system. Couldn't fly anything I wanted to so I flipped back to Bish the next day. Lately the Bish have had numbers in the Blue arena. It's been sort of refreshing to be on the other side of the fence for a change but lately (the past couple of nights) I've moved to the Orange arena and now it's as it's always been. Outnumbered.
Think about the newbies coming into this game though. Inexperienced and being put into the outnumbered country. They're probably having enough trouble just getting off the airfield much less being asked to be one of a handfull against a hoard. I can see where many noobs would either give up their account in frustration or move to the side with safety in numbers. I guess this argument only makes sense if there are reasonable numbers of newbies signing on on a daily/weekly/monthly basis.
Just another consideration.
[EDIT]: after years of playing these games the numbers thing ebbs and flows. What is now will not always be. Things will assuredly change over time. Still, some system of side balancing should be implemented.
-
Couldn't side numbers be determined by K/D?
CountryAFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryBInFlightKD+CountryCInFlightKD/2
AND
CountryBFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryAInFlightKD+CountryCInFlightKD/2
AND
CountryCFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryBInFlightKD+CountryAInFlightKD/2
So, lets say A has 3 pilots in flight, B has 5 pilots in flight and C has 1 pilot in flight.
K/D
A-1 2
A-2 0.4
A-3 3.6
Total KD = 6
B-1 3.2
B-2 1.2
B-3 0.3
B-4 0.3
B-5 10
Total KD = 15
C-1 1.4
Total KD = 1.4
CountryAFlightNumbersAllowed= 8.2
(CountryBInFlightKD(15)+CountryCInFlightKD(1.4)
/2)
AND
CountryBFlightNumbersAllowed=3.7
(CountryAInFlightKD(6)+CountryCInFlightKD(1.4)
/2)
AND
CountryCFlightNumbersAllowed=10.5
(CountryBInFlightKD(15)+CountryAInFlightKD(6)
/2)
Cos the stats are telling me that, for example SHawk in a fighter is worth 12.2 enemy pilots. So if SHawk ups, for the Rooks, the Bish and Knights should be allowed 6.1 pilots in the air.
And that idea looks crazy when based on one pilots stats, but I believe that with a greater number of stats added into the equation (more than I want to type in this example) it will work out.
Of course, this would also mean that those pilot that protect their K/D by only vulching planes (no names mentioned), while glorying in their stats themselves, would end up punishing their team-mates as while the stats claim they are equal to 10.5 enemy pilots, they really aren't.
Or, of course, I could be lying.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
I fly bish because my squad fly bish and always will.
also, a lot of good friends are of mine i've made in this game are in bish, for me this game aint just about shooting down 3d images, its about the people, the community, the laughs. 15-20% of my time is spent chatting on this game, discussing things and having a laugh.
won't be moved by a silly system to level out sides because lil jonny's dropped his ice cream and he don't think its fair.
don't have a problem with being outnumbred, thats just life, it aint always perfect and you can't be spoon-fed all the time. queing syrstem would just take up more of HTC's time for AH, wich is low anyway atm ,due to combat tour.
grow up a bit guys, tis just a game, isn't gonna kill you if other team has 20 more players for a few hours, cos theres a good chance tomorrow you'll have the numbers advantage, most of them are usaully in the tower most of time anyway ;).
:noid
So you are saying that you wouldn't be able to meet and establish relationships in the other 2 countries ? ... sad.
I don't think anyone here that is concerned about numbers imbalance are worried about a 20 player difference ... it's when 1 country has more than the other 2 combined that causes concern.
-
Originally posted by Laurie
also, a lot of good friends are of mine i've made in this game are in bish, for me this game aint just about shooting down 3d images, its about the people, the community, the laughs.
:noid
The people, the community, the laughs are actually the best reasons to switch countries from time to time.
You can still feel loyal to bish while crossing the fence from time to time. You can meet new people, wing with former "enemies", have a laugh with people you usually shoot down, gain respect by people you would only meet as a red icon otherwise and learn that basically all countries are the same.
I fly knight most of my time, but when numbers favor nits too much or when I just need a break from all these "nits can´t organize!" cries, I go on "vacation" for a few hours. Much fun if you shoot down your own teammates. And even if you would never fight against Bish, well there´s always a 3rd country to attack...
-
Originally posted by TinmanX
Couldn't side numbers be determined by K/D?
CountryAFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryBInFlightKD+CountryCInFlightKD/2
AND
CountryBFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryAInFlightKD+CountryCInFlightKD/2
AND
CountryCFlightNumbersAllowed=CountryBInFlightKD+CountryAInFlightKD/2
So, lets say A has 3 pilots in flight, B has 5 pilots in flight and C has 1 pilot in flight.
K/D
A-1 2
A-2 0.4
A-3 3.6
Total KD = 6
B-1 3.2
B-2 1.2
B-3 0.3
B-4 0.3
B-5 10
Total KD = 15
C-1 1.4
Total KD = 1.4
CountryAFlightNumbersAllowed= 8.2
(CountryBInFlightKD(15)+CountryCInFlightKD(1.4)
/2)
AND
CountryBFlightNumbersAllowed=3.7
(CountryAInFlightKD(6)+CountryCInFlightKD(1.4)
/2)
AND
CountryCFlightNumbersAllowed=10.5
(CountryBInFlightKD(15)+CountryAInFlightKD(6)
/2)
Cos the stats are telling me that, for example SHawk in a fighter is worth 12.2 enemy pilots. So if SHawk ups, for the Rooks, the Bish and Knights should be allowed 6.1 pilots in the air.
And that idea looks crazy when based on one pilots stats, but I believe that with a greater number of stats added into the equation (more than I want to type in this example) it will work out.
Or, of course, I could be lying.
Only if K/D numbers were reliable ... with vulching and people vultch their squadmates to inflate these numbers ... and on the other end of the stick ... there are some who's K/D sucks because they would rather auger than fly a sector or more to land 0 kills.
These are not numbers that I would want to trust in such a system ... they can be gamed too easily.
-
I agree Slap, and in fact edited into my post as you were posting. Gotta love simuls.
And of course, this would mean the community would have to police itself, as HTC wishes (or so I believe I have read previously), and those people you mention would be discouraged by their peers from their course of action.
-
How about giving the team with the lowest numbers a size-able increase in perk returns. That would drag alot of fighter guys over to the low team.
Then introduce the B29 that only the lowest team can use. Once numbers are in par with the other sides, the B29 is unavailable.
OK..if not a B29..how about switches that turn of bomber formation for the highest teams, and letting only the low team have formation. It would make it tuffer on the higher teams to gain more ground, and make many jump sides so they could get a formation. Once all teams are within 10 guys or so of eachother, formation becomes available to that team.
-
LYNX has a good point . People leave to go to the easier side alot of times .
We've all seen this happen , shoot down some player and next time you see him he's flying beside you .
Might be a good idea that time limit to move to another MA , or at least something like it .
Knights were most allways low numbers since I been back playing . When I rejoined the game in March it stuck my in Rooks were most of the guys I knew from before were flying so I stayed . I was a Rook since 2002 when I left to play DAoC :( wat a wast of my time . I really don't want to switch around as I am just now starting to make some friends again . I have no problems playing with the low numbers either . Been there and done that .
I do think that being able to shut down Bar DAR is not fun for the low side and is really not in the best interest of the game .
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
This has nothing to do with "furballers" and what they want ... geesh ... get over it.
Like I said there seems to be 2 competing entities. The notion of swapping sides to balance out numbers seems acceptable why not the idea of logging into the arena that most fits your mood at the time. Sometimes I did not feel like doing anything coordinated and would help in some defensive (hehehe) furballs.
Furballers don't mind segregating them self into a mountain range of 3 bases what would be the difference of segregating into a seperate arena?
Flame away..................
-
Originally posted by FiLtH
How about giving the team with the lowest numbers a size-able increase in perk returns. That would drag alot of fighter guys over to the low team.
Then introduce the B29 that only the lowest team can use. Once numbers are in par with the other sides, the B29 is unavailable.
OK..if not a B29..how about switches that turn of bomber formation for the highest teams, and letting only the low team have formation. It would make it tuffer on the higher teams to gain more ground, and make many jump sides so they could get a formation. Once all teams are within 10 guys or so of eachother, formation becomes available to that team.
Heres a similar idea. Remove the need for perks from the lower countries plane choices altogether. When the sky is full of 262's the overwhelming countries guys will swith sides, swith arenas or log off. No matter which the sides become balanced again.
-
Originally posted by moto61
Originally posted by SlapShot
This has nothing to do with "furballers" and what they want ... geesh ... get over it.
Like I said there seems to be 2 competing entities. The notion of swapping sides to balance out numbers seems acceptable why not the idea of logging into the arena that most fits your mood at the time. Sometimes I did not feel like doing anything coordinated and would help in some defensive (hehehe) furballs.
Furballers don't mind segregating them self into a mountain range of 3 bases what would be the difference of segregating into a seperate arena?
Flame away..................
see discussion should not be about competing, gameplay should. good gameplay benefits everyone.
-
Originally posted by moto61
Originally posted by SlapShot
This has nothing to do with "furballers" and what they want ... geesh ... get over it.
Like I said there seems to be 2 competing entities. The notion of swapping sides to balance out numbers seems acceptable why not the idea of logging into the arena that most fits your mood at the time. Sometimes I did not feel like doing anything coordinated and would help in some defensive (hehehe) furballs.
Furballers don't mind segregating them self into a mountain range of 3 bases what would be the difference of segregating into a seperate arena?
Flame away..................
No rationale for encouraging or tolerating extreme numbers imbalances is a good one. It's a game, and fair or balanced gameplay should be a given, and shouldn't have any negative consequences. Why do so many people panic at the thought of not having a pronounced advantage?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Why do so many people panic at the thought of not having a pronounced advantage?
That's rather presumptuous of you . . .
Try "I'd rather not be forced to play for a side I don't want to or against people I'd rather be flying/fighting with . . . for starters.
I have yet to see anyone say they only enjoy themselves if they have a 20 to one advantage. These are words you are putting into their mouths.
So, why are you so dead set against any base ever being captured ever? Everything you suggest taken to its logical conclusion means the entire front will be completely, 100% balanced at all times, meaning no forward movement, no base capture, nothing but a constant furball . . . Aha! The true purpose comes out.
See, its easy to form baseless accusations. Please stop.
-
Kindly explain to me why balanced arenas mean that no bases can be taken. Are you saying that everyone else is so hopeless they can't possibly succeed without an overwhelming advantage?
So, why are you so dead set against any base ever being captured ever? Everything you suggest taken to its logical conclusion means the entire front will be completely, 100% balanced at all times, meaning no forward movement, no base capture, nothing but a constant furball . . . Aha! The true purpose comes out.
That's just ****ing stupid. I know you like to play devil's advocate, whether you've got a valid point or not, but I fail to see why the game should be setup as 60 knits vs 60 bish vs 100 rooks. Obviously you support this idea, since you're opposed to balanced arenas, so perhaps you could share with us the positive aspects of such a setup?
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Kindly explain to me why balanced arenas mean that no bases can be taken. Are you saying that everyone else is so hopeless they can't possibly succeed without an overwhelming advantage?
That's just ****ing stupid. I know you like to play devil's advocate, whether you've got a valid point or not, but I fail to see why the game should be setup as 60 knits vs 60 bish vs 100 rooks. Obviously you support this idea, since you're opposed to balanced arenas, so perhaps you could share with us the positive aspects of such a setup?
You've "obviously" completely missed the point, by design or not I won't hazard to guess.
No, I don't believe any of that paragraph you quote, but rather I am illustrating that reducing the arguments of those you disagree with into the most simplistic and silly sounding one-liners is both easily done and (usually) completely inaccurate. You are using the "political tactic" of minimizing those who disagree with you rather than debate the issue on its merits.
Yet, you attempt to do it again. Why listen to him, he is obviously just a horde-monger who wants his 10000 to one advantage, you say. Well, then, I respond, why listen to a furball-whiner who wants nothing more than his unending circle-jerk?
But, to directly answer your question, I do not support the idea of a 60 v 60 v 100 arena, and I seriously doubt there are many who believe that is a good thing, despite your attempts to paint their views as such.
It isn't the goal, rather some of the proposed solutions I am opposed to. The occasional lopsided numbers are tolerable in my opinion. The prospect of being forced onto a side I do not choose to go to is not.
The cure seems worse than the disease.
Hope this is clear enough for you now.
-
I think auto-balancing of sides is fair. There must be some way of auto-assigning you to a low # side and still letting you fly with your squad..
If the sides were auto allocated, then chess-peice allegiance would quickly go out the window anyway and everyone could concentrate on the game-play rather than macho 'my side is better than your side' bs.
I'm only a noob, so maybe theres some mystic quality to beating your chest for your country that i'm missing, but like others have said before, its all about the people in the country and and not the country itself. If there are people on who you want to fly with i'm sure you'll still be able to hook it up. You'll still be able to switch sides to get together it just wont necesarilly be the side with the most players.
-
I think they should NOT take the walnuts out of Rocky Road ice cream and replace them with pistachios.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I think they should NOT take the walnuts out of Rocky Road ice cream and replace them with pistachios.
Oh dude, you've opened a whole new world of possibility... Pistachio rocky road. We could call it pistacky road! I've gotta call my agent..
-
Originally posted by E25280
You are using the "political tactic" of minimizing those who disagree with you rather than debate the issue on its merits.
Okay, on its merits only. How is having a near constant state of numerical imbalance better, for all involved, than having roughly balanced country populations within an arena, or, how is the situation worse without this imbalance?
-
Originally posted by jhookt
i think wirbelwinds could be the solution to your problems HT.
HEY!!!! that's my line :furious
-
I remember something said early in the development of this game to the effect: "I don't want to use colors because people get all hung up on colors and allegiance to colors." This is severly paraphrased, I don't remember thier exact words but it was in reference to another game that used colors to determine countries.
Now I see a bunch of people getting hung up on and pledging allegeance to chess pieces.
:rofl
-
we could get rid of the chess pieces and call the 3 countries moe, larry and curly.
oh, wise guy eh. :D
----------------------------------------------
but if you really serious, HT could use a random name generator and change the names every month with three new names. The planet name generator would work good.
-
Here is just some food for thought.
The board may say 100- Bish, 100- Knits, 100- Rooks. This does not mean that everything is balanced out though. Of the 100 on each side how many are working at the same task. ie. (For lack of better discription) Furballing, defending, toolshedding, base captures etc.
Being Numerically identical really means little at times. If 70% of my team mates are furballing and 70% of your country is capturing bases.
This is the reason I threw out the idea for some consideration for an arena that caters to those who like to capture bases and one that caters to the non-capture crowd.
Moto
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
Heres a similar idea. Remove the need for perks from the lower countries plane choices altogether. When the sky is full of 262's the overwhelming countries guys will swith sides, swith arenas or log off. No matter which the sides become balanced again.
LOL ya know I actually kinda like this idea.... Would be funny when everyone tries to go to the big #'s side and they are faced with a small army of 262's, Tempests, F4U-4's and Chogs..... LOL would be funny. :D
-
Moto's right.
For those of you that are rook, and are proud to point out, The rook JSO's were effective.
I think that what we'll find, in the end, is that no matter how many arena's we use, no matter how many sides or countries are put into the game, No matter what are preference as to whether we take deflection shots, calibrate the Norden, or superelevate to land a round on an NME panzer, this game is played by individuals that all have a different idea on how to play the game. And they'll keep playing the game they want to play, until either AH shuts down, or they run out of money for the subsciption. The fact is, people are sociable animals. We tend to group up, to reach our goals, rather than go it alone.
If you could figure a way to side balance, without breaking up squads, or even those that routinely fly with each other, You will probably be more than halfway to the Holy Grail of MMOG's. But, If you can make everybody happy at the same time, you will actually have it in your hand. I would think that If you truly want to achieve side balance, You're going to have to either:
Give more incentive to fight for something(How you do that, HTC, I could start another thread on, I won't do it here)
Take extremely tight control of what people fly, where, and who with.
Or, Just throw it all open, and hope things fall into place.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I like the recurring statement that people are paying to have fun, not to be frustrated. I especially like seeing this statement come from the mouths of the safety horde. I notice the vastly outnumbered side doesn't seem to share this sentiment. I wonder why.
Hmmm....
I don't belong to a squad....
I usually up against bish (as a rook)....
There are usually only 2-3, at most 6, players defending or attacking bish from the rook side....
Safety horde, eh?
This is the first time I've heard you talk out your tush. Until this moment, you've usually had something intelligent to say, something I would listen to.
-
I have yet to see/read about someone who desires an arena entirely without base captures, so those of you who use that term as representative of one side of the argument in the arena balance issue need to stop. Base taking is fun, defending against base takers is also fun, but only if when there's some modicum of the level playing field.
The way I see the argument from the perspective of those who want no side-leveling mechanism boils down to this:
Numerical imbalance is bad, but any mechanism that FORCES arena-balance would be worse. [/b]Is that a fair representation? They are willing to live with perpetual unfairness in the game as long as they get to fly what/when/where/how they want with who they want.
It boils down basically to this...all online games that I've ever played, from chess, to poker, to mmolrpg, to 1st-person shooter...you name it...has some sort of hard-coded mechanism to enforce equality among the players. There'll never be a level playing field if you seek to build one based on player skill, it is (and should be) the constant variable, because no matter how you intend to evaluate and record a players skill it will be flawed in some way. So what you do is make the game-structure itself as level as humanly possible and let the players test their skills against one another.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
...
It boils down basically to this...all online games that I've ever played, from chess, to poker, to mmolrpg, to 1st-person shooter...you name it...has some sort of hard-coded mechanism to enforce equality among the players.
...
As Edbert says, this problem has been solved. I don't know why AH doesn't implement it. Some would complain for a week, then all would be ok. Side balancing is accepted as norm in MOST games.
Positive contribution:
Maintain current log in system. i.e. If you were last ROOK you log in as ROOK.
Change the 'change country' system. When 'changing countries':
Highest team is locked.
Middle team is open.
Lowest team is open with a perk award.
This would allow those with country loyalty to stick with their team but will end the 'Band Wagoneers' and will create incentive to join lowest numbers.
I think this would solve the balance issue. You would be surprised at the number of perk junkies there are.
-
I agree with LYNX.
Our squad use to change countries every month or so and most the time would go to the one with the lowest numbers. that way you could use up some perks and fly perk planes against the higher numbers.
There is no reason to change coutries now. If you dont want the ENY to affect the planes you take go to another arena.
-
now that we have supposedly fixed the undefended base "problem"
now we have to fix the unbalanced side "problem"
i can,t wait to see what the next big "problem" is gonna be!:confused:
it will never end. someone will always have something to complain about.:furious
patiently waiting for the next "big one"
Boner
official "member" of the AH bb s
public relations officer for Boner
-
I think HT needs to contract out a Social Behaviourlist for the solution to this problem.
-
Option #1 "The Wait" is BETTER than ENY! That is how a lot of other games do it. I think that would be smart.
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
-
Actually - does anyone have any data on just how many players (TOTAL PAYING PLAYERS) are in each country? The arena sides are going to fluctuate naturally anyway, is there an imbalance in this total that makes one side or another more likely to be a horde in the first place?
Also - in the country locks system being discussed, I don't see any explanation of what happens if:
1. I log on in the morning, and am forced to switch to ROOK.
2. I log on in the afternoon, and am forced off ROOK to BISH
3. I log on in the evening, and am forced back to ROOK
Are we going to eliminate the country-hopping every x hours limit? If so, what is there to prevent the Spies and country-hopping CV screwers from causing new problems?
Rather than limiting which side you can fly for, I'd still rather see a better ENY formula / Perk Bonus system tried first. The idea of only being able to up x planes from a base isn't bad either - and this could be adjusted by the size of the field to add additional strategy to the game. Perhaps you could up x planes, and then anyone else wanting to launch has to wait x minutes for fueling / arming before they can launch due to overworking the flightline.
It isn't 'chess piece loyalty' guys - a lot of folks fly a particular side because they like the people they fly with. This system sounds like it will just scatter everyone's squads to the winds on squad night as they are forced to change sides. If you can't fly with the people you want to online, why log on? What is the incentive to not just run the free 8-player furball?
The new base capture system is concentrating the action to a limited front. I thought this was what everyone wanted - big honkin' furballs of horde on horde? Base ack is way up to prevent the sneaky from taking bases with anything less than a horde, so now when a horde shows up to do the job, you want to limit it and 'equalize' the 2 hordes?
There is nothing wrong with being outnumbered - it happens in war all the time (and some of us even LIKE IT). We do not need the great socialist horde equalizer to protect us. Up your favorite now-inexpensive perk-ride, wing up with a few guys and go over to the horde and rip them up in their lesser-rides. Make a lot of perkies and HAVE FUN.
EagleDNY
$.02
-
Yeah dont force a Country on someone! :( AGREED
Go with the WAIT idea #1 it was right on the MONEY
-
Save the drama Boner. All it takes is one search to see both problems have been around since the beginning of AHII. Thank God HT is getting around to addressing them.
-
Originally posted by Grits
I think they should NOT take the walnuts out of Rocky Road ice cream and replace them with pistachios.
Pistachios are better! Screw the Walnuts! :D
-
Originally posted by Quah!
Save the drama Boner. All it takes is one search to see both problems have been around since the beginning of AHII. Thank God HT is getting around to addressing them.
drama? is that the next big one quah?? whatever it is i.m sure you,ll be right in the middle of it all!! god , i missed hearing your intelligent opinions!! welcome back!!!
dramaticaly yours,
Boner
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Number 1 is way to restrictive ... whineage would be deafening.
Number 2 is the way to go !!! ... not easy to do but best bang for the buck
Number 3 ... turning off ENY won't solve anything ... whineage would almost reach Number 1 levels.
I agree with #2, and the pictures Slap posted were the idea I was going to suggest. Slapshot!
HT, if you split the cap three ways, and only allow each side to field their 1/3 of the cap of players, people will either HAVE to shift, change arenas, or not fly at all.
I realize that "not flying" is not the idea here, but if they can truly stay off their joystick just because they didn't get to be a Rook that night, then they really don't love the game of it all anyway. They'll eventually come around because they love to fly and fight, if for no other reason. I would certainly go in as a different side just to be able to fight.
(So far, the only reason I haven't switched to one of the lower-numbered teams is because I'm still a waaayyyy newbie and learning a lot, and being on the tail end of a major snowballing takeover is not a great way to stay in the air and learn.)
-
Originally posted by 1Boner
i can,t wait to see what the next big "problem" is gonna be!:confused:
Uh WhAT THE HECK WILL THEY DO ABOUT THE BIGGEST PROBLEM???
When I run out of BEER and dont want to LOG?????
GET TO WORK ON IT!
:noid :noid :noid :noid
-
Originally posted by Lye-El
Pistachios are better! Screw the Walnuts! :D
Walnuts are better in Rocky Road.
The ice cream has to be greeeen to have pistachio's in it!:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by vizwhiz
I agree with #2, and the pictures Slap posted were the idea I was going to suggest. Slapshot!
HT, if you split the cap three ways, and only allow each side to field their 1/3 of the cap of players, people will either HAVE to shift, change arenas, or not fly at all.
I realize that "not flying" is not the idea here, but if they can truly stay off their joystick just because they didn't get to be a Rook that night, then they really don't love the game of it all anyway. They'll eventually come around because they love to fly and fight, if for no other reason. I would certainly go in as a different side just to be able to fight.
(So far, the only reason I haven't switched to one of the lower-numbered teams is because I'm still a waaayyyy newbie and learning a lot, and being on the tail end of a major snowballing takeover is not a great way to stay in the air and learn.)
NO YOU ARE WRONG
#1 is the best idea :O
-
Originally posted by President
Yeah dont force a Country on someone! :( AGREED
Go with the WAIT idea #1 it was right on the MONEY
But the whole point of paying each month, and for those of us who work all day and have to fly for an hour or two at night when they can, is to FLY, not WAIT! I HATE waiting...even for the engine to start!!! GET THAT BIRD IN THE AIR!:D
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
I don't think anyone here that is concerned about numbers imbalance are worried about a 20 player difference ... it's when 1 country has more than the other 2 combined that causes concern.
I agree with this too...a little imbalance is fine. HT shouldn't go to any extreme to balance everything perfectly, just something that would present a more natural limitation.
I really liked the idea of how many planes can launch from certain size bases, or at least how often. That was a cool idea because it is realistic that you can't really have 50 planes working from a tiny airfield.
But then again, I HATE flying for ten minutes across two sectors just to have an engagement (in which I'll probably die and have to fly all that long way again). So maybe this isn't the best of ideas...
-
Originally posted by President
NO YOU ARE WRONG
#1 is the best idea :O
Wrong why? Why should I wait? And why is #1 best? What is GOOD about waiting?
If I went Bish or Knt, at least I'd be flying and fighting. I haven't HAD to switch, so I haven't yet, but I'm always thinking about it.
-
Originally posted by vizwhiz
Wrong why? Why should I wait? And why is #1 best? What is GOOD about waiting?
If I went Bish or Knt, at least I'd be flying and fighting. I haven't HAD to switch, so I haven't yet, but I'm always thinking about it.
The number that can up from an airfield based on the airfield size is a good idea too.
But it is wrong to FORCE someone to switch countries.
At least with #1 you got a couple options....
OPT 1: Sit and wait, but u get to stay with your country
OPT 2: Switch country and help balance, and u get to UP right away
EVERY1 Wins! Why? Because u got choices :aok
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Give the choice to the players...
You can choose A: to join the arena and chesspeice of your choice and just have to wait for clearance from the tower before you can sortie.
OR
You can choose B: join a different chesspeice for a little while and get to sortie immediately, might even make some new friends that way.
=================================
See? You're not loosing freedom of choice, you're just getting more clearly defined choices to make using your freedom to choose.
FWIW...I'm startting to side with those who advocate a limit on sorties. I think GVs would have to be left out of such limitations though. For example, each country can only have X# (+/- Y%) of aircraft in the air at a time. so when a countryman dies the next guy in the launch queue get clearance to roll. Whether this is done as a base level, or sector leve,l a front level, or total arena population level I'm not convinced. I think all would help so do whichever required the least coading. But if a player does not want to wait in the launch queue he can always roll a GV.
-
Deleted
-
Deleted
-
Knock those personal attacks off everyone.
HiTech
-
Jeez, this one went downhill fast. :rolleyes:
-
You can try to remove the accumulated stats (except for perks) for a tour as a test in LW orange. Keep stats for the amount of time on the server for one session but delete them after the user logs. Although I shouldn't, I do find myself caring about my overall stats.
This would take the pressure off, much like the shooters where you jump on to different servers and don't care about stats beyond the one night of play. People will still know who is good. There would be no long term penalty to swicthing to the low number side and getting shot down a bunch. It may actually be more fun since the fight is at your base.
It would probably reduce (not eliminate) the nasty calls on 200. Again, less pressure to keep up your stats equals less stressfull gameplay which may be more fun overall.
This would be risky so perhaps a trial period? I get enough stress at my job and wouldn't mind playing for fun. I think the accumulated stats was good for pay-per-hour but maybe not so good anymore.
Thanks,
Venom
-
Originally posted by a4944
You can try to remove the accumulated stats (except for perks) for a tour as a test in LW orange. Keep stats for the amount of time on the server for one session but delete them after the user logs. Although I shouldn't, I do find myself caring about my overall stats.
This would take the pressure off, much like the shooters where you jump on to different servers and don't care about stats beyond the one night of play. People will still know who is good. There would be no long term penalty to swicthing to the low number side and getting shot down a bunch. It may actually be more fun since the fight is at your base.
It would probably reduce (not eliminate) the nasty calls on 200. Again, less pressure to keep up your stats equals less stressfull gameplay which may be more fun overall.
This would be risky so perhaps a trial period? I get enough stress at my job and wouldn't mind playing for fun. I think the accumulated stats was good for pay-per-hour but maybe not so good anymore.
Thanks,
Venom
Score yes stats no.
I use my stats to judge myself vs previous tours. I know how I fly and want to know if what I am do is helping or hurting.
This is start of my 3rd month back. I use stats to see if the rust is coming off or do i need a bit of help.
Bronk
-
Perhaps make stats private so they can still be used as a learning tool. Stats are not representative of pilot skill. A kill ratio of 1:1 when flying when outnumbered 2 to 1 is more impressive than a 3:1 ratio when flying for the country with the numbers. Stats don't reflect this so if you care at all about how others perceive your stats then you may be less prone to switch to the side that needs the help.
Just a thought. It may do more harm then good. I know some people enjoy having the public stats. Also, anything that makes you care less about getting shot down also reduces the realism a bit. It would need a test.
Venom
-
Originally posted by a4944
Perhaps make stats private so they can still be used as a learning tool. Stats are not representative of pilot skill. A kill ratio of 1:1 when flying when outnumbered 2 to 1 is more impressive than a 3:1 ratio when flying for the country with the numbers. Stats don't reflect this so if you care at all about how others perceive your stats then you may be less prone to switch to the side that needs the help.
Just a thought. It may do more harm then good. I know some people enjoy having the public stats. Also, anything that makes you care less about getting shot down also reduces the realism a bit. It would need a test.
Venom
Ahh and here in lies the rub.
Only you know how you fly.
You can lie to yourself and say "Look at my stats I'm 1337 !!!11!!!one1eleven!!!1." while being on the numbers side .
OR
Fly and have fun all the while checking your stats noticing "Hmmm my hit % is down. What am i doing diff and how do i correct this.".
All depends on what you want stats for i guess.
Bronk
-
Getting off topic a bit here but wanted to weigh in on stats...
All the stats when viewed TOGETHER can tell a lot about a player's style of playing, but many of them that get factored for rank are too easilly gamed to indicate skill. All the stats are pretty valid IMO...except for points...that mainly indicates how many hours you play.
But the K/D, K/T combined do provide a glimpse of the player's overall skill, for example...getting a very high K/D or K/T is pretty easy, whereas getting them both high takes a lot more skill. The ones to ignore are the "score/points", and rank (within category and overall). So, when you see someone say score indicates nothing about a person's skill, they are mostly right. But if you use the K/D and K/T to judge a player's style of playing they can be fairly accurate, at least when viewed over time. So don't confuse stats with rank.
-
Originally posted by Edbert
But the K/D, K/T combined do provide a glimpse of the player's overall skill, for example...getting a very high K/D or K/T is pretty easy, whereas getting them both high takes a lot more skill.
I respectfully disagree. All it takes to get both high is a few quick vulching runs. In my opinion K/T is pretty worthless (maybe because mine always sucks. I usually start a base back even in defense to come in co-alt with the attackers). Just means your a furballer or a vulcher. K/D is valid for the most part.
[EDIT] K/S is probably the best indicator.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
So you are saying that you wouldn't be able to meet and establish relationships in the other 2 countries ? ... sad.
I don't think anyone here that is concerned about numbers imbalance are worried about a 20 player difference ... it's when 1 country has more than the other 2 combined that causes concern.
Missed the piont with your 1st paragraph,
I have friends there, why bother swithcing, i never said i wouldn't be able to meet new people, said i enjoy flying with the squad and ppl i like,
didnt know i would upset the BB cops, perhaps we'll all just keep quiet,, might aswell, as anything that disagrees wiht a few guys in here i said to be wrong,
wich is wrong. dont be so negative all the time, cant you just accpet that other people have opinions different to yours?
:huh
-
Originally posted by Laurie
Missed the piont with your 1st paragraph,
I have friends there, why bother swithcing, i never said i wouldn't be able to meet new people, said i enjoy flying with the squad and ppl i like,
didnt know i would upset the BB cops, perhaps we'll all just keep quiet,, might aswell, as anything that disagrees wiht a few guys in here i said to be wrong,
wich is wrong. dont be so negative all the time, cant you just accpet that other people have opinions different to yours?
:huh
Don't be so sensitive ... you posted something ... I responded to it.
-
I've been playing combat sims since 1998. Every game has had side imbalance it's nothing new. Even the time of day and what part of the world your in factors into side balance.
AOL Fighter Op.
Warbirds Fighter Ops.
Warbirds II
Aces High I
Aces High II (III / IV, as I affectionately refer to resent changes)
None of these games had forced side balancing. I don't believe it to be the way to go. Firstly it would make the "Squads" redundant fracturing the AH communities (friendships). Secondly, I believe it would promote "lone wolf" mentality. Everyone doing their own thing when ever and all over. Thirdly and most importantly for the game, I don't believe it favours customer retention.
HTC probably has stacks of short term 2 weekers as it is. He's about to have a load more over the CHRISTMAS season however, I can't see forced repatriation retaining new players. The guy that gives the newbies hints and tips one day, if at all, is shooting their arses off the next. No stability.
The 2 ideas I suggested were only 1 Late war arena or no Late War arena switching for 1 hour to curtail PASSIVE imbalances. I also like this 1 (copied it from VIRAGE below).
Maintain current log in system. i.e. If you were last ROOK you log in as ROOK. Change the 'change country' system. When 'changing countries': Highest team is locked. Middle team is open. Lowest team is open with a PERK award.
Seems an even handed fair balance to the situation and I commend the motion to the house.:D
I could really get into a few things as to how the game has changed but I'll wait for the appropriate thread.
-
After seeing so many deleted posts HT, I retract my statement about a behaviourlist and suggest you get a zookeeper.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
Maintain current log in system. i.e. If you were last ROOK you log in as ROOK. Change the 'change country' system. When 'changing countries': Highest team is locked. Middle team is open. Lowest team is open with a PERK award.
Would have my support. People into that "loyalty" thing are not forced to switch, people enjoying flying with the outnumbered side may be encouraged and switching to the side already dominating the arena is prevented. :aok
-
Can someone explain exactly why combining the two late war arenas isn't an option?
It seems to me that that's the most logical choice. Everytime I've checked the two arenas, the total numbers of rooks, bishops, and kights over the two arenas have been about equal, even though the numbers within the two arenas themselves are very unequal. So why not just combine the two arenas?
But, now that I think about it a little more, I guess they have painted themselves into a corner by introducing the new capture system. Now they need to have two arenas. One for the old system and the people who like it, and one for the new system and its supporters. It also seems that the new capture system is what's caused the imbalance (or given people an excuse to play in one arena or the other where they conveniently have the advantage of numbers).
I've only been a subscriber for a couple weeks, though, so what do I know?
-
Originally posted by President
The number that can up from an airfield based on the airfield size is a good idea too.
But it is wrong to FORCE someone to switch countries.
At least with #1 you got a couple options....
OPT 1: Sit and wait, but u get to stay with your country
OPT 2: Switch country and help balance, and u get to UP right away
EVERY1 Wins! Why? Because u got choices :aok
I like it! Explained this way it does make sense to have the set of options...
If I don't want to change sides, and am content to wait, I can always use the bathroom or get a drink...
If I don't want to wait, I switch sides and fly again.
It would mean implementing a change to install the "wait" feature based on total number of players in the highest group. Now how do you THAT in a balanced manner?:huh :aok
-
Originally posted by Fianna
It also seems that the new capture system is what's caused the imbalance (or given people an excuse to play in one arena or the other where they conveniently have the advantage of numbers).
We had that imbalance issues before the new capture method was installed for testing in Orange.
-
Originally posted by Goth
After seeing so many deleted posts HT, I retract my statement about a behaviourlist and suggest you get a zookeeper.
:rofl
to Laurie, lynx, and the other misguided loyalists. Yes, I remember there being a severe imbalance in the days of AH1 as well. That imbalance drove me to leave a squad of people I really enjoyed flying and chatting with, because our squad was loyal to our chesspiece, and that was that. I, on the other hand, didn't find fielding 150 guys versus 30 (purely in the name of loyalty) to be much fun, and killed my account, started a shades, and gave up on country loyalty altogether, choosing instead to fly for the underdogs, and play around with the new beta setup. After some time passed, a certain other squad stepped up and started flying for the underdogs, and eventually a few more people and squads followed their lead, with my former squad eventually starting to rotate countries each tour as well.
At the point I started to see more of this, I came to have a greater respect for and interest in the community, and it's overall well being. The game is made up of many different types of people, and there are good people on all sides. I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are, as I would never have become acquainted with many of the folks in this community whom I regard highly, and who have made the community, to me, as valuable an asset and as entertaining as the game itself.
-
Originally posted by SlapShot
Don't be so sensitive ... you posted something ... I responded to it.
ya, but we are not on a bb, let alone one called general discussion. so after one person starts a thread, no one should post after it unless they totally agree:rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
I would like door #3........ cause I'd much rather you say screw it than me. I'd like to stay....but not like this.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
:rofl
At the point I started to see more of this, I came to have a greater respect for and interest in the community, and it's overall well being. The game is made up of many different types of people, and there are good people on all sides. I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are, as I would never have become acquainted with many of the folks in this community whom I regard highly, and who have made the community, to me, as valuable an asset and as entertaining as the game itself.
Jeeze sounds like you might be the ghost writer for Jimmy Carter.:rofl
Pat yourself on the back and write a book about it.
Moto61
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay, on its merits only. How is having a near constant state of numerical imbalance better, for all involved, than having roughly balanced country populations within an arena, or, how is the situation worse without this imbalance?
You persist in your false assumptions and continue to put words in others' mouths. Please point out where I have ever stated a "constant numerical imbalance is better for all involved" or that "balanced arenas are bad."
-
How about this Hitech, What if when we enter the ready room and it will show the balance of each county in the arena's so we can choose one to balance numbers? Just my 2 cents.
-
Originally posted by E25280
You persist in your false assumptions and continue to put words in others' mouths. Please point out where I have ever stated a "constant numerical imbalance is better for all involved" or that "balanced arenas are bad."
You said yourself that the cure is worse than the disease, so you are not in favor of balancing measures. You prefer the current setup. That means continued imbalance. The 2 are the same.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
You said yourself that the cure is worse than the disease, so you are not in favor of balancing measures. You prefer the current setup. That means continued imbalance. The 2 are the same.
Hub, I'm becoming more and more convinced, despite HTC's efforts, that the times have passed us by and AH has evolved into a game that is run by the horde, with the purpose of 'winning the war', racing to the reset, and that those of us looking for more then that, are in the minority and clearly out of touch with what matters to the masses.
I'll confess to being discouraged at this point. I'd like to write it off to playing too much, but I haven't been. I find myself logging on and then logging off after a couple flights.
It's on me to find the fun, and with the way things are operating in the game right now, I'm hard pressed to find the fun I enjoy in it.
I don't know the answer and based on what appears to be the majority of players, what I enjoy and what they enjoy is different.
Hopefully I'm just tired and cranky and I'll see it differently tomorrow, but it's felt that way all week.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
:rofl
to Laurie, lynx, and the other misguided loyalists. Yes, I remember there being a severe imbalance in the days of AH1 as well. That imbalance drove me to leave a squad of people I really enjoyed flying and chatting with, because our squad was loyal to our chesspiece, and that was that. I, on the other hand, didn't find fielding 150 guys versus 30 (purely in the name of loyalty) to be much fun, and killed my account, started a shades, and gave up on country loyalty altogether, choosing instead to fly for the underdogs, and play around with the new beta setup. After some time passed, a certain other squad stepped up and started flying for the underdogs, and eventually a few more people and squads followed their lead, with my former squad eventually starting to rotate countries each tour as well.
At the point I started to see more of this, I came to have a greater respect for and interest in the community, and it's overall well being. The game is made up of many different types of people, and there are good people on all sides. I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are, as I would never have become acquainted with many of the folks in this community whom I regard highly, and who have made the community, to me, as valuable an asset and as entertaining as the game itself.
"Misguided loyalists...I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are.... and eventually a few more people and squads followed their lead,
Dunno where you get off with writing this stuff.... I recommend taking share options in "brasso". Not only will your trumpet be shinney you'll earn a dividend with all the wrist action:lol
-
Originally posted by LYNX
"Misguided loyalists...I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are.... and eventually a few more people and squads followed their lead,
Dunno where you get off with writing this stuff.... I recommend taking share options in "brasso". Not only will your trumpet be shinney you'll earn a dividend with all the wrist action:lol
This is good stuff, :lol :rofl :lol :lol :rofl :lol :rofl
-
Well... I've had an idea for some time now and I think I will voice it.
While I am a self-taught programmer, I know nothing of the games programming and even if this is possible, but here it is...
Have a self governed "Auto Balancer". If the sides get too lopsided the system would send a message to the offending country "System: Autobalancer will balance in 4 minutes". This would give a minute countdown as long as the offending country continues to be lopsided. Say a few people on the offending side decided to balance on their own then "System: Autobalancer balance cancelled". But if no one switched countries or arena's then the balancer after the countdown would select the player(s) at random and move them to the other country, sending them the message "You have been moved to country _____ ". The switching country time limiter would then be in affect (1hr).
By keeping it at random who get's moved, it would be fair. Everyone would have to "do their time" on the other side. I think it would be good for most players to meet the people on the countries too. But only being moved for an hour would not be bad either... Heck an hour flies by in this game :)
-
While an interesting idea to say the least, I feel this would go over like a lead balloon. Just my opinion tho........
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
You said yourself that the cure is worse than the disease, so you are not in favor of balancing measures. You prefer the current setup. That means continued imbalance. The 2 are the same.
Again, when did I ever say I was against balancing measures? Again, you are putting words in my mouth.
I said I was against being forced to switch sides.
Measures that encourage side balance (current ENY system for example) I do not object to.
I do object to any measure that forces me onto a different side whether I want to or not.
That is no where near the same.
-
Originally posted by LYNX
"Misguided loyalists...I'm glad I wasn't so myopic and foolish as some you are.... and eventually a few more people and squads followed their lead,
Dunno where you get off with writing this stuff.... I recommend taking share options in "brasso". Not only will your trumpet be shinney you'll earn a dividend with all the wrist action:lol
:rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :rofl :huh
:noid
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
You said yourself that the cure is worse than the disease, so you are not in favor of balancing measures. You prefer the current setup. That means continued imbalance. The 2 are the same.
So what if he likes the new system.
accept it, he disagrees with your 'wise' thoughts.
AND
People dont always want a long lecture on why you're 'right' and someone else is 'wrong'.
:noid
-
How about the ability to enable or disable scoring and stats tracking and the ability to reset it if you so desire? This way you can go to the weaker side, turn off your scoring and stats, and up from besieged fields without worry.
You can also play for fun without burning-out so fast. You can enable stats tracking when you want to be serious, try to survive, and play for the stats that others can judge you by (squads, etc). You also have the ability to disable them to learn a new plane, when doing poorly and getting frustrated, or when upping from a cap field on the side with low numbers. People who like stats can keep them on all the time, people who don't can disable it all the time, I think most will be somewhere in the middle with them on and off. Give the choice to the individual.
The assumption here is that some people are flying for the hoard for their own stats and a few (not all) will switch around more if stats were not an issue which may help the numbers balance a bit.
Thanks,
Venom
-
Want a real simple solution for imbalances?
The higher the imbalances get the less troops and ords as AC/GV can carry.
When it gets to the point it's 2:1. You can only hold 1 100lb/ 1 troop per ac .... maybe the that would induce a little side balancing .
Just a thought.
Bronk
-
Okay Laurie, please explain why numbers imbalances are better for the game. Lynx, you can have a crack at this one too.
Now I know the 367th sticks to the blue arena where the bish always have the numbers, and I've seen lynx on before, and I think he likes to hang out in orange, since he's a rook. That pretty much accurate?
-
Originally posted by Bronk
You can only hold 1 100lb/ 1 troop per ac .... maybe the that would induce a little side balancing .
Just a thought.
Bronk
I don't carry bombs :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by Guppy35
Hub, I'm becoming more and more convinced, despite HTC's efforts, that the times have passed us by and AH has evolved into a game that is run by the horde, with the purpose of 'winning the war', racing to the reset, and that those of us looking for more then that, are in the minority and clearly out of touch with what matters to the masses.
I'll confess to being discouraged at this point. I'd like to write it off to playing too much, but I haven't been. I find myself logging on and then logging off after a couple flights.
It's on me to find the fun, and with the way things are operating in the game right now, I'm hard pressed to find the fun I enjoy in it.
I don't know the answer and based on what appears to be the majority of players, what I enjoy and what they enjoy is different.
Hopefully I'm just tired and cranky and I'll see it differently tomorrow, but it's felt that way all week.
Alas.... I feel your pain. I get very dicouraged when I get a little time to play this game and I log on to the country to which I feel allegiance and perhaps find a few squadies on as well and we find our selves waiting for the eny to balance so we're not limited to a a6m2 or IL2. I might as well log on a sit in a field ack so why bother.
As for the ruling class in this game, it's the click that runs it ...not he horde
-
Originally posted by MOIL
While an interesting idea to say the least, I feel this would go over like a lead balloon. Just my opinion tho........
The paragraphs below are not directed at you MOIL, I'm just quoting you to say I think you are right with your post.
I am seeing many folks shoot holes in the various ideas intended to make for fair gameplay, saying in effect the cure is worse than the disease. It has become so rampant that many of us (as MOIL, who is not a furballer, indicates) have come to realize that any thing HTC does to improve gameplay will be met with stiff opposition by those who clearly prefer unfair gameplay. I'm not saying all detractors dislike all fixes but I know some of you have vociferously opposed all attempted fixes. But for those who have...you are saying in effect that you prefer the unbalanced situation with one horde attacking with overwhelming odds while the other countries do the same (a whack-a-mole circle-jerk if there ever was one). This is the only conclusion one can come to when you rail against all the ideas and only say "put it back to the way it was" rather than make suggestions that might improve gameplay for everyone.
If you prefer the whack-a-mole circle-jerk just come out and say so, don't deny it when others identify you as someone who actually prefers hiding in the crowd and patting yourself on the back for only fighting AI acks and killing sheds rather than being forced to fight human opponents. Maybe you think the cure is worse than the disease because you are the disease itself...hmmmm....maybe you know this yourself and that is why you wont come out and say it....hmmmm.
-
I was up in the Blue arena last night. Bish (we) had #'s so we were restricted by eny all night. I had an idea though. What if eny were calculated not by the arena imbalance overall, but locally through the map. Calculate the respective odds within say, a nine sector area around the field you want to up from and apply eny there (locally). Beyond that, make eny even more restrictive than it is now so that overall it's about equivalent to what it is currently.
Bear with this pure speculation but I'm thinking that eny helps create hoards. People aren't in the better planes they are comfortable in so they join the hoard for safety. They especially aren't going to go up against the other country where they are both outnumbered and outclassed.
This might help at least spread things out and those who cry that they don't get to fly what they like can go up where there's less imbalance.
BTW, not to get off topic but someone in one of these recent threads suggested I try an FM2 to score more perks than I'd know what to do with. I flew several missions in both the Spit 5 and FM2 last night and, while I'm not sure about the perk thing, thanks for the tip. I may have found a perfectly capable alternative to the Spit 5 :)
-
i am really afraid to say what i really think.:noid
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay Laurie, please explain why numbers imbalances are better for the game. Lynx, you can have a crack at this one too.
Now I know the 367th sticks to the blue arena where the bish always have the numbers, and I've seen lynx on before, and I think he likes to hang out in orange, since he's a rook. That pretty much accurate?
FIRSTLY, numbers have goten worse since all the changes. having four arenas is never going to help.
And i don't ming having the numbers advantage agaisnt me, first its fun and secodnly who really cares? its a GAME.
not going to kill you if another team has more numbers, so what?
'think outside the box and creativley' like some of you told others to do in the past :aok
numbers advantage CAN suck if all your team bails out into other arena or other country, this was not as much of a problem in old MA. its not a case of being better for the game, more of, it's not that bad of a problem,
theres more pressing matters in the game needing attention. and also, where did i say it benefited the game :huh or are you putting words in others mouths.... again
life aint fair.
:lol
-
Originally posted by Laurie
FIRSTLY, numbers have goten worse since all the changes. having four arenas is never going to help.
And i don't ming having the numbers advantage agaisnt me, first its fun and secodnly who really cares? its a GAME.
not going to kill you if another team has more numbers, so what?
'think outside the box and creativley' like some of you told others to do in the past :aok
numbers advantage CAN suck if all your team bails out into other arena or other country, this was not as much of a problem in old MA. its not a case of being better for the game, more of, it's not that bad of a problem,
theres more pressing matters in the game needing attention. and also, where did i say it benefited the game :huh or are you putting words in others mouths.... again
life aint fair.
:lol
life isn't fair, good thing AH has nothing to do with real life. it's a game, and it should be fought on somewhat equal terms, otherwise it means nothing. personally, though i do it everyother day, i get tired of fighting 3 and 4 v1. it was no better in the MA, do a search and look for the complaints about number imbalances and how they were allowing countries to steamroll maps. the numbers allow large groups of people to safely attack other groups with little to worry about. with little to worry about, implies that there is little danger from other aircraft. without danger there is hardly a fight. it's like shooting drones offline. just wait for someone to be engaged, then 4-5 of you can swoop in and kill the 1 con. that is not my idea of fun, maybe you like it. i know i don't really die, and i care little if i do. what i do care about is competition and fun/meaningful fights. fighting odds in a game no less without competion is not really a game at all. of course i can counter ack the horde by climbing above the horde and picking people, but again, not fun, and not really fighting.
-
Everytime i've logged on recently I've found fights and had a blast flying.
Lighten up!
:aok
Bruv
~S~
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Want a real simple solution for imbalances?
The higher the imbalances get the less troops and ords as AC/GV can carry.
When it gets to the point it's 2:1. You can only hold 1 100lb/ 1 troop per ac .... maybe the that would induce a little side balancing .
Just a thought.
Bronk
had a simliar idea bronk, maybe if say
BISH: 100 players
ROOK: 75 players
KNIT: 50 players
bish on rook base would need 13 troops to capture ( approx. 133% of normal 10)
Bish on nit base would need 20 troops to capture( 200% of normal 10)
Rook on bish would need 7.5>>8 troops( 75% of normal 10)
Rook on nit would need 15 troops ( 150% of normal 10)
nit on bish would need 5 troops ( 50% of normal 10)
nit on rook would need 7.5 troops>>8 ( 75%)
formula=
CountryA Player number
------------------------------ X10 = Country A's required troops
Country B player number
similiar formula could be used on ord or whatever
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
Everytime i've logged on recently I've found fights and had a blast flying.
Lighten up!
:aok
Bruv
~S~
Ya same here I dunno wat all the imbalancing fuss is about :rolleyes:
-
JUST GIVE ME THE PLANE I WANT :mad:...WHEN I WANT IT. IT'S NOT LIFE, IT NOT REALITY... IT'S A GAME! I PAY TO FLY WHAT I ******* WANT! :furious
-
:lol
-
LMFAO:rofl
-
Originally posted by BaldEagl
I was up in the Blue arena last night. Bish (we) had #'s so we were restricted by eny all night. I had an idea though. What if eny were calculated not by the arena imbalance overall, but locally through the map. Calculate the respective odds within say, a nine sector area around the field you want to up from and apply eny there (locally). Beyond that, make eny even more restrictive than it is now so that overall it's about equivalent to what it is currently.
Bear with this pure speculation but I'm thinking that eny helps create hoards. People aren't in the better planes they are comfortable in so they join the hoard for safety. They especially aren't going to go up against the other country where they are both outnumbered and outclassed.
This might help at least spread things out and those who cry that they don't get to fly what they like can go up where there's less imbalance.
BTW, not to get off topic but someone in one of these recent threads suggested I try an FM2 to score more perks than I'd know what to do with. I flew several missions in both the Spit 5 and FM2 last night and, while I'm not sure about the perk thing, thanks for the tip. I may have found a perfectly capable alternative to the Spit 5 :)
It was me that suggested the FM2 ... I said it was a good plane to get perks with ... as far as it replacing the Spit V ... shhhhhhh ... don't go around blabbling it ... :noid
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Okay Laurie, please explain why numbers imbalances are better for the game. Lynx, you can have a crack at this one too.
Now I know the 367th sticks to the blue arena where the bish always have the numbers, and I've seen lynx on before, and I think he likes to hang out in orange, since he's a rook. That pretty much accurate?
No problem Hubs but forgive my copy paste. It's just quicker. Firstly, I have no objection to arena balance. I do object to FORCED balance though. It's just impractical to have 100 % player per player balancing for a couple of reasons. 1)It kills the Squad concept. 2) guys in tower, guys in jabo, guys in bombers, guys in GV's and guys in fighters are ALL GOING TO BE DIFFERENT per side . 3)what happens when a guy discos... 1 player from each side gotta go or get locked in tower ?
I agree with you that one side fielding 2 to 1 is unacceptable but you have to agree the 2 LW arena's have exacerbated this problem. It's to easy to bail from LWb to LWo because your getting your arse kicked. I believe an incentive to switch is the way to go....not forced. see paste -->
The 2 ideas I suggested were only 1 Late war arena or no Late War arena switching for 1 hour to curtail PASSIVE imbalances. I also like this 1 (copied it from VIRAGE below).
Maintain current log in system. i.e. If you were last ROOK you log in as ROOK. Change the 'change country' system. When 'changing countries': Highest team is locked. Middle team is open. Lowest team is open with a PERK award.
The reason I've been orange all week is to actually TEST. See paste from another thread today.---->
I have only used Orange last week and this week for the test/s. 1 base was to restrictive but the newer version is a "little" more acceptable. You still find yourself fighting for or defending the same base all night.
Dunno if that's good for customer retention. It's ideal for the short term "hook" of new players or for the furballer with just 30 minutes to play. 45 second flight to fight.....woooohoooo
Personally I didn't like arena splits but gave all arenas a go. Still prefer all plane set arenas. Personally I didn't like 2 LW arenas because it promotes "Passive" imbalance. Imbalance due to guys wanting fun as opposed to getting a kick in. Why not have a third LWg so knights can dominate in 1 arena also ?:rolleyes:
I have no objection to HTC making chits loads of dosh from his hard work. Enterprise is fine with me. He's got the best sim on the market even before all the changes. I guess customer "hook / retention" is a driving force.
With the CHRISTMAS season upon us we will see more 2 weekers but after Christmas all the kids will vanish along with most of the mouse players and unfortunately some of our long term players (bread and butter players) if a forced balance system is enabled.
P.S Late War Orange is workable once folk get used to organisation and some more tweaks. The current arena IS/ WAS a stalemate arena. I think it was a bad choice for this game enhancing test. Some folks getting turned off for the wrong reasons. :(
-
I tend to agree lynx.
What if the new system is used in one big LW arena with no caps. See how we go from there.
-
Originally posted by Bruv119
I tend to agree lynx.
What if the new system is used in one big LW arena with no caps. See how we go from there.
Can't see no harm in testing 1 late war arena. Withdraw other late war or lock it until test is done.
On the whole all teams have equal numbers, give or take 10 % -ish but not across Two (2) late wars. If and when ( time of day ) the numbers become way imbalanced...say after 1 team has 35 % supremacy, implement VIRAGES idea and pay say 20 perks optionally placed (fighter, bomber, Gv) for switching.
Maintain current log in system. i.e. If you were last ROOK you log in as ROOK. Change the 'change country' system. When 'changing countries': Highest team is locked. Middle team is open. Lowest team is open with a PERK award.
-
<---- does not want to see HTC bring in "forced" balancing. while it can get
frustrating flying for the underdog i would rather be undermanned than have
a bunch of "forced fellow countrymen" reluctantly fighting beside me.
for myself i will almost always switch to the side with the lower numbers unless numbers are fairly close in which case i switch to country with fewest bases.
while this maybe easy for myself (only have a 2 person squad) i can appreciate how larger squads may have some logistical issues with switching every time they log on.
when i do get frustrated i try to change my mindset a little and that helps....
"so what if they get this base "
"so what if they win the war"
" a ha, it took 5 of them diving in 1 after the other to get me"
" look how stupid that looks, 10 cons chasing 1 of us mauhahaha"
imagining the look on there faces when they failed to notice you
pulling an ostie out while they continued to lazily dive the empty runways
at which point you shread their wings.
for those of you who are not in large squads and just feel loyalty to a particular country i say : while that is certainly your right to feel that way
you truly are missing out on some of the community's better folk.
after flying for all countries i have found that there are plenty of great
people everywhere in this game flying for bish, knit, and yes even rook.
just my $.02.
-
While I don't expect a perfect balance across countries, I would like some semblence of balance. A disparity of 5 or 10 or 12.125% or whatever would be acceptable, but what I see every night I log in (with the exception of a bop squad night in orange that simultaneously tanked bish numbers in blue, and brought them even with rooks in orange, causing nearly even numbers in both arenas), is one country having numbers equal to both the smaller countries, or nearly so. 35/45/74, 60/65/110, 35/40/80, etc. This, IMO, blows.
I'll agree that a system that encourages balance without any penalties, restrictions, or active measures by HTC would be great. However, I think it would be extremely naive to believe that they would work. The perk multiplier is a perfect example of this. For that reason, I don't think any system that uses perks, points, scoring (which probably has the best odds, IMO, of being effective) or any other carrot & stick method will work. The troop multiplier idea is interesting, but I fear it would only lead to greater local imbalances on top of arena imbalances. One thing that has been shown over and over is that people around here really like the path of the least resistance. Anyway...
Now, with the test arena setup in place, people are not only maintaining the imbalance, they are increasing it (I do agree that this is happening, but not exactly on the causes), and I suspect that as the underdogs get more and more frustrated, they will also log out and head for the arena where they have an advantage. I suppose they might just not play at all, or worse for HTC, cancel their accounts, but the effects of this will be felt by all, be it through greater imbalances for the underdogs, even higher ENY limits for the hordeside, and even more whining in here about ENY and hordes and balance and and Dogfights on the History Channel and who knows what else.
Some interesting ideas being tossed about, and it's nice to know people are giving this some thought, even if we're not seeing a lot of action taken yet. Anyway, my drywall mud is hopefully dry now, and I can get something productive done.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
While I don't expect a perfect balance across countries, I would like some semblence of balance. A disparity of 5 or 10 or 12.125% or whatever would be acceptable, but what I see every night I log in (with the exception of a bop squad night in orange that simultaneously tanked bish numbers in blue, and brought them even with rooks in orange, causing nearly even numbers in both arenas), is one country having numbers equal to both the smaller countries, or nearly so. 35/45/74, 60/65/110, 35/40/80, etc. This, IMO, blows.
I'll agree that a system that encourages balance without any penalties, restrictions, or active measures by HTC would be great. However, I think it would be extremely naive to believe that they would work. The perk multiplier is a perfect example of this. For that reason, I don't think any system that uses perks, points, scoring (which probably has the best odds, IMO, of being effective) or any other carrot & stick method will work. The troop multiplier idea is interesting, but I fear it would only lead to greater local imbalances on top of arena imbalances. One thing that has been shown over and over is that people around here really like the path of the least resistance. Anyway...
Now, with the test arena setup in place, people are not only maintaining the imbalance, they are increasing it (I do agree that this is happening, but not exactly on the causes), and I suspect that as the underdogs get more and more frustrated, they will also log out and head for the arena where they have an advantage. I suppose they might just not play at all, or worse for HTC, cancel their accounts, but the effects of this will be felt by all, be it through greater imbalances for the underdogs, even higher ENY limits for the hordeside, and even more whining in here about ENY and hordes and balance and and Dogfights on the History Channel and who knows what else.
Some interesting ideas being tossed about, and it's nice to know people are giving this some thought, even if we're not seeing a lot of action taken yet. Anyway, my drywall mud is hopefully dry now, and I can get something productive done.
I hate squealing hate this whole thing---had high hopes for it at the start. What we have now is single-country hordes at all the bases in play, with no fighting whatsoever--trench warfare, with no war. All that happens is everyone is 5-10k higher. Cant get into Blue is it has reached its cap
-
Since I only see you in Orange, and I only see you on as a rook, and only when the rooks are fielding as many players as both bish and knits combined, you'll understand why I don't have even the slightest pity for you.
-
if nothing is moving why do as of tonight the knights have 100 fields, rooks 95 and bish 50? looks like things are moving in the orange arena, just not in a day.
-
by Hubs
Now, with the test arena setup in place, people are not only maintaining the imbalance, they are increasing it (I do agree that this is happening, but not exactly on the causes), and I suspect that as the underdogs get more and more frustrated, they will also log out and head for the arena where they have an advantage. I suppose they might just not play at all, or worse for HTC, cancel their accounts, but the effects of this will be felt by all, be it through greater imbalances for the underdogs, even higher ENY limits for the hordeside, and even more whining in here about ENY and hordes and balance and and Dogfights on the History Channel and who knows what else.
We are seeing eye to eye on some facets of the game or rather the way it's going. Firstly check my hours played for the last 4 or 5 months. You'll notice a massive drop in hours played since the arena splits. The reason being I didn't want to be hoarded neither did I want to be the hordie so I have been logging out.
I don't want to switch sides because the rooks ain't pissed me off enough yet like Bish did 3 yrs ago. I don't want to tell my squaddies what arena to fly in or what side to fly for. Worse still I didn't want to say to 1 or 2 squaddies "tuff titties" if your locked out and can't get in here with us. "Screw you guys we're OK" is not an option so I disbanded the squad.
What we are seeing now is the 2 Late war arenas settling into their respective "comfy" zones. Bish in blue, Rooks in orange and poor Knitwits in the middle (kick um harder I say :D). Knights need a late war green so they can get comfy to. Left to long this imbalance will be the norm.
I say 90% of folk want to use LW arenas. Make 1 LW arena or 3. Got to be easier to do than write watermelon loadsa stuff for forced balance. I am reminded of NASA. They expended loads of time, man hours and money developing an ink pen to write in space where as the former USSR used a pencil.;)
Hindsight is a wonderful thing as we all know. HTC said the old MA was getting unhealthy. Coulda turned DOT DAR on from ground level to the moon. So no NOE raids 3/4 of an arena away from the main conflicts. Coulda made level bombers drop from F6 or tilt mechanism (my main gripe for 3 yrs). Stops dive bombing hvy bombers or accuracy in suicide drops. Coulda real whacked up the ENY for 2 to 1 imbalances.
-
Going with #2.
-
Originally posted by hitech
Going with #2.
Awesome!!! Keep up the excellent work on this game that is getting back to better days.
-
#2... forcing people to join a certain country or log off?
Seriously? :huh
Let's also delete the squadrons... what is the point of having them around to ruin the officially correct gameplay?
Several of these "developments" have been small steps towards making it harder for the people in squadrons or in small established communities to play together. Now this is going to be a lot bigger step. :(
-
Originally posted by BlauK
#2... forcing people to join a certain country or log off?
Seriously? :huh
Let's also delete the squadrons... what is the point of having them around to ruin the officially correct gameplay?
Several of these "developments" have been small steps towards making it harder for the people in squadrons or in small established communities to play together. Now this is going to be a lot bigger step. :(
HTC has given ample opportunities for those gangbanging to "rectify the situation", and they have refused. Squads will not be disbanded, NOW they'll have to switch like they should have to begin with, instead of following the "Free 25 Perk Trail".
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Since I only see you in Orange, and I only see you on as a rook, and only when the rooks are fielding as many players as both bish and knits combined, you'll understand why I don't have even the slightest pity for you.
Errrnge was fairly even when I got in, at one point Nits outnumbered Rooks--by midnight est, was absurdly in favor of rooks (I'm guessing they were being reset yet agin in Blue at that time)
-
I really hope He doesnt go with number 2 for a number of reasons.....
Not to mention to whine-o-meter will reach record highs..
And i personally dont want to get split up from my Squad which is really the only reason I log on everynight... But if it is Implemented There will be no point in Squads and I myself Will most likely Cancel my account...
I guess I'll keep Pwning NewU's in H2H :D
-
Nothing like a good number 2.............
:D
-
#2... appropriate label! LOL
-
Originally posted by hitech
Currently having 2 different thoughts.
1 Go back to my original idea of having a wait time between flights based on country balance. This would put the same numbers in the air at one time.
2. Write the cant fly in this arena unless you changes sides.
3. Say screw it, turn off ENY and let everyone complain.
I vote for number #3. Besides, why did you originally think you had to respond so forcefully on this one issue of complaints, when you ignore so many others. I think you just stepped into quicksand that you could have avoided like you do most of the other puddles.
-
Originally posted by TexInVa
Wow....
No offense, guys, but you're over complicating things from the players stand point.
I fly rooks because I've flown bishops. I've switched over to the bishops a couple of times, trying to balance the numbers. They frustrated me to no end, so I would go back to being a rook.
I like being a rook. I like the team work and camaraderie I've found with the rooks, after flying for the bishops for a year. I miss the communication and team work when I've "side balanced".
For those that say that there's no difference between countries, I beg to differ.
Maybe I'll try flying for the knights for a few days and see if they're any different.
Either way, like Lynx said, I pay to be happy and have fun. I GET PAID to be frustrated and annoyed. [/B]
Having flown exclusively for the Bish so far, I can unfortunately (and mildly) agree with your comparative assessment of the Bish. And as too many keep ignoring in this forum, I don't continue to fly Bish for any damn chesspiece, or because we outnumber anyone at any specific time, or because I don't like the other countries. I fly Bish because of the people, period. It's where my current best friends are. When I login in, first thing I do is find out what squaddies are on and what they are doing. There is always someone playing.
I'm positive there are many great people on the othe sides as well, as I have many respected 'enemies' over there. But I have real (not virtual), close personal friendships with my squaddies, as well as with members of other Bish squads right now. And I prefer to fly with them and enjoy their company than not.
I am closely involved in and with their lives outside of AH, including being concerned over squadmate's mother's heart condition to enjoyment of a recent, national off-shore motorboat win by another squaddie.
Being a teamwork-oriented person (and not really caring about winning the war), I do love the cooperation and teamwork needed to do different ops. I want to continue to interact closely (and without unnecessary frustration) with these people in the game everyday, and I'll get damned cranky if I can't. When AH makes it such that I feel too aggravated, frustrated and restricted to enjoy the gameplay and to consistantly fly with my friends, I will quit the game. It's getting close.
While I can't be sure until we try it out, with the latest brainstorm by HiTech, I foresee the possiblity that it will create just such a scenario.
-
Sheesh...the sky is fallling THE SKY IS FALLING!
Where do you guys get the "days of squads are over" crap? Have you read the write-up by Dale regarding how this will function?
Originally posted by hitech
You will get a message similar to you are 3rd in a queue of 3 .
Your choices will be
1. go to another arena.
2. change countries.
3. wait until more people come onto the other side, or some one from your country leaves.
When you try to log onto a side/team/chesspeice that already has a significant numerical superiority over the others you will not see a message saying HTC hates you and your squad. If flying with your buddies is the most important thing you still can, you just might have to wait a minute or five. If instant gratification is your thing you can still have it too. If you want to fly NOW, and with your squad you may need to convince them to switch with you, but since they love you as much as you do them they will...just to be with you...right?
(I don't know why I personally get so amused/disgusted by people who threaten to quit over mechanisms designed to create a level playing field)
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
I have no problem with Option #2 at all, I would just like to request that you find a way to enable the /.sr function at the arena screen so that we can possibly follow squaddies to the lesser populated country.
-
Originally posted by Goth
I have no problem with Option #2 at all, I would just like to request that you find a way to enable the /.sr function at the arena screen so that we can possibly follow squaddies to the lesser populated country.
Excellent Idea! bro.
-
The one thing that was talked about earlier and has never been tried and I think mite work better at balanceing the sides is going to two sided play on the small maps. Can not see this new way working any better and all it will do is cause more hard felling.:(
-
Originally posted by Goth
I have no problem with Option #2 at all, I would just like to request that you find a way to enable the /.sr function at the arena screen so that we can possibly follow squaddies to the lesser populated country.
I believe the .sr command works in the lobby. I know it displays squaddies in the lobby when polled from an arena, so I'm going on the presumption that it works both ways.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I believe the .sr command works in the lobby. I know it displays squaddies in the lobby when polled from an arena, so I'm going on the presumption that it works both ways.
Cool, will check it out tonight....
Heyas Special K.
-
Double posting accident....
-
allow country truces for the two lower # countries, they can share dar and work coop until they manually break the treaty by a vote or the arena becomes balanced again.:aok
-
Looks like hubs post got HTCs attention and they changed it just for him. WTG hub!
-
Originally posted by vizwhiz
But the whole point of paying each month, and for those of us who work all day and have to fly for an hour or two at night when they can, is to FLY, not WAIT! I HATE waiting...even for the engine to start!!! GET THAT BIRD IN THE AIR!:D
then u got a choice to make buddy....
fly for the overpopulated country like a patient patriot
or
switch to the country that needs help, and fly right away
THE POINT IS YOU GOT A CHOICE! it isnt being forced on you to change sides.
duh, get it?
:aok