Aces High Bulletin Board

General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: Kweassa on January 26, 2007, 02:24:48 PM

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kweassa on January 26, 2007, 02:24:48 PM

I've been thinking a lot about some of the recent changes with the MA. IMO, I think it is meaningful in the aspect that HTC listened to some of the complaints the gamers used to have, and took active measures to relieve some of the pressures mounting inside the community. However, the more I think about it, the more I'm getting the impression that that's just about it.


1. The "growing pains" of the MA

 Opinions may differ, but my basic take on the recent "MA problem" is based on the theory that the perceived problem resulted from the fact that a stagnant, under developed MA system that was originally suited for small numbers of people, had to accomodate for a community that has substantially grown easily double in size after the recent failures of AH's rival games like WB or AW. One likely proof that might justify such a view seems to be the recent split of the arenas. There have been speculations revolving around why such a split has occured in the first place, but to me it seems very likely that HTC themselves have reached the same conclusion as I have - the 'numbers problem'.

 When AH1 reached a stable phase in service, the MA numbers were typically around 200 people during peak US time zones. In other time zones, about 100 to 150 people were the max, with some 30 players for each warring country. Ofcourse, some of the serious complaints that can be referenced in the boards nowadays, weren't existent back then.

 IMO, this implies that the basic MA game platform is effectively "broken". When we were flying AH1, we didn't have any problems because the basic design of the entire MA was suited for those numbers of people. The amount of field defenses such as acks, the size of the airfield itself, the ordnance load required to bring down hangars and objects, the field distances, captire mechanics, etc etc.. the MA was designed, wether consciously or unconsciously, to serve the needs of the limited numbers of people we had in AH1.

 For instance, in the old AH1 before the "AW-gamer Exodus", the CVs required merely 4,000lbs load of bombs to be sunk.

 This is because in the old MA with about 200 people in the arena,  each of the three countries had about 70 people tops. This means roughly about 35 people in each of the two fronts. In a typical MA map like "NDIsles" or "Uterus", there are about 3~4 available fields that are directly adjacent to an enemy field that sees simultaneous action. This means when a "furball" brews, unless a very large furball draws in all of the players in that particular front to a single spot, there are typically only about 10 pilots fighting in a single spot.

 Now, Imagine a CV has entered the vicinity of your home field. The sea-faring attackers and the land-based defenders each have only about 10 people available. If the 10 CV planes start attacking the land-base, the defenders need  at least 7~8 pilots to up in fighters planes to fend off the attackers, which leaves only about 2~3 people to go after the CV. During those days the buffs didn't have the formation option, and single buffs were easily intercepted. This meant that the 2~3 available defenders that went after the CV, had to up multiple sorties to bring enough bombs to sink the CV.

 After the "Exodus", with the arena numbers increased greatly, the survivability of the CVs went way down. HTC had to double the amount of ordnance load required to sink a CV. IMO this is a very classic case concerning the "numbers problem" and how the MA is designed. In the case of the CV, or field acks and defenses, HTC could just double the required ordnance load or increase the numbers of the acks on a field.

 However, when it came to more difficult problems such as imbalance in numbers, or the commonly phrased "horde problem" - there was basically no real solution to it - unless the MA itself changes.

 People hate flying long distances. Therefore, MA field distances are kept only about 25 miles apart. When two sides meet in the middle, each of the planes have only a distance of 12 miles to cover to get to safety when they are exposed to danger. This wasn't a problem when each of the two countries had only about 10 people flying in a single sector. One could enter a chase and quickly manage shoot down a couple of planes, and there was enough room to really "fight".

 However, it is another commonly observed pattern in behavior in these types of game, that people flock to each other to create a numbers advantage and increase their chances of survival. Therefore, when the MA numbers grew, the amount of people jam-packed into a single sector grew along withit. Some measures were taken with the intention to spread the people apart - using larger sized maps was one such example, hoping people would spread apart to different places of the map - and It didn't work. The only thing the larger maps created was an 'escape' for the people, where they could simply avoid the incoming horde and migrate to elsewhere where no large-sized enemy threats were present.

 Now, add into this picture the advent of the super-planes, and we have what the MA is now. A 25x25 mile square full of planes everywhere, with everyone in super planes that can turn back home and reach relative safety of the home field within two minutes of 'extending'. Everybody flocks to a place where there are already too many people, and stays there. When one side gains numerical advantage, the other side just totally gives up the fight, and creates their own horde to attack empty, undefended corners of the earth.

 All of this, in my view, is essentially a numbers problem. The current format of the MA is thoroughly unfit to accomodate such numbers.
 


2. The Measures taken, and the failures

 Our basic MA platform is essentially unchanged since AH1. It is a simplified form of a 'land-grab' capture mechanism where players directly influence the process of capture, and thereby proceed in territorial conquest to win the 'war' that is very loosely (if at all) based on the historical WW2.

 When we look into the origins of AH, the developers themselves have clarified that they started a small company to make a flight sim game which featured some of the planes they liked, and create an environment where people may enjoy aerial battles.

 Personally, my opinion on this is that the whole "land-grab war" aspect, including base captures and ground vehicles, were merely a "sideshow attraction" to the game itself. A loosely simulated 'warring environment' that enabled and justified some of the real-life activities of WW2 aerial combat, such as ground attacks and bombings. Seriously, if AH was just another free-for-all type of game, then it wouldn't be so different from what other packaged simulation games had to offer. The diversity of aerial activities possible in the game, was a major factor that contributed to AH's success.

 However, despite it all AH's true origins lie in aerial combat simulation. I'm not too sure if HT or Pyro had intended it in the first place to create a serious "multi-aspect war simulation game" which is meant to simulate some of the most important military activities witnessed during WW2 - the entire air/sea/land aspect of the battle. Some developer interviews do state that many aspects currently included in the game format, was planned from the start, but even so I doubt they planned it as something more important than just 'another interesting ride'.

 For example, when you bring in a tank or a ground vehicle into the game, it is only a matter of time before people start asking for ground-level simulation as detailed as the aerial portion of the game. Bringing in a certain "ride" into the game implies that the entire aspect of the real-life conflict that involved the particular ride must be brought into the game as well, if such an "interesting ride" was to have some impact to the game, rather than be just another hangar queen. The same applies to the bombers - yet another controversial part of the game. People are asking for a system where the bombers have some meaning, where they serve as a means to effect the outcome of the war on a truly strategical scale, instead of being used as over-bloated suicidal makeshift-jabo planes with heavy bomb loads.

 My respectful, yet critical opinion, is that perhaps HTC may have problems with this part of the game. The overall 'design philosophy' of the MA, if it can be referred to in that manner, is basically what one may compare to an "Laissez-faire" in economics, or the "invisible hand" to the layman. Just leave everyone as they were, give them the freedom to do whatever they want, and the arena will find a natural balance by itself.

 Frankly, the MA is totally devoid of anything that might even remotely resemble the structure of the 'war machine'. It isn't surprising, as AH's origins lie elsewhere as per the explanation given above. However to many people it has become evident that the MA can no longer sustain an autonomous "invisible hand" to run everything - it simply doesn't work any more.

 Perhaps that's what HTC is thinking, too. In the past months and years we've actually witnessed a very surprising turn of events when HT finally entered the scene and started to bring in all sorts of "measures" to the MA, which seems to indicate the failure of the "invisible hand", is now at last acknowledged by the developers themselves.

(contd)

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kweassa on January 26, 2007, 02:25:21 PM

For example, we've seen the advent of the perk limiter system. Highly anticipated, but ultmately a failure IMO. This measure was taken to penalize a country with numbers advantage in the types of planes they fly - except it met an incredible amount of resistance from some of the super-plane lovers. After such protests the measures were drastically weakened, upto the point where the perk limiter effectively became meaningless and is now only a mild annoyance at best. Only when a certain side has enough numbers advantage thorough enough to totally ovepower the opposition, does the perk limiter really kick in.

 The latest change was the highly controversial split of the arenas, which I supported at first, because it might give a chance for an arena that used substantially different types of planes according to their introduction dates. However, there were people who were quite worried about it as well, since most of these people also witnessed the failure of the AvA arena. In the end, like they have perceived the EW and the MW arena is almost meaningless now, with people flocking to just the two of the LW arenas available on the server.

 So, did the split of arenas worked?

 I think the answer is both "yes" and "no". Essentially, the split of the arenas loosely achieved a state that is similar to the early days of AH1. It basically tried to eradicate the "numbers problem" by splitting the arena people in half. The arena numbers are now essentially halved, and this does seem to have some effect in remedying some of the most serious problems the MA has seen. This, in a way, can be viewed as a success.

 However, more importantly, my opinion is that it is much more of a failure in the fact that it represents a failure on part of HTC to come up with a more fundamental solution. Instead of actually "solving" the problems of the MA, they split the arena in half merely relieved the pressure mounting on it. If the MA is like a tightly closed kettle of boiling watter, they merely drilled another hole on the top to let the steam out of it, instead of turning of the fire.



3. Solutions?

 Some of you may actually remember my opinion about these matters, but my basic stance was that "whatever change may occur, it must be done in a single MA"[/u]. This is still my stance on this matter.

 Basically, the split of the arenas means that HTC themselves admits that the current MA format is unsuited to let all of the 500 players to enjoy the game in a single arena. They've tried many things, but none of them really worked. Therefore, they split the numbers and relieved the pressure. That's about it. It works, but ultimately it is an hinderance IMO.

 So would there be any solutions to this problem?
 
 Frankly, IMO the only thing that can solve the present problem is a complete overhaul of the MA interface - everything, from top to bottom, left to right. There could be so many specific ideas concerning a total overhaul, so I won't go deeper in what specific changes might be needed. For one thing, the entire strat/capture system should be changed, not to mention a certain limited aspect of logistics and attrition. Ground-war aspect should be made very important, and capture by attacking individual airfields must be removed.

 I wish HTC would consider a fundamental change in this aspect of the MA, after the ToD is finished. If ToD sees light, I think the next big change should be devoted to restructuring the entire MA platform, one way or another, before introducing any more ToD "modules" to be used.

 
 

ps) sorry for another one of my long stupid posts.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Max on January 26, 2007, 03:13:33 PM

How cow...that's printable Bathroom reading. :D

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: hitech on January 26, 2007, 03:13:59 PM

1 question. And one statement.

We now commonly cross 820 people online, and we are continuing to grow at a rapid pace. How do you see 1000 ,2000,5000 people in 1 arena playing let alone the tech problems in doing that.

Since we have made the split arena, every piece of data has been better.

# of deletes per month has been down.
# of new accounts has been up
% of players converting from free accounts to paying is substantial up.
average number of hours player per person is up.

So the answer to your question did the arena split work, I can absolutly state
it has worked exceeding well.

Finally.
In all your long winded post, no where do you even begin to touch upon the real issue of community / peer pressure/ meeting new people.

So is the current system perfect. Nope nothing is , always looking for ways to do it better.

But you might as well forget about the idea of going back, because it isn't going to happen.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: bongaroo on January 26, 2007, 03:14:28 PM

::snore::

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: navajoboy on January 26, 2007, 03:39:23 PM

*yawn*

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Hap on January 26, 2007, 03:46:28 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Kweassa
For one thing, the entire strat/capture system should be changed, not to mention a certain limited aspect of logistics and attrition. Ground-war aspect should be made very important, and capture by attacking individual airfields must be removed.

 I wish HTC would consider a fundamental change in this aspect of the MA, after the ToD is finished. If ToD sees light, I think the next big change should be devoted to restructuring the entire MA platform, one way or another, before introducing any more ToD "modules" to be used.

 
 

ps) sorry for another one of my long stupid posts.

Kweassa, I've never found your posts "stupid," and I enjoy reading what you have to say and mulling it over.

Can you clarify what you mean by "capture by attacking individual airfield must be removed," please.

Thanks,

hap

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: tedrbr on January 26, 2007, 05:12:07 PM

Originally, I was against the split into 2 LW, 1 MW, and 1 EW arenas.... I'm not exactly *for* them, as of yet, but I don't have access to the server data, so the absolute numbers hitech alluded to do have an impact in the number and types of arenas they can operate.

My complaints were due to the splitting up of squads members to different arenas..... which still happens when a server hits the server cap.  I also don't feel that a EW and LW arena attract enough players to have both running at the same time, just yet.  I like MW, but there is not enough action there to draw me to MW.  Most players still stick to the LW arenas for "der uber-rides", so that's were the action is.

Absolute numbers and missions.  With the arena split with usually smaller populations per arena, and influx of new players, I've definitely seen a decline in organized squad operations and posted missions on a semi-regular basis. (Think I've noticed a decline in participation in SEA events too lately....).

Hordes still exist.  One country doing very well or poorly leads to mass migrations among arenas or countries at times.  One country will have more population than other two combined..... and still push ahead despite ENY, as noted in the original post.


Strategic Side:  Yes, I can have fun with strategic side, if there seems to be a point to it.  Why my bomber score is still where it is now, but far lower than where it once was.  Running a buff mission seems less important most of the time.  Still do on occasion, but nearly as often as I used to.

The dearth of maps that has resulted in smaller arenas.  Not fun.  Gets old at times, miss some of the old maps.  Same maps can hang around forever, but we'll see how the change in capture percentages works.

The changes attempted in captures had some merit.  The blue rat-maze line not so much in practice, but in theory, having to take certain territory before moving on to other territory, with broad fronts, and no sneak-300-miles-behind-the-lines captures has good points.  The trouble is you need to translate that into more that one pair of contested bases per country front.  There needs to be able to run diversions, and feints, and some ability to flank positions for the strategy players of the game.   Think of how the WWII front lines actually moved forward and backward with flank attacks and "bulges".... but we could not capture territory on the east side of the Rhine before invading France.  

..... finding a way to translate those kinds of strategic fronts into "fresh"  new maps, existing maps, or resurrected (and modified, or cropped) old maps is the challenge here.  Of course, a map could also take the spirit of the "island-hopping" campaign to heart as well, with major nodes being taken as necessity, but small fields that can be bypassed, though risking an enemy position in your interior.

Personally, I'd prefer 1 large LW arena, with larger numbers, along long fronts, with maps that provide fun furballs, and TT areas, as well as providing  a means to keep the strategic players involved, and 1 small to mid sized arena that alternated between EW and MW.   But that's me.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: RedTopp on January 26, 2007, 06:04:40 PM

From a squad standpoint, waiting to enter an arena to fly with them has been sometimes a pain, but I wait my turn and clean the house so the wife lets me fly more.
Seeing countries outnumbered consistently in the 2 different LWAs  kinda has been wearing as well, although I am not sure that aspect has changed much since it was one arena.
For all the things I have had issues getting used to, one thing that has been nice has been lack of lag and good fr. I am consistenly at fr of 75, and I rarely have a lag problem, even if I am in a fairly large furball. If I have any lag it is does not effect the game for me. I used to have substantial lag when there was just one arena sometimes.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Mugzeee on January 26, 2007, 07:07:02 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
1 question. And one statement.

We now commonly cross 820 people online, and we are continuing to grow at a rapid pace. How do you see 1000 ,2000,5000 people in 1 arena playing let alone the tech problems in doing that.

Of those 820...how many are in que awaiting to get into a particular arena?

Of those 820...how many are the loyal old timers awaiting things to finally shake out.

Of those 820...how many are starting to realize that what kept them interested is never going to return?

No real way of knowing those answers for sure is there?

Only time will tell.

The changes are very new in the grand scheme of things and I personally feel like this isn't over as of yet. I hope all goes well for you...but i think many of those that stood by HTC are growing weary kinda like how Americans are growing weary of our situation in Iraq.

Hopefully the support doesnt fade too much.

Quote

Originally posted by hitech

Since we have made the split arena, every piece of data has been better.

# of deletes per month has been down.
# of new accounts has been up
% of players converting from free accounts to paying is substantial up.
average number of hours player per person is up.

So the answer to your question did the arena split work, I can absolutly state
it has worked exceeding well.

All of the above is a direct result of the split?

Could some of it have to due with Marketing timing?

Could some of it have to do with Marketing platform?

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: tedrbr on January 27, 2007, 01:31:03 AM

Quote

Originally posted by RedTopp

Seeing countries outnumbered consistently in the 2 different LWAs  kinda has been wearing as well, although I am not sure that aspect has changed much since it was one arena. ...
....
 I used to have substantial lag when there was just one arena sometimes.

Typical situation in the War Arenas tonight.....
* 40 to 60 in the EW and MW arenas, so not much action there...
* Knits outnumbered in Orange and getting slapped hard, pushed up against the un-capturable bases in SE....and furballing there, and getting pushed in the SW by numbers.....
* Knits had the numbers in Blue and dealing with ENY issues...... and typically for Knit, most of the 140 odd pilots trying to commit virtual genocide against half as many (or less) Bish  who were down to a couple bases, while 100+/- Rooks, led by the AK's it seems, were rolling Knits up in the south.  

Yeah....getting wearing.....guess it's back to hoping Countries as well as Arenas looking for some balance, intelligent teamwork, and a decent fight.......

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Laurie on January 27, 2007, 07:04:57 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
1 question. And one statement.

We now commonly cross 820 people online, and we are continuing to grow at a rapid pace. How do you see 1000 ,2000,5000 people in 1 arena playing let alone the tech problems in doing that.

Since we have made the split arena, every piece of data has been better.

# of deletes per month has been down.
# of new accounts has been up
% of players converting from free accounts to paying is substantial up.
average number of hours player per person is up.

So the answer to your question did the arena split work, I can absolutly state
it has worked exceeding well.

Finally.
In all your long winded post, no where do you even begin to touch upon the real issue of community / peer pressure/ meeting new people.

So is the current system perfect. Nope nothing is , always looking for ways to do it better.

But you might as well forget about the idea of going back, because it isn't going to happen.

arent numbers always up in the winter due to people being inside more, watching more tv, being on the PC more.....?

i will accept the split may have helped your bussiness, but i wouldn't say it's made my experience better, nor has it been the only factor in game expansion.
 here are some other factors which will/may have influenced your figures...

the more people you have playing, the more friends are told about the game, word of mouth advertising.

quite a bit more advertising on the hitory channel at the right times,

its the cooler half of the year=more people inside, more people seeing your advertising through the net and tv e.t.c.

the internet is becoming less 'scary' to younger and older people, so you have hundreds of thousands more potential customers than 5 years ago, it is the internet's 'golden age' at the moement.

a lot more younger people allowed accses to credit cards now, as money expenditure is a lot more casual than it used to be.

The 'gaming' mentality across human beings is spreading exceeeeedingly fast, (quite worrying if you look at it from some perspectives)

The split is still a bit of a novelty to some

a lot of users now know no different to four arenas, but it's the decreasing number of old-timers that would concern me, i would rather have a bunch of 15+ year olds playing than having to squelch voices every 10 seconds.

Numbers may be up,
but my gameplay quality is down,

Aces high is still the best out there, i would never deny this.

but its not AS good as it once was for me.

i would reccomend waiting a year before we make a conclusion on how well it MAY have worked.

give it a year till we all marvel and put our eggs in one basket..........

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Bronk on January 27, 2007, 08:54:04 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Laurie
arent numbers always up in the winter due to people being inside more, watching more tv, being on the PC more.....?

i will accept the split may have helped your bussiness, but i wouldn't say it's made my experience better, nor has it been the only factor in game expansion.
 here are some other factors which will/may have influenced your figures...

the more people you have playing, the more friends are told about the game, word of mouth advertising.

quite a bit more advertising on the hitory channel at the right times,

its the cooler half of the year=more people inside, more people seeing your advertising through the net and tv e.t.c.

the internet is becoming less 'scary' to younger and older people, so you have hundreds of thousands more potential customers than 5 years ago, it is the internet's 'golden age' at the moement.

a lot more younger people allowed accses to credit cards now, as money expenditure is a lot more casual than it used to be.

The 'gaming' mentality across human beings is spreading exceeeeedingly fast, (quite worrying if you look at it from some perspectives)

The split is still a bit of a novelty to some

a lot of users now know no different to four arenas, but it's the decreasing number of old-timers that would concern me, i would rather have a bunch of 15+ year olds playing than having to squelch voices every 10 seconds.

Numbers may be up,
but my gameplay quality is down,

Aces high is still the best out there, i would never deny this.

but its not AS good as it once was for me.

i would reccomend waiting a year before we make a conclusion on how well it MAY have worked.

give it a year till we all marvel and put our eggs in one basket..........

Think this covered it.

Quote

Originally posted by hitech


But you might as well forget about the idea of going back, because it isn't going to happen.

Seriously, just let it go.


Bronk

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Bruv119 on January 27, 2007, 09:14:25 AM

Hulse,  The old MA was a mess.

Least now we can try and have a fair fight.  Have you ever heard the phrase quality over quantity.  

Who cares if we used to have 200 a side.  With huge masses of red in each grid.  No fun when the 10th guy to drop in on you manages to get the kill.  

Only thing that is slightly annoying is when the numbers get out of line in some instances the hording has been worse.  Due to the cap the country with the least amount of pilots do get hurt.  I usually swap to even them up at this point.  

Just seems some squads/country thinks its cool and clever to still up 30+ man missions just to capture one field.  When that use of force is applied to an extent of maybe outnumbering a whole country to take one airfield its pathetic.

What i'm trying to say is that gameplay for me has been greatly enhanced since the changes.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: zorstorer on January 27, 2007, 09:42:01 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Bruv119
...Just seems some squads/country thinks its cool and clever to still up 30+ man missions just to capture one field.  When that use of force is applied to an extent of maybe outnumbering a whole country to take one airfield its pathetic....

Much like the swamping of TT the other night? ;)

Might want to add "unless we want TT back" as an addendum :D

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: DREDIOCK on January 27, 2007, 10:12:50 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Since we have made the split arena, every piece of data has been better.

# of deletes per month has been down.
# of new accounts has been up
% of players converting from free accounts to paying is substantial up.
average number of hours player per person is up.

Cha-ching!
Cha-ching!
Cha-ching!

Bottom line baby. Gotta love it


So is the current system perfect. Nope nothing is , always looking for ways to do it better.

Gotta hand it to HTC there. They are always looking for ways to make it better. Sometimes I agree with them. Sometimes I dont.
Just as we all do.
Thing is, more often then not. You only tend hear about it when we dissagree to a move HTC has made

But to their credit HTC has o be by far the most customer oriented companies I've ever seen.
Unlike many companies they at least do at least listen to customer or in this case player concerns and try to address them.
And unlike other games such as our much mourned Airwarrior I rarely if ever see a "canned" arrogent excuse or responce to a problem or concern
Classic example "It must be a problem on your end" was one I used to frequently see in AW that was positively infuriating.

Here if it is a problem on your end you at least get a detailed reason as to why, and what might be done to fix it. And They are also willing to look at their end as well.

When I tell people that dont play about AH I also tell them about the company. I find I almost cant tell anyone about the game without also telling them about the company and community as well

Ive been here a few years now. and I know I've had my share of grumblings,rants and arguements with just about everyone here from HT to the newest members on the boards. some of them rather intence
But truth be known
Far as Im concerned HTC and the rest of the community here are second to none

Alot of companies can learn from HTC

But you might as well forget about the idea of going back, because it isn't going to happen. [/QUOTE]

Experience has taught me that when HT says this.
he usually means it LOL

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: DREDIOCK on January 27, 2007, 10:13:50 AM

BTW Hitech.

You can send that endorsement check to........

;) :p

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: detch01 on January 27, 2007, 10:27:08 AM

Sorry Kweassa, I just don't get what your going on about. I played AW for years on the same map and never got bored, but then I compete with the other people in the arenas, not the terrains. The game is much better now than it ever was in my experience. It's easier to find fights and the fights you find are more intense and tend to last longer. The application of a little off-center pressure is much more effective in shaping the battle. There is more spontaneous cooperation between players in the LWA's now than there ever was before in the game. And there is a sense of community growing in the arenas as people are getting to know one another. Maybe I don't have enough functioning synapses floating around in between my ear-holes to recognize it, but I just don't see what's broke.



Cheers,
asw

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Bruv119 on January 27, 2007, 10:29:54 AM

Yea Mec.  I will never partake in capturing TT bases.    

I just take amusement from the guys who come in and go wtf who captured TT!

They then proceed to re capture and then take it for themselves.  After a couple of hours new load of peeps come in  "wtf  who took TT"  repeat loop.

Any mercy missions designed to capture back 1 vbase is allowed  

;)

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: thndregg on January 27, 2007, 10:49:32 AM

Kweassa. At least it was a constructive, well thought out post despite it being "long winded."

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: NoBaddy on January 27, 2007, 11:14:32 AM

Quote

Originally posted by detch01
I played AW for years on the same map and never got bored, but then I compete with the other people in the arenas, not the terrains.  

This is why I laugh every time I see another tread demanding new maps. In the 10+ years I played Air Warrior, there were never more than 2 maps available at one time in the MA's. In my time, there were never more than 6 maps for the MA's in total. To hear people complain about the maps simply floors me. Your point about playing against the people and not the map is spot on. What that says to me is that the problems lies with the players and not the game.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: DadRabit on January 27, 2007, 11:50:52 AM

S!

i believe most of the concerns arising again are due to frustration of the same map for weeks on end.  seems there was a lull in complaints after the last change on the capture system.  now after more than a month of the same map, folks seemed to start getting aggravated again.  me included.  sure would be great ta see festerma or trinity every now an then.

S!

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: BaldEagl on January 27, 2007, 11:56:07 AM

I'm ok with most of the changes at this point but I'd still like to see the return of the big maps (in rotation with the small ones) with the current 90/40/40 rule, which, by the way, while still difficult, is far better that 100/50/50.

I checked into the Blue arena early last night and it was one of the new maps.  I wanted to take a bomber run but, there wasn't enough room on that map to even get a set of loaded Lancs to 20K much less the the room needed to stabalize speed and calibrate.  I veiw that as a fundamental flaw in at least that map.

I also disagree with the star wars ack at the fields.  While I used to fly in and try to drop a hanger with an attack plane I just stay away from enemy fields now.  

As I stated in another post recently, I used to spend up to half my time in vehicles, bombers, attack planes and fleets.  Now I spend 70-80% of my time furballing (that aspect used to be 10-15% of my time).

I used to care about base captures and winning the war.  Now I just log on knowing I'm going furballing and don't care about the rest.

As to the numbers imbalance, I spent most of last night in LW Orange (It's where my squaddies were).  Bish ruled LW Orange which, by late in the evening was becoming boring.  I went back to LW Blue to end the night and Bish had 2 fields.  I'm not sure anything can really be done about that.

Finally, I think the EW and MW arenas need to be combined to get the numbers up.  Maybe use the full EW plane-set with a shortened MW plane set.

The game as it is has caused fundamental shifts in gameplay.  I'm not sure yet if that's good or bad.  I know for me it's limited what I do and while my play-time hasn't decreased, I find myself bored more often.

Just my take on it.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Laurie on January 27, 2007, 03:32:46 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Bronk
Think this covered it.

 


Seriously, just let it go.


Bronk

dont believe i asked MA back anywhere,

just dont think FOUR arenas works in my opinoin,
never said you had to agree :D

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Simaril on January 28, 2007, 06:51:30 PM

Quote

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
Cha-ching!
Cha-ching!
Cha-ching!

Bottom line baby. Gotta love it
.....

But remember that the best bottom line happens when the greatest number of people are having the greatest amount of fun. So, HT's business goal and our play goal very nicely coincide.

820 is an incredibly impressive number. Even if I wanted to, I couldn't explain that away by the season, or by advertising. To my casual eye, the MA numbers had stalled for a good while before. No matter what fun I had in the old MA, the OUTCOMES show that this system is more fun for more people.

HT has elsewhere said the team is working on a major overhaul of the strat system, and that will of necessity mean changes in the way the game plays -- and thus the way successful maps will need to be layed out. It's been nice to see new maps coming....but in the end, every design has its schwerpunkt, and hopefully its great combat zones. We'll learn them on the new, and we know them on the old. The game works fine in the meantime.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: NoBaddy on January 28, 2007, 08:33:53 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril

820 is an incredibly impressive number.

Just left and there were 860+ logged in. Makes me believe the MA might not need to be "fixed".

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: bozon on January 29, 2007, 04:35:06 AM

Kweassa, as it happens often, I agree with your general assesment of the situation (save some minor reservations). The decline of my favorite MWA finaly convinced me that what I view as fun is the view of a small minority. I really hoped this minority was a little bit bigger, enough to sustain itself on the fringes of the general AH comunity, but I was wrong. I tried to vote with my login button, but about 20 people, of which: 1/3 in GV, 1/3 score padding and 1/3 looking for one another spread over 3 fronts just doesn't cut it. Anyway, being able to login for so few hours doesn't make me counted. I gave up and joined the masses in LWA.

While the time frames split was a failure I think the lower caps and small maps is a significan't improvement. Not a real solution, but a real improvement.

Changes to the "win" conditions and the un-captureable fields are also great. I don't care as much about being outnumbered if I always have a field to take off from and am not rolled over by 2 countries.

A call for a massive re-design of the MA while HTC are already hard at work on something completely new (TOD) is poorly timed. I totaly agree that the game dosn't seem to be designed to include a massive detailed ground war, nor bomber formations, nor such large numbers. I see that HTC are trying easy-to-implement changes that will not interfere with TOD development too much. It's a stop-gap, but also the logical thing to do and it DOES improve things.

In the long run, unless TOD will absorb the entire game, such a call might be justified.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kweassa on January 29, 2007, 07:37:35 AM

I can't help but feel there's something, or someway to better integrate it all. Call me an idealist, or call the idea utopian, but I don't think its impossible.

 Back in the days of AH1, everything worked well. Occasional complaints on "ganbanging" or "uneven sides", but never before were so many people so discontent with AH as now.

 I know some people will just say "the MA is fun for me as it is". I don't really want to rain down on their parade, but I think the concerns are mounting up to alarming levels with most everyone around. Besides, even if the MA is fun for some people I doubt those people really disagree that there can be something better.

 So maybe it is a "utopia" I'm thinking of - a place that doesn't exist. I'm thinking of a well layed out format of a MA equipped with logical components of strat system that can satsify BOTH the furball folk and the strat folk. Some place where we don't have to split everyone around into multiple arenas, but instead, all of the massive player base of AH can fly in an integrated, single arena.

 Ofcourse, like bozon said the timing is quite bad. HTC is currently working on ToD. But the problem is that the development of the ToD has been going on for such a long time with no information at all concerning its progress, that people are starting to wonder if perhaps HT just forgot about the MA. They are growing discontent with everything AH has to offer.

 The good ol' veterans are sad because they can't find any decents fights any more, strat fliers are angry because people just flock to a single place and completely abandon other areas of the map, furballers are bored because all they every get is either be a part of the horde and fight against hangars, or become a prey of the horde and fight against 20 to 1 odds in a vulched situation.

 The only people who are actually enjoying the MA seems to be the totalitarian "Borg" types who are single minded in their quest for victory and conquest of airfields and assimilation of enemy territories with least opposition as possible.

 Everytime I log on I am given a choice; we have two areas where we can fight. The first one is where we have full friendly darbars 3 sectors full with almost no enemy darbar at all, and the other is where we have full enemy darbars 3 sectos full with no friendly darbar at all. This is actually greatly discouraging for someone wanting to find a good fight, whether be it a part of a capture attempt, or just a plain ol' fighter sweep.

 I mean, I've been hearing that people just want fun fights.

 But it seems my definition of a "fun fight" is something which has opponents I can fight against, as compared to the definition of a "fun fight" for the Borg, which apparently seems to have to do nothing with opponents, but just expansion of the territories.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kazaa on January 29, 2007, 08:41:24 AM

Quote

Originally posted by Bruv119
 Just seems some squads/country thinks its cool and clever to still up 30+ man missions just to capture one field.  When that use of force is applied to an extent of maybe outnumbering a whole country to take one airfield its pathetic.

Oi, we done one of those the other night, was great fun :D

Bring back the MA !!!

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: hitech on January 29, 2007, 10:31:49 AM

Had 954 people online in arenas last night, even with 1 arena and the old 750 cap what do you all want to do with the other 200 people?

HiTech

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: storch on January 29, 2007, 10:33:14 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Had 954 people online in arenas last night, even with 1 arena and the old 750 cap what do you all want to do with the other 200 people?

HiTech

send them to warbirds of course

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: bozon on January 29, 2007, 11:31:24 AM

When are those times?! The MWA must be packed full!

Perhaps I should start getting up early in the morning to catch the US prime time.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Iron_Cross on January 29, 2007, 11:39:15 AM

As far as I can see Hitech, has relieved a lot of stress on the arenas.  Sure there are still hoards, kamikazi toolsheders.  With the numbers in each arena down to the early days of AH1, they are minor anoyances, not "give up and cancle your acount out of frustration" anoyances.

Hitech could have split the arenas and made them all mini MAs, every plane avalable all the time.   He didn't, because some people wanted to fly the early or mid war planes.  How long would a Ju-87 have lasted in the old MA, or a Spit 1, or a P-47D-11, or Boston III?  Hitech has made these hangar queens shine in there own element.  

Hitech can't change human nature, everybody wants to play with the best toys and not get "spanked".  This is why the LW arenas are always near capacity, and the hoard reigns in every arena.  I will admit, that I was tired of only seeing La-7s, N1K2s, and P-51s.  I love the EW arena, I don't have to deal with the Uber rides.  I just have to deal with minor diffrences in performance, not vast diffrences in performance like in the old MA.

Strat is a diffrent story.  Strat, as it is now, is prety much useless.  Nobody, now, goes after strat targets, unless they want to pad their bomber score.  The strat system needs to be overhauled, beefed up a little, make it a little bit more prominent.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: storch on January 29, 2007, 12:02:28 PM

^^^^^^

the switch was necessary and just in time.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Yknurd on January 29, 2007, 12:20:47 PM

Quote

Originally posted by bozon
When are those times?! The MWA must be packed full!

Perhaps I should start getting up early in the morning to catch the US prime time.

I didn't count the late war arenas but the early war had approximately 40 people when I logged in around 19:30 EST.  Usually I see it populated between 9 and the low twenties.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: 4deck on January 29, 2007, 01:34:23 PM

**Cough cough ahhmmm *** LARGE MAPS[/SIZE][/COLOR]
**cough **

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: viper215 on January 29, 2007, 02:02:00 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Had 954 people online in arenas last night, even with 1 arena and the old 750 cap what do you all want to do with the other 200 people?

HiTech

Around the fire last night someone said you were only running the 750 cap arena at 25%.....is this true?

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: hitech on January 29, 2007, 02:08:45 PM

Not sure what you are asking viper215

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: indy007 on January 29, 2007, 02:34:59 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Not sure what you are asking viper215

I think he means there's a possible software cap of 3000 players per arena.

Check other threads though Viper, iirc, HTC said the software was capped at 1000 without substantial modifications.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: meddog on January 29, 2007, 03:53:56 PM

I do believe the problems lie in the community.  One of my major frustrations is when the Bish and Rooks only dedicate 10% or less of their fighting force to fighting each other while both sides allocate 90% of their forces attacking the knights leaving the knights struggling to fight a 2 front war while the other 2 counties for all practicle purposes only fight a 1 front war and it does't matter if the knights have the numbers or not.  In fact having the numbers makes it worse because of the eny restrictions.  I see this all the time because im on every single night and view the map to see who ios fighting who and why or why not.  More often than not, I can look at the map and see that nearly a base is flashing along the bish/rook front while nearly every knight base along the front is flashing like a Christmas tree.  Last night in the Blue arena was the first time in a while that the bish/rooks actualy engaged in a large scale battle for any lengthy period of time and when multiple knight bases came under heavy attack from the rooks, I could look along the bish/rook front to see a major reduction in fighting. On the other hand, it's sort of sorry that the only way the bish/rooks can take a base from the knights is for each country to dedicate 90% of its fighting force to take one knight base.  I know HT wont do this but if your just going to gang on the knights every night, than I would rather just have a 2 country war.  At least that way you  will get the eny restrictions and not us.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Yknurd on January 29, 2007, 03:55:30 PM

Quote

Originally posted by 4deck
**Cough cough ahhmmm *** LARGE MAPS[/SIZE][/COLOR]
**cough **

I might be mistaken but I think HT said that they can only have 750 or so in one arena.  I'm taking it that it's a hardware issue.

You might have larger maps but what happens to the other 200+ people?

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Lusche on January 29, 2007, 04:14:46 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Yknurd
I might be mistaken but I think HT said that they can only have 750 or so in one arena.  I'm taking it that it's a hardware issue.

You might have larger maps but what happens to the other 200+ people?

Several arenas with a large map each :)

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kweassa on January 29, 2007, 04:19:48 PM

Quote

As far as I can see Hitech, has relieved a lot of stress on the arenas. Sure there are still hoards, kamikazi toolsheders. With the numbers in each arena down to the early days of AH1, they are minor anoyances, not "give up and cancle your acount out of frustration" anoyances.

 That is true. I don't think anyone is blaming Hitech of doing nothing. However, what I'm trying to say is the "stop-gap" type of solutions seems to be causing more problems of its own. I'm not saying I can build a better game than HT or something. He's been doing this for  years and I'm sure every solution he comes up with will have some kind of effect.

 What I am questioning, however, is the validity of the current MA format. According to HT's comment on this thread, we now have almost 1000 people onling at peak times. This is nothing like what I've seen during AH1 years. I don't think just splitting the arenas up, adding a (questionable) perk modifier system, putting in uncapturable fields and etc.. is truly ever going to solve the perceived "MA problem". (If, you can agree that such a thing exists in the first place)

 

Quote

Hitech could have split the arenas and made them all mini MAs, every plane avalable all the time. He didn't, because some people wanted to fly the early or mid war planes. How long would a Ju-87 have lasted in the old MA, or a Spit 1, or a P-47D-11, or Boston III? Hitech has made these hangar queens shine in there own element.

 If the EW and MW is ever populated, that is. I've been logging on and off during some odd hours lately, and frankly I've never seen the EW or the MW get populated with more than 40~50 people at a time.

 In effect, Hitech DID split the arena into two MAs.

Quote

Hitech can't change human nature, everybody wants to play with the best toys and not get "spanked". This is why the LW arenas are always near capacity, and the hoard reigns in every arena. I will admit, that I was tired of only seeing La-7s, N1K2s, and P-51s. I love the EW arena, I don't have to deal with the Uber rides. I just have to deal with minor diffrences in performance, not vast diffrences in performance like in the old MA.

 Ofcourse he can't. He's not God of this world. He's not gonna change human nature.

 However, he's the God of AH world and he has the power to influence people by augmenting the "rules of the game" and how it is played out in the virtual skies. The horde needn't to be a horde. The overused planes can be tamed. Its just a matter of what kind of a different MA format is used. However, that is only as long as the AH God himself wills it to change. And sometimes, meager AH people like me tend to become unfaithful to God - since we don't see any real signs of change around. ;)

Title: Revelations of Kweassa the Apostle
Post by: Kweassa on January 29, 2007, 05:19:30 PM

Quote

Strat is a diffrent story. Strat, as it is now, is prety much useless. Nobody, now, goes after strat targets, unless they want to pad their bomber score. The strat system needs to be overhauled, beefed up a little, make it a little bit more prominent.

 Personally, I think a three key concepts are urgently required in the MA;

 1) basic organization
 2) logistics and attrition
 3) economics




1. Basic Organization

 The concept of basic organization is about placing each of the country's pilots under some kind of controlled environment where some of their actions are limited by the "superiors" - which in this case, would be the system that handles the MA. It involves dividing certain proportions of each country's pilots into certain groups that are "assigned" to certain fronts.
 
 There are inherently two problems concerning the horde's effect on the MA.

a) hordes deteriorate the MA gameplay into mere display of sheer brute strength. Such important factors as individual pilot skill, high levels of intelligent cooperation, epic aerial battles for the control and superiority of local skies, and etc etc.. are totally lost under the horde. The single minded conquest machine actively seeks out to destroy the opposition by displaying brute strength that cannot be resisted by normal means. In a truly tactical sense, this is the best maneuver any army can take. However, the MA is not only a war but also a game.

 In the gaming sense, the horde kills "competition" itself. The process of the "contest of airpower" itself is cancelled out with hordes. The hordes exist to obliterate the opposition from its roots, and seeks to win territories without any kind of real fighting. The main drive behind the horde is this ruthless efficiency in taking enemy bases - since no one dares oppose such sheer numbers of attackers, the horde merely walks in, flattens town, capture, and then move on. Rinse and repeat. The whole "struggle" part of the game is missing.

 b) hordes avoid other hordes. The horde phenomenon wouldn't be a problem if the defenders form a horde of their own and actually go head on against the attacking horde. Then that would create a mega-furball. However, when the initial phases of aerial struggle are played out, the defending side is usually so much discouraged by the attacking horde that they abandon the entire front where the enemy horde is attacking. Instead, they flock to some place else where there is no imminent danger. They form a horde of their own in that spot, and start attacking places that are undefended.

 Now, the concept of 'basic organization' is meant to prevent the horde fundamentally. By placing people under certain groups(or "airforces") which the system assigns their position to, people will not able to just abandon entire fronts or flock to each other. This is a loose portrayal of military service where pilots are assigned to certain theaters and expected to serve there faithfully. This means as a Rook (for example), you can't just leave the Knit front and flock to the Bish front just because the Bish seems to be the underdogs and easy kills. Or, you can't just leave the Knit front and join the Bish front because the Knits seems to have better pilots in the area. If you are assigned to duty at a Knit front, you will be expected to perform a certain length of service there.

 Essentially, a basic organization of this kind makes sure that all of the fronts are populated and the range of activities an individual pilot can take is limited. This will destroy the heart of the horde itself. The numbers which a certain front can muster is always limited to the numbers of pilots serving in that certain front. Even if you see a certain Bish zone undefended and ripe for the picking, you can't call everyone from the Knit front to form an enormous horde and start marching into Bish lands unopposed. All you have is the pilots in that specific zone of activity who are assigned by the "High Command".

 If this concept takes place in the MA, unless a certain country is fundamentally underdogged (such as 50 Rooks, 50 Knits, but only 10 Bish) you will never, ever have to see a mindless horde again. That is the pros of this concept. However, the cons of this concept is that it takes away the freedom to move around wherever place the pilot wills. There could be inherent problems such as some people being stuck at fronts they don't want, or Squadrons being split apart and not being able to fly together.

 Therefore, it will need some kind of a "buffer" that allows players to "transfer" to places they want under certain given conditions. For instance, there can be a "order of transferance" type of system in which the server receives "transfer requests", and if another person placed at a different area wishes to be transferred to where I am, then I can be swapped 1:1 and be transfered to an area I want, and vice versa for the other guy.


(contd)

Title: Revelations (contd)
Post by: Kweassa on January 29, 2007, 05:20:05 PM

2. Logistics and Attrition

 Logistics and attrition is a concept targetting to improve the overall logic of MA strat. Normally, such a system is not very welcome to the players in the fact that the destruction of logistics and high attrition rates deals in the possibility of total nuetralization of a certain area. Also, it is not welcome to the developers in the fact that achieving a certain balance is a very difficult task. For instance, what happens if the supply of fuels and ammunition are cut off at a certain field? If the resupply rates are too fast then the system will not work. If it is too slow, then the results would be overly penalizing and people will not be able to up from the field for a long time. However, I belive that a certain compromising point can be reached by blending the current system with a mix of some logistics and attritional values.

 This concept aims to bring into consequence the misuse of equipment or supplies. What if a cetain side ups a huge, 30+ man mission that includes 20 jabos with ordnance and 10 buff formations consisting of 30 bombers with hundred thousands of pounds worth ordnance? It is good if their mission succeeds, but if a certain mission fails miserably by a group of smaller number of defenders, then the impact of failure should be felt one way or another. Otherwise, it is severely unrewarding for the smaller group of defenders showing such great effectiveness (a proof of their skill) against a superior numbers of enemies, when the failed attackers just simply up another 30 man mission with jabos again and again and again until they finally obliterate the field.

 The tricky part would be designing a system where "normal" levels of activity would rarely "drain" supplies enough to cause a shortage, but a certain degree of impact would be felt when supplies and planes are used up too fast in too high amounts with no real results.



3. Economics

 Economics is in part a concept that is derived from the Logistics/Attrition concept, that is applied at a larger scale. This concept aims to bring in a truly strategical aspect to the MA where consistent efforts to destroy the opponent's economy will impact the entire country on a global scale. In effect, this is what will give the bombers their role back. The logistics/attrition concept will make it highly undesirable to use bombers as low-level jabo planes - since these typical low-level attack runs by bombers have high casualty rates, and the losses of ordnance and bomber planes would mount to catastrophic scales.

 However, if we take that role away from the bombers, then we must give them another, and this involves a more refined system of strat where economic facilities are to be targetted and damaged REPEATEDLY on a REGULAR scale. The logistics/attrition concept deals in the usage of supplies and planes on an individual airfield level. The economic concept deals in the efficiency of the logistics/attrition system itself. Continual barrage of bombs on a ammunition factory, for example, will be detrimental of the output level of the country's ammunition production, and therefore will reduce the numbers of resupplied ammunition on an individual field.



 ..


 If the above three concepts can be realized in the MA, then it would mean that the MA will be going through a fundamental change. As mentioned in the other post the current MA format is IMO nothing but a supplementary "stage set" where the main "play" of aerial combat can be acted out. However, the introduction of the above three key concepts would mean that the strat and land-grab aspect of the MA would become a true 'wargame', instead of just a "side show". This means AH MA will not be just a combat flight sim game that has some strat aspect to it, but a full-scale wargame which simulates a WW2 style of war played out.

 Now, I can expect that there will be considerable resistances to such an idea. However, I think that the reality cannot be denied any longer. Aside from a handful of people who fly AH for the aerial combat alone, the rest of some one thousand gamers online definately view AH as a total war simulation, and not just an aerial combat simulation.

 Also, aside from the first concept of basic organization, people who enjoy the current MA have nothing to lose with the second and third concepts. Instead, a whole lot more is gained, since fights will be performed an a mor even level, and the buffs and porkers will be aiming to hit the more important strat facilities than just the airfields. Also, if such bombing attempts are made regular from the introduction of the second and third concepts, then it means a whole new aspect of the MA would surface. It will also strengthen the ground-war portion of the game, which the GV players will like.  All of this is merely concepts and ideas, but I think it could be an important basis for the "new MA", if HT ever envisions one.

 ...

 And then I saw a new MA and new strat, and every game pilot would be happy and content without facing the everyday frustrations and absurdities caused by aged and old strat systems of the old MA, which was never meant to work with such large numbers of people. And every pilot would praise and cry tears of joy of the new world HT created for them to enoy a whole new level of gameplay for thousands of years to come.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Hammy on January 29, 2007, 05:45:05 PM

WOW!!

We still flogging this horse? :eek: :rolleyes:

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: ghi on January 29, 2007, 05:53:59 PM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Had 954 people online in arenas last night, even with 1 arena and the old 750 cap what do you all want to do with the other 200 people?

HiTech

 WTG ! bussiness goes well, keep it up
 but plz rise the AM et caps, as you see in lot of threds, the Euro players get way less fun for same $, cuz you enforce/divide 300 players in AM time in 4 arenas with 120 caps

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: FrodeMk3 on January 29, 2007, 06:42:36 PM

Kweassa,

Having read this, and having put a lot of thought into a response, IMHO what you've stated would work better in a new, Fresh-sheet-of-paper type of game.

I could tell you right now, that the concept would be better recieved in such light as a new, non-AHII flight Simmer type of environment. IMHO, the type and number of players in here would dramatically rebel at the thought of having to take orders that might curtail their score, make them do something they would rather not, or simply would'nt let them up at will. Plus, it would have to rely heavily upon the honor of the CO's of each side(What if one country decided, with 100+ players at his disposal, to fly nothing but NOE sneaks?)

The supply and logistics idea, however, has some merit...After all, the Airlift in the CBI was infamous, as was the German attempts to resupply the 6th Army at Stalingrad. This, this might be incorporated into the current AH and recieved with open arms. But too many people are fed up with country-channel generals already. My 0.02 cents.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Max on January 29, 2007, 06:46:54 PM

Quote

Originally posted by Hammy
WOW!!

We still flogging this horse? :eek: :rolleyes:

The original horse was beaten to death weeks ago...the current horse is a hired actor.

Title: Can the MA be fixed???
Post by: RedTop on January 29, 2007, 06:50:37 PM

Is it broke?

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: uptown on January 29, 2007, 07:11:33 PM

War is Hell.....now can we move on?

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: Kazaa on January 30, 2007, 09:08:00 AM

Quote

Originally posted by hitech
Had 954 people online in arenas last night, even with 1 arena and the old 750 cap what do you all want to do with the other 200 people?

HiTech

How many of those where in training, dueling, H2H, Axis Vs Allies etc.

Answer to your question is raise the cap silly :aok

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: scottydawg on January 30, 2007, 10:13:15 AM

RE: fighting

I always felt like the old MA was kind of like one of those scenes in Braveheart or Gladiator where it's just one big pile of berserkers trying to chop each others' heads off, a big noisy brawl.

Sometimes you get that in the LW MA's now but it's a little less overwhelming.

Title: Can the MA be fixed..?
Post by: viper215 on January 30, 2007, 02:10:59 PM

Quote

Originally posted by viper215
Around the fire last night someone said you were only running the 750 cap arena at 25%.....is this true?

Quote

Originally posted by Hitech

Quote

Not sure what you are asking viper215

Quote

Originally posted by  indy007

Quote

I think he means there's a possible software cap of 3000 players per arena.

Yea that was what I was trying to say...I dont know a better way to word it but could the server be boosted a bit so the cap was like 1200? And back up the power or something so it dosent lag? I host cod servers and you can up the power on it so it dosent lag but ill bet its different than the AH servers....yours are more advanced.