Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: 96Delta on December 14, 2006, 01:05:39 PM
-
Hitech,
I appreciate the problems you are grappling with and the problems that addressing those issues have caused. As I read all these posts and get my head around the major complaints (which don't need to be reiterated here) I am drifting to what may seem a very simple solution.
Why not just disable side switching?
Instead, assign all new subscribers to a 'country' and leave them there.
I read one post where the player said they were "born a ROOK". If that's the sentiment (and I know I share it as well) then maybe it would be better to work with the prevailing mindset rather than try and change it. Go with the flow, so to speak.
If it were me, I would permanently auto-assign new players to countries with an inadequate number of players. This 'balance' could be mantained behind-the-scenes in such a way merely by adjusting where new subscribers are assigned and could be adjusted to account for the number of players who are actively flying for each respective country.
This balancing system can only work if country switching is disabled.
The end effect would:
1 - Allow for the team dynamic to be maintained and for squads to flourish
2 - eliminate the abuse of players switching to be in the winning 'horde'
3 - allow for players to regularly interact with the same players and develop country loyalty and player friendships...this would lead to more spirited attacks and defenses.
I think from a business perspective, the forging of friendships in-game would be a priority. These virtual friendships have alot of appeal for people. Such attachments are a powerful motivator for players to remain subscribers. I read some posts that the friendships forged in this game are the best part of the game. I say foster that climate and encourage the formation of friendships and community within countries.
Anyway, these are a few of the benefits that come to mind but I'm sure there are more. Not knowing if there is a hidden impetus behind your changes aside from the obvious side-balancing issue this is what I came up with.
Now this is very simple and direct but hasten to add one more aspect to this plan. Significantly, it would only affect new players who subscribe from the time it goes into affect. I would recommend against making it retroactive. Sure, sides will remain out of balance for a while but new subscribers will eventually even out the teams.
The only downside I can see to this is in the case of where a player wants to have their son or daughter or maybe a friend subscribe to the game and fly with them on their country. This too can easily be fixed by having a field on the signup form to identify their parents/friends in-game nic. That information can then be used to assign the new suvscriber to the same country. And of course, having current subscribers recruit new subscribers is part of your overall mareting strategy so this would also foster that effort.
Yes, this is a relatively simple solution. But sometimes we can't see the forest through the trees so I thought I would offer it up for your and the community's consideration.
May I ask you to consider and perhaps respond to this idea?
I am very interested in what you think of it.
Thank you,
David
-
Hmmmm....... Theres Alot of people that would oppose to this idea because "they have Friends on the other side", but it seems pretty logical...
What Bad can come from this???
-
Originally posted by Platano
Hmmmm....... Theres Alot of people that would oppose to this idea because "they have Friends on the other side", but it seems pretty logical...
What Bad can come from this???
How about have an 'open enrollment' period so Hitech can get an idea of where people actually have their loyalties? People could then choose the country they want to be locked into.
If too many wanted to be ROOK for example. Then assign them as they request BUT have a forced side balancing system remain in effect like we have now until sufficient new subscribers are assigned to deficit countries. Then the forced balancing could be lifted.
-
Originally posted by 96Delta
How about have an 'open enrollment' period so Hitech can get an idea of where people actually have their loyalties? People could then choose the country they want to be locked into.
If too many wanted to be ROOK for example. Then assign them as they request BUT have a forced side balancing system remain in effect like we have now until sufficient new subscribers are assigned to deficit countries. Then the forced balancing could be lifted.
This Open Enrollment thing Sounds good...but I dont think HT would want to go through Asking each and every 5000+ subscribers he has...
-
Nope .
Here is why .
The whine produced when a player has to fly in a arena he doesn't want to fly in will be tremendous .
Example
Sunday when many rook squads have squad night i believe.
All try and log into blue most get in but numbers balance kicks in.
*Grumble* go to orange.
Orange gets it's quota on rooks .
*WTF* I gotta fly mid war or early war ???!!!??? I pay my money i wanna fly late war.
Sorry David don't think so.
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Platano
This Open Enrollment thing Sounds good...but I dont think HT would want to go through Asking each and every 5000+ subscribers he has...
It wouldn't be that involved.
Clipboard message could say "choose your country of choice by COB Friday, 11/11/11. After that time the country you last were assigned to will be your assigned country."
David
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Nope .
Here is why .
The whine produced when a player has to fly in a arena he doesn't want to fly in will be tremendous .
Bronk
There are other reasons also that would hurt this.
Everybody flys different time zones, what if a large number of the Rooks were EST and other PST; Bish might primarly CST and MT; Knights primarily PST; by 11pm PST Rook numbers would probably be low and considerably outnumbered by the other two sides. I think back several years ago we didnt have side switch or else you could only switch once a month or every 24 hours, something like that.
and skuzzy will be here shortly with Rule #3
-
This shouldn't happen. Maybe it will happen sporadically in the early stages of this idea's implementation but once the sides are balanced at the sign-up stage this scenario should be exceedingly rare to non-existent.
This is a solution to the very problem you describe.
Originally posted by Bronk
Nope .
Here is why .
The whine produced when a player has to fly in a arena he doesn't want to fly in will be tremendous .
Example
Sunday when many rook squads have squad night i believe.
All try and log into blue most get in but numbers balance kicks in.
*Grumble* go to orange.
Orange gets it's quota on rooks .
*WTF* I gotta fly mid war or early war ???!!!??? I pay my money i wanna fly late war.
Sorry David don't think so.
Bronk
-
96Delta: The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not.
But I do appreciate the thinking outside the box.
HiTech
-
Originally posted by Airscrew
There are other reasons also that would hurt this.
Everybody flys different time zones, what if a large number of the Rooks were EST and other PST; Bish might primarly CST and MT; Knights primarily PST; by 11pm PST Rook numbers would probably be low and considerably outnumbered by the other two sides. I think back several years ago we didnt have side switch or else you could only switch once a month or every 24 hours, something like that.
and skuzzy will be here shortly with Rule #3
This problem would be present in the early stages of this idea's implementation.
Over time things would balance out.
Each time zone subscriber base would also balance out so online participation should be more balanced in time. Remember, each time zone community would be affected the same so all time zones would eventually be balanced due to sign-up country assignment leveling.
-
Originally posted by hitech
96Delta: The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not.
But I do appreciate the thinking outside the box.
HiTech
Not a problem.
Happy to add to the arena of ideas.
I see what your saying though.
The problem then is to maintain the separate arenas but restrict entrance into those arenas when that would result in an inbalance. Okay, let me cogitate on that one.. ;)
-
Originally posted by hitech
96Delta: The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not.
But I do appreciate the thinking outside the box.
HiTech
Okay, how about this: deny them the knowledge they need to make such a decision.
Disable country totals on the roster or take such other steps that would prevent players from determining the numerical strengths of any given country. Then players wouldn't be able to see which country had the numbers.
I was originally thinking as I wrote this that you could make this data available only after they logged into a country (and were restricted from choosing again) but this could be abused.
No, you have to lose this data altogether. After all, a pilot in the 8th AF had no idea how many germans he was up against or how many firendlies were with him. Why should we?
Just thinking with my fingers here...
David
-
Originally posted by hitech
96Delta: The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not.
But I do appreciate the thinking outside the box.
HiTech
Well, history could repeat itself and we could go back to not having so many arena's to choose from - turn the clock back about 6 months to the original MA idea. . . . then institute 96delta's idea and take away the part of the roster that listed #'s on for each country, and people wouldn't know which side to gang up on, etc. I guess you could also eliminate the chess piece emblem next to the names on the roster, maybe just list total # of players signed on or something like that . . .
-
Not bad at all.
Maybe a few changes -
1) Once you are logged into an arena you can't swap arenas for a given time. stops people logging in and out, to find out which arena has the numbers. Sometimes you'll luck in, other times you won't.
2) Make exception for discos.
3) Would need something to allow squads to locate members.
On the original idea -
1) Dump Bish/Knit/Rook totally. Hell, call them Tutus, Thongs and Skivvies.
2) Assign squads based on the majority of the members time zones.
3) Use non squad guys to balance out
4) Then lock country jumping.
5) Use new guys to balance between the inevitable fluctuation between subscribed country members.
Probably still flaws in that, but just tossing it out.
-
Originally posted by SKJohn
...I guess you could also eliminate the chess piece emblem next to the names on the roster, maybe just list total # of players signed on or something like that . . .
Instead of placing a country icon beside all players on the roster page, only place a friendly icon next to members of your team. The rest are hostiles. It doesn't matter what country they are in...they are targets.
-
duplicate post - DELETED
-
I agree with Kev (wink, I knew you needed some time to gather your thoughts). <
> bro
Get rid of the Chesspiece HiTech.
I played as Rook for 90% of my time in AH/AH2. I've always had many friends on the other two sides. When AH was still going on with the Beta AH2, I switched to Bish and had a blast. I have problem switching sides, as I have friends on all sides. I'm not an "outcast", in fact the Knights enjoy my help and always asked if I'd come over those last few weeks. MEanwhile the side I left was committing hypocrisy by doing the exact thing they complained about on Country channel for WELL OVER a year. I did it for two days as payback, but it went too far.
Kev and Dh should remember me teaching them the Vehicle hangar camp inside of it. IIRC, it was the first time it was done, and we landed some healthy pelts. It's memories like that, which make this a fun game. I'll be honest, I'm worn out from fighting twice the numbers for about the last 7 months. I haven't been in there since 1.5 weeks ago, almost 2 weeks. I was drained, got sick of the same two people whining constantly on 200 about "the changes".
I'll get back into it, but I believe this "one country" flying attitude needs to go. Maybe "Dweebs", "Dorks" and "Dunces" could be the new ones. They all start with D's and don't resemble anything from AW, WB or anything else (so THAT excuse goes by the way side). Bottom line, it comes down to selfishness, people can use whatever excuse they want, but it will always come back to this.
MWL, excellent work sir. <> to a former squaddie.
-
Lol, yup I remember
.
The 'Golden' days of AH.
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
1) Dump Bish/Knit/Rook totally. Hell, call them Tutus, Thongs and Skivvies.
Just other names. Does not change anything. Would be funny first, but people would finally talk about Tutus the same way the same way they did talk about Bish. "Tutus never...you Tutus suck.. blablabla".
And Iīm a bit sceptical about the whole "you canīt switch" thing. Most of the crap like "We never get organized...The Bish/Nit/Rooks ALWAYS yaddayadda" comes from people never changing countries and thus are really believing that their country is different.
If you prevent country switching at all, I am afraid this will even get worse as time goes by.
(To prevent any misunderstanding: I am well aware that not all people loyal to their country for years suffer from the delusions I mentioned above)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Get rid of the Chesspiece HiTech.
What does this mean, exactly? I don't quite get it.
On another note, I like 96Delta's idea of eliminating the country counts from the clipboard and "locking" people into a country of choice. :aok
-
Having flown for all 3 countries in my 4+ years here, I can honestly say they are different.
Each one has it's own feel and character.
Can't really put it into words, but I felt differences, there's something about each country that makes them unique.
-
"Disable the ability to see how many people are on a country"
-
Originally posted by Donzo
What does this mean, exactly? I don't quite get it.
On another note, I like 96Delta's idea of eliminating the country counts from the clipboard and "locking" people into a country of choice. :aok
You get it, just like Kev and I are getting it.
-
The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not. HiTech
Hummm players are tending to gang up on the low side? Who would have guessed? We all expected them to help with side balancing.
OK here's my suggestion.
1) "Perk up" the popular planes when a country gets out of balance with too many players. Don't limit them with ENY, just "perk" them up.
I'd like to see how many of the gangers want to fly LALA's and Spit 16's at 30 perks. I bet they'd fly a lot more conservative and if they were free in Bishland, they might consider switching.
On the other hand, Rookland would look like EW most of the night. Hehehehe
2) "Harden" the bases of countries with low numbers. Allow them to rebuild faster, especially the city and acks to prevent an easy capture. The more out numbered a country is, the harder it is to kill and capture a base.
3) Enable additional spawn points for GV's when a country is out numbered. But don't make them visible to the enemy. This gives the outnumbered side a chance to zoom in with support for an vulched field. You might make these "enabled" spawns go right on to the field. Now that would be interesting. If you want to beat up on an out numbered country better kill all the GV bases for 3 levels back.
Much as I like your ideas Delta68, I think this one would drive away customers.
Oh and if I had to choose, I'm probably a "Skivvies" country to the day I die and die and die.
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
You get it, just like Kev and I are getting it.
I do? :huh
I was wonder what you meant by getting rid of the chesspiece.
-
This is a decent idea but take it the next step. When you log on your given the choice of EW, MW or LW arenas. If there's 2 LW arenas or 3 or 4 your automatically put into the one that needs you for balancing purposes. No choices. No ability to change other than to EW or MW. Once assigned to an arena your assigned for the next X # of hours so if you get disco'd you get right back into the same arena (or alternatly you have to be logged out for X # of hours to be re-assigned). For squads once one member is on all others are automatically assigned to the same arena.
-
It would be nice.
It would'nt bother me if a fellow rook squad stayed rook and our squad had to go Knit or Bish, I just want to make sure the squad stays intact. If HTC could assign all squads to a side and lock them there for either Orange or Blue. The Mid and Early, DA, AvA, SEA, and TRN would remain open.
I'd imagine there are people in the community willing to do alot of the research and placement for them. They could be placed by active member size, and effectiveness as in whether they are squads that go for bases or those that like to dogfight primarily.
It would just take a little time, but once it was organized it could work.
New members,lone wolves,or those that leave a squad would be placed in a generic squad pool. From that pool they could be evenly distributed evenly to the arena and side that needs them.
So much for not suggesting anymore. There has just got to be a way to keep squads intact but have balance as well.
-
LMAO all the guys screaming about choice now you want to assign sides.
I think HT is checking in on this and laughing to himself.
WTG :aok
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
LMAO all the guys screaming about choice now you want to assign sides.
I think HT is checking in on this and laughing to himself.
WTG :aok
Bronk
Step away from the crack pipe. You're the one being laughed at. When did anyone mention "assigning sides"? (Kev was rehashing an old idea, from a while back) You're the first one in this thread to mention it. If you cannot comprehend what you are reading, please, do not post.
But please, keep laughing. (http://www.degroat.net/pix/thumbsdown.gif)
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
Step away from the crack pipe. You're the one being laughed at. When did anyone mention "assigning sides"? (Kev was rehashing an old idea, from a while back) You're the first one in this thread to mention it. If you cannot comprehend what you are reading, please, do not post.
But please, keep laughing. (http://www.degroat.net/pix/thumbsdown.gif)
UMMM whats this then posted by BaldEagl.
"his is a decent idea but take it the next step. When you log on your given the choice of EW, MW or LW arenas. If there's 2 LW arenas or 3 or 4 your automatically put into the one that needs you for balancing purposes. No choices. No ability to change other than to EW or MW. Once assigned to an arena your assigned for the next X # of hours so if you get disco'd you get right back into the same arena (or alternatly you have to be logged out for X # of hours to be re-assigned). For squads once one member is on all others are automatically assigned to the same arena."
Guess i miss read that ehh.
:rolleyes:
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not bad at all.
Maybe a few changes -
1) Once you are logged into an arena you can't swap arenas for a given time. stops people logging in and out, to find out which arena has the numbers. Sometimes you'll luck in, other times you won't.
2) Make exception for discos.
3) Would need something to allow squads to locate members.
On the original idea -
1) Dump Bish/Knit/Rook totally. Hell, call them Tutus, Thongs and Skivvies.
2) Assign squads based on the majority of the members time zones.
3) Use non squad guys to balance out
4) Then lock country jumping.
5) Use new guys to balance between the inevitable fluctuation between subscribed country members.
Probably still flaws in that, but just tossing it out.
That's not more restrictive than what HT wants to implement Karaya?
As it is now I cam pretty much do what what i want.
So yea he wants to assign sides.
Maybe you need to read a little?
Bronk
-
AGAIN, he said "Original Idea", this was discussed A WHILE AGO! Welcome to yesteryear.
As for BaldEgle's post, I no longer read cramped text posts, It kills me some forgot how a "paragraph" is used.
-
Also, say Hi to RAGER for me, I met him in 2003. Good guy.
-
Actaully no.
Theory is -
With 3 new countries with players/squads assigned by time zone (one cause of it in the 1st place) the imbalance would hopefully be kept to a minimum.
Preventing country switching stops one country gaining an unequal share of the players.
Sure there would still be temporary imbalances, but hopefully none so bad they'd have to keep the current draconian measures in place.
Making it so you can't jump from server to server (set time) stops people surfing to find the advantage.
Like I said just an idea, lots of possiblity for tweaking and expansion.
-
Karaya please show me where in Kevs post he says "Original Idea".
Not being a smart a** but I must have missed that.
And will do with Rager. :aok
Bronk
-
Karaya, if you read the post that opens this thread, delta mentions assigning people (not offering them a choice) to a country and keeping them there several times.
I don't see how this could do anything to promote overall balance, as all new accounts are already dumped into the lownumbers country anyway. I fail to see how sprinkling them around is going to improve things. I would think, unlike many vets, that the newer players are more interested in having fun than being loyal subjects of the cartoon icon. I can see absolutely no positives in keeping the community divided into 3 groups in the name of increased loyalty.
-
Here maybe
"3) Would need something to allow squads to locate members.
On the original idea -
1) Dump Bish/Knit/Rook totally. Hell, call them Tutus, Thongs and Skivvies.
"
HUB - I believe (could be wrong) -
Accounts are assigned in rotation to each country, at least thats what I seem to recall from a conversation with HT.
-
Thanx That'll teach me for skimming through .:o
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Kev367th
Not bad at all.
Maybe a few changes -
1) Once you are logged into an arena you can't swap arenas for a given time. stops people logging in and out, to find out which arena has the numbers. Sometimes you'll luck in, other times you won't.
2) Make exception for discos.
3) Would need something to allow squads to locate members.
On the original idea -
1) Dump Bish/Knit/Rook totally. Hell, call them Tutus, Thongs and Skivvies.
2) Assign squads based on the majority of the members time zones.
3) Use non squad guys to balance out
4) Then lock country jumping.
5) Use new guys to balance between the inevitable fluctuation between subscribed country members.
Probably still flaws in that, but just tossing it out. [/B]
Actually, 96's idea isn't bad, because these are squadless folks who are more or less new to the game. It would benefit them flying for a couple different sides, winging with different people and learning twice as mush, as staying on one side. He isn't talking about a "generic Bronk you're over here, and on the other side ae your mates". He's talking new guys.
Hell, when I was a Knight, I flew with the Yellow Jackets and helped show a guy TexAce the in's and out's of an La7. I also, recommended the YJ's to him.
-
Personally I dont like the idea.
This idea would promote loyalty to a virtual chess piece and then would have the ranting on 200 of my country is better than yours, blah blah blah.
I like the ability to change countries to fly with who I enjoy to fly with as I have friends to fly with on all sides. Being able to switch sides lets me enjoy the time to fly with different people. I dont have loyalty to any chess piece and I dont have any objections to flying with any country. I usually switch to the side where the good fights are and will fly for the country with the fewer numbers currently where the good furball is.
My $.02.
-
I seem to recall from another thread that HT has AI fighter technology in a box somewhere. The AI fighters had adjustable lethality and skills on par or better than the average pilot.
Why not make up country imbalances with AI fighters and allow them to defend only?
-
Im really liking Delta's rather simple but neat idea:
1. Deny people the side count information on the log-on page and on the roster. Just colour code the names like the icon system green = good, red = bad.
2. Once someone logs in, they can not swap sides for 1 hour minimum in that arena.
This would make it more of a lottery as to whether you end up on the country with the most numbers or least. In fact it should be a fairly random distribution = perfect.
Another alternative is to give the perk system some B*LLS! Get rid of the concept that only certain a/c can be perked. Instead ensure all a/c have the potential to be perked if the arenas become too unbalanced. So as things get more unbalanced, the a/c on the side with the higher numbers start to go up in price starting with the newer and/or more capable a/c. The reverse happens in the country with the lower numbers. In a balanced arena, all a/c except the current perk a/c (262s, 163s, Spit14s, 152s which will default to current cost) will be free as they currently are.
What im trying to put across is give people REAL incentives to swtich to lower numbered countries, BUT also provide REAL deterrents from flying with the hoarde. Perks is perfect for this, but how about givin the perk system 'a pair...'??
-
Originally posted by Bronk
UMMM whats this then posted by BaldEagl.
"his is a decent idea but take it the next step. When you log on your given the choice of EW, MW or LW arenas. If there's 2 LW arenas or 3 or 4 your automatically put into the one that needs you for balancing purposes. No choices. No ability to change other than to EW or MW. Once assigned to an arena your assigned for the next X # of hours so if you get disco'd you get right back into the same arena (or alternatly you have to be logged out for X # of hours to be re-assigned). For squads once one member is on all others are automatically assigned to the same arena."
Guess i miss read that ehh.
:rolleyes:
Bronk
Actually you might not have misread it but the intent was that you remain with your country forever as mentioned in the original post but arenas (if there are more than one for a given period; i.e. EW, MW, LW) are automatically assigned when you log on to help balance sides.
-
I think there are some very good ideas in this thread, but I must play devil's advocate and point several things out.
First, the point about not being able to log into another arena for X period of time? No good. I'm the type of person that will see his own team has WAY too many pilots, and log out, go to another arena. Or I'm the type of person that logs in, finds out from .SR later that his squaddies are in another arena and switch. This only works if everybody looks for the arena where their team has all the players -- and not all players do this.
Secondly, the idea of not seeing enemy teams? On the surface I find it a cool idea. However, I think you're over-analyzing the end result. Players don't log in, check the roster, and say "Hey, check it out, the knits are way outnumbered again, let's hit them while the other team is hitting them too." It's a matter of the path of least resistance. Even if you can't SEE how many players team X has, it will have less players, be less capable of putting up a strong defense, and both other teams will gravitate toward this path of least resistance. It's not a concious process, I'd say. So you wouldn't be able to prevent it.
-
Originally posted by Krusty
It's a matter of the path of least resistance. Even if you can't SEE how many players team X has, it will have less players, be less capable of putting up a strong defense, and both other teams will gravitate toward this path of least resistance. It's not a concious process, I'd say. So you wouldn't be able to prevent it.
If you can't see the number of players on the teams, how will you know what the path of least resistance is?
How would you know what side to gravitate to (in your example)...what would you use as information to make this decision if it's not the number of people on a team?
-
Originally posted by Donzo
If you can't see the number of players on the teams, how will you know what the path of least resistance is?
the one that is losing bases left and right and has no defenders?:)
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
...if you read the post that opens this thread, delta mentions assigning people (not offering them a choice)...
Hello hubs, thank you for expressing your interest in this idea.
May I draw your attention to the phrase "permanently auto-assign new players to countries ". [emphasis added] Also, please take a minute to read a subsequent post of mine. When you do, kindly take note of the term "open enrollment period".
Choice is retained. The only choice you lose is the ability to go 'country shopping' to gain an advantage. If that has been your practice then yes, you will be denied that option.
But to get back to my post, the 'assignment' clause you mention only concerns new subscribers. They get assigned to countries as necessary to manitain some semblance of balance. That way, new players won't get steamrolled out of the game by hordes of 'gamers' who only want to pad their scores with easy kills by jumping in with a horde. I think that alot of new players have also been guilty of this practice since they perceive that they will be safer in large hordes. Changing countnries is an option that has increasingly given itself to abuse.
Remember guys, we want to help HTC maintain new subscribers beyond their 2-week trial. My idea would insure that new players have a chance to learn within the country (family) that they are initially assigned (born into). Couintries would detect new players, embrace them and help them learn the game and become more survivable and therefore, have fun. Without a community dynamic like that the chance for this kind of ombudsman type relationship occuring is limited.
If you have any other questions please feel free to ask. I will try my best to explain my idea to you in greater detail. :)
God bless,
David
-
Originally posted by Spatula
2. Once someone logs in, they can not swap sides for 1 hour minimum in that arena.
Hi spatula,
I don't think a time limit on switching would work and here's why.
Lets say that ROOKS appear to be winning the war. Now lets assume that 20% of each of the other countries players decide to jump over to ROOKS for 'furballs', safety or cherry picking (you know who you are). That would result in a significant imbalance being emparted to the ROOKS.
Now consider the players who are left flying KNIGHT or BISHOP. Invariably, one of these countries is going to be on the receiving end of a lot of heat as the newly swelled ROOK forces lock onto an adversay. And, being a ROOK, I can almost guarantee that the targeted country would be BISHOP. ;).
Now as the BISHOPS get pounded, some of their players will want to get out from under the onslaught. After all, its not fun getting slaughtered. So what do they do? They join the ROOKS, further imbalancing the game and contributing to the creation of a cascade effect that further increases the inbalance.
The effect on remaining players leads to a 'no fun' situation. Many players log, new players who don't even know how to change countries get frustrated and log (and eventually cancel their accounts if the experience is repeated night after night)*.
In my view, a 1-hour time limit is not sufficient to stop this. I don't think that any time limit would be an effective deterrent to this kind of abuse.
*I'm going to tell you what metric I think Hitech is looking at when he made this balancing change. Its "Trial to Subscriber conversions and then how long that new subscriber is retained". If he sees that he has gotten 3600 players to download the free trial and only 900 decide to subscrbe...and then 300 of them cancel their accounts within 3 months then something is very wrong, especially if he sees (and I'm betting he sees very acutely) that the trend is down. This game is addictive (as we all know) and if people aren't sticking around then things are clearly awry somewhere in the game.
The game is essentially the same so it can't be that...so what has happened? I think we can all agree that gameplay has changed dramatically over the years and not necessarily for the better.
These remedies introduced by HTC are, IMHO, designed to address fundamental gameplay 'behavior' issues. I could be wrong but I wouldn't bet my pension on it. Any kind of time limit on country switching is unlikely to work. Maybe if the limit were that you couldn't change countries more than once a month or every two weeks it might be effective.
Anyway, thats how my aging eyes see it...
God bless,
David
-
Originally posted by pluck
the one that is losing bases left and right and has no defenders?:)
Pluck,
There's no spectate mode that I know of.
If there were, how long would you sit by and watch the campaign unfold before you decided which country to join?
David
-
Originally posted by Krusty
First, the point about not being able to log into another arena for X period of time? No good. I'm the type of person that will see his own team has WAY too many pilots, and log out, go to another arena.
Krusty, that's the point. You're automatically assigned to the arena that has the lowest number of your country members.
Originally posted by Krusty Or I'm the type of person that logs in, finds out from .SR later that his squaddies are in another arena and switch.
If you read my original post, all squad members are automatically assigned to the arena where the first one to log on was assigned. Squads are always kept 100% intact.
-
Bear with me a moment, but how would this dynamically maintain even numbers through out the day?
-
I still say you all want MORE play limitations than HT has implemented.
Right now if my side has numbers I have a choice .
Swap sides or pick another arena.
You want to MAKE me go to another arena .
Now say i wanted LW blue but thats full click on Orange its not full but my side has numbers . Your system wants to plant me in the next unpopulated arena.
Real nice choice there. With the current system I can jump sides and fly the arena I want . Thats choice folks.
Karaya if you still think this is not about limiting choice , I have to disagree .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
Bear with me a moment, but how would this dynamically maintain even numbers through out the day?
Hi hubs, thanks for the question.
Gameplay during the day is most affected by the time zone and country of origin of subscribers. There are some additional players from other time zones but for the most part that number isn't sufficient to cause significant imbalance.
The way to look at it is in terms of COMMUNITIES.
We have a US East Coast community, West Coast community, UK community, and so on. We can reasonably expect that the majority of a community plays at the same time with some overlap.
The point of my suggestion is that it doesn't matter. Subscribers from all communities would be balanced at the time of subscription, not at the time of log-on. This assignment would be transparent to the subscriber.
Since all subscriber 'communities' are balanced "in vitro" it is reasonable to conclude that the active player base from each of those communities would also be balanced to within a reasonable range. Even the overlapping communities would be balanced by virtue of the same effect. So in the end, the number of active players on at any given time would essentially be in sufficient balance to prevent one side from gaining a large numerical advantage over another.
God bless,
david
-
Originally posted by hitech
96Delta: The problem right now is not an overall imbalance between sides, It is more of people choosing an arena where they have the numbers, or leaving one they do not.
But I do appreciate the thinking outside the box.
HiTech
hitech,
just a suggestion,
maybe trial out 1 LW, with old ENY (or none),
see if things get a bit fairer then, as there is nowhere to bail out to apart from MW and EW, wich is not as 'welcoming as another LW to some users. this would also propell people into combat like you wish with the trial in LWOrange as there are more players, less empty space to 'hide' in.
-
I'm not thinking this would really provide anything more than a few more restrictions, and imbalance would be enforced by the system, rather than prevented by it.
You seem to be assuming that everyone plays at the same hours, daily, without variation. Any who did not would contribute to the imbalance. The guys who don't play at set hours for set lengths of time would be variables, and enough of them on or off at once could setup imbalances just as great as we have had recently, with no way for those who will switch to the underdogs in an effort to lessen the problem to do so. In a situation where the numbers did get out of hand, the underdog side would likely lose more customers, magnifying the issue, which runs more off, ad nauseum.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
I'm not thinking this would really provide anything more than a few more restrictions, and imbalance would be enforced by the system, rather than prevented by it.
You seem to be assuming that everyone plays at the same hours, daily, without variation. Any who did not would contribute to the imbalance. The guys who don't play at set hours for set lengths of time would be variables, and enough of them on or off at once could setup imbalances just as great as we have had recently, with no way for those who will switch to the underdogs in an effort to lessen the problem to do so. In a situation where the numbers did get out of hand, the underdog side would likely lose more customers, magnifying the issue, which runs more off, ad nauseum.
first i said TRIAL IT, not implement it, straight away,
and time zone things usually iron themselves out
-
After 5 years here, I can tell you that the assumption that numbers will eventually balance themselves is completely false.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
After 5 years here, I can tell you that the assumption that numbers will eventually balance themselves is completely false.
I think everyone is in agreement on this.
Intervention is required to help create and maintain a balance.
The only question is where should that intervention take place: at log-on or at sign-up. To my way of thinking establishing that balance at the time of subscribing (and prohibiting or severely restricting country changing) is less intrusive and better tolerated overall.
Wouldn't you agree?
David
-
Originally posted by 96Delta
I think everyone is in agreement on this.
Intervention is required to help create and maintain a balance.
The only question is where should that intervention take place: at log-on or at sign-up. To my way of thinking establishing that balance at the time of subscribing (and prohibiting or severely restricting country changing) is less intrusive and better tolerated overall.
Wouldn't you agree?
David
No.
Your statement.
prohibiting or severely restricting country changing
is less intrusive and better tolerated overall.
Holy contradiction Batman !!!!
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
No.
Your statement.
prohibiting or severely restricting country changing
is less intrusive and better tolerated overall.
Holy contradiction Batman !!!!
Bronk
Its not a contradiction: its a solution.
We have seen evidence that the ability to whimsically change countries in the game has led to abuse and undermined the solvency of the game. This problem requires a solution. There is one in place now and it has been met with an avalanche of protest.
I think that my solution would be better tolerated by existing players (especially those in squads or who have been flying for years with the same people/country). It would also benefit newly subscribed players who would benefit from the level playing field and the chance to make new friends by flying with the same people in the same country.
My point is, knowing that when you log on you will be able to fly with your squad, on your country and with the same friends you have made while playing is more tolerable than logging on, being told that you can't fly with your preferred country or squad and that you have to fly with strangers.
I think people like predictability and this paradigm gives them just that.
And you disagree with this Bronk?
David
-
I disagree that the best solution for a problem of numerical imbalance caused, in part, by large groups who refuse to improve the situation, is allowing them to continue to act exactly as they have in the past.
You can't keep everyone in their same comfortable routine, and expect anything to change. There has been an opportunity since day 1 for people to pick the underdog and fly for them, and yet you continue to see people doing the opposite. While you might have the best intentions, I fail to see how this suggestion would do anything but maintain the status quo. You would still have to force them to switch, and you would then force everyone to remain in place, or not play at all, until such time as HTC went about rearranging everyone again. That seems like a great deal of work for them, since the system you've described lacks the flexibility to adapt to changes in the subscriber population.
-
So how would you address the imbalance problem hubs?
-
Having looked at nearly all of the suggestions, the 2 I liked most were waffle's idea for reduced fuel and ord loadouts, and the idea for not allowing people to even log in to the country (or countries) with a pronounced numerical advantage. The first isn't severe enough, IMO, and the latter would cause mass hysteria.
There are some other ideas that have some merit, IMO, but aren't practical without a great deal of work for HTC. Having thought about it, I liked the queue setup probably as much as anything else suggested, or that I could come up with. It has no effect on those who normally fly for whoever the underdog is, while affecting those who create the imbalances.
This seems like a good compromise, IMO, because it keeps the numbers a bit closer (I think it needed to be more restrictive), while still leaving enough leeway that entire squads could move around to fly together. In theory, everyone wins, while no one is prevented from flying, or talking to their buddies, or violates squad noncompete contracts, or whatever.
-
Delta to be brutality honest all i see is another "Hey HT how about this so your plans don't effect ME or MY squad." post .
Just calling it as i see it , sorry .
Bronk
-
Originally posted by Bronk
Delta to be brutality honest all i see is another "Hey HT how about this so your plans don't effect ME or MY squad." post .
Just calling it as i see it , sorry .
Bronk
And people who are very accepting of these new changes are just saying "Hey HT great job, thanks for not affecting ME or MY squad."
Don't rip on delta, I think his idea has some merit behind it, regardless of how HT's new changes affect him personally.
-
Originally posted by trotter
And people who are very accepting of these new changes are just saying "Hey HT great job, thanks for not affecting ME or MY squad."
Don't rip on delta, I think his idea has some merit behind it, regardless of how HT's new changes affect him personally.
The people unaffected by the changes weren't the problem in the first place. Just saying.
-
Originally posted by hubsonfire
The people unaffected by the changes weren't the problem in the first place. Just saying.
But you are saying those that do not switch and never do are the problem?
Or is it those that switch to the higher side?
Maybe its a little bit of a chicken and egg syndrome. If everyone was always country loyal (by personality or by the proposed restriction), numbers would not have become imbalanced in the first place. I think this is the basic assumption Delta is working off of.
-
Probably easiest to say that when people refuse to be flexible when they have an overwhelming advantage through numbers is the problematic behavior. It's impossible to say whether or not the numbers would remain balanced over time using his setup, because you can't safely assume that no one cancels their account, and that everyone flies consistant hours day to day, month to month. My main issue with this suggestion is that it lacks any sort of flexibility. You sign up, you get assigned to country X, and that's where you are, period. It doesn't take anything into account, and it's based on the assumption that there are no variables, and there will not be any. In my experience, that's a really bad assumption.
-
The way i see it is, you either enforce balanced arenas with some active mechanism (like queuing, cant change sides etc), or you introduce a carrot-and-stick approach which STRONGLY encourages balanced countries, and strongly penalises those who are inbalancing the arena.
This way you dont get the complaints about how HTC are "forcing" people to do something they dont really want to do, but rather they make their 'own' decision in their best interests - assuming the carrots and sticks are big enough.
Drop the ENY system, make all a/c perkable and make the perk system more aggressive so that it truly encourages and discourages in good measure!