Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: OddCAF on January 26, 2008, 01:04:37 AM
-
Whine alert:
I'd like to hear the rationale behind the cap limits which are seemingly entirely arbitrary in nature and do not take into account map size and have thus far succeeded in ruining the squad nights of many a squadron. (They've become almost non-existant anymore.)
As I type this, it's Friday night and there are two maps running. One has 200 people on it, the other 168. The largest has probably close to 150 airfields, strat targets, vehicle hangers, and cities. Each sector has a single pilot in it from all appearances, with the "heaviest" fighting area consisting of 6 friendlies gangbanging a single enemy or two.
As I understand it, the servers are fully capable of handling well over 400 pilots without a hiccup. So why the senseless (in my opinion) operation of two arenas in an attempt at a "balance". Are the servers unionized, and thus entitled to an equal amount of work rule? Does one perhaps not have the stamina to deal with 400 pilots and perhaps get tired?
I'm sure there's a reasonable explanation for why gameplay and enjoyment has to suffer as these arbitrary limits have remained in effect for so long. Perhaps somebody would be so kind as to tell me why.
It would be nice to have a choice of where to fly these days rather than having a line or two of code tell me.
Oddball
-
When my squadron was larger than it is now we had to have 2 wings because we were too large to all be on one squad roster. Squad night USED to be a hoot, all of us flying dooing missions, fighter sweeps, or massed buff runs but now we are only one roster large and can not all fly together in one server at times. It is really frustrating. (the exception being tuesdays) :mad:
-
It's pretty obvious that a large server with hundreds of people is unhealthy for the type of gameplay that we promote.
When unhealthy numbers get together, it's a shame. People should just congregate with their squads of 32 at most (certainly no more).
-
Originally posted by trotter
It's pretty obvious that a large server with hundreds of people is unhealthy for the type of gameplay that we promote.
Gameplay is no more "healthy" with 400 players on a map than with 200. It's a mere illusion.
Actually when numbers getting too small for a big map, the problems start, not when there are to many.
Btw, could anybody explain what "healthy" gameplay really is?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Btw, could anybody explain what "healthy" gameplay really is?
Healthy Gameplay - A term used to describe someone playing to the music from all the Richard simmons videos.
#S#
Banshee7
-
:huh
I suddenly have the urge to play as unhealthy as possible ...
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Btw, could anybody explain what "healthy" gameplay really is?
Raises hand.....I would like to here what this is suppose to mean as well
Pipz
-
Healthy Gameplay...lets see *gets out Dictionary*. My dictionary exploded, must not be such a thing.
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Gameplay is no more "healthy" with 400 players on a map than with 200. It's a mere illusion.
Actually when numbers getting too small for a big map, the problems start, not when there are to many.
Btw, could anybody explain what "healthy" gameplay really is?
(mine, sarcasm)
-
I kinda wish we had the old huge MA. It is a tease on Tuesday then it's gone...:D
-
Being as this leads back to the MA split...I don't think that anyone really came up with a set definition of "Healthy Gameplay." I myself used to think that it was anything you did that let you have fun. However, this entails' the definition of fun now, so we have yet another task at hand...
Perhaps, to make this easy, we should see if someone would like to take a poll of what "Healthy gameplay" is?
-
Originally posted by Lusche
Btw, could anybody explain what "healthy" gameplay really is?
Not sure, but I've let myself to be told that it has something to do with ch200 behavior.
I don't really know though... I never tune to that chan :rolleyes:
-
It's got nothing to do with gameplay or healthy behavior.
What I was hoping to achieve with this post was to get some intelligent input from someone from HTC who might explain the cap, it's disruption of squads and their squad nights as well, and how we as customers benefit from the constant aggravation it continues to cause.
Why not an arena cap of 400 in each rather than the present ridiculous numbers? As well, I'll toss in that if there is a problem with the servers which requires these caps, then perhaps a two country system should be put in place.
Regards, Odd
-
Originally posted by OddCAF
It's got nothing to do with gameplay or healthy behavior.
What I was hoping to achieve with this post was to get some intelligent input from someone from HTC who might explain the cap, it's disruption of squads and their squad nights as well, and how we as customers benefit from the constant aggravation it continues to cause.
Because this complaint seems to inspire a new thread every 10 days or so, and has done that for a very very long time, I imagine you will have to search the older threads to find the answer.
- oldman (Warning: plan to spend a couple of days reading the threads)
-
Originally posted by OddCAF
It's got nothing to do with gameplay or healthy behavior.
What I was hoping to achieve with this post was to get some intelligent input from someone from HTC who might explain the cap, it's disruption of squads and their squad nights as well, and how we as customers benefit from the constant aggravation it continues to cause.
Why not an arena cap of 400 in each rather than the present ridiculous numbers? As well, I'll toss in that if there is a problem with the servers which requires these caps, then perhaps a two country system should be put in place.
Regards, Odd
While not "someone from HTC" I am lucky enough to be able to have the boards running while at work, and spend probably more time than I should reading them. Having said that, this is what I get from all the responses I've read from HTC.
Non healthy game play was the "hordes" that never seemed to bang into each other. 60 or so people attacking one base and vulching the 10 or so people trying to slow the advance of the horde. Frustration resulted and accounts were canceled due to NOT wanting to be part of the horde, or NOT wanting to be on the low end of 6 to 1 all the time. Game play suffered. So we get a split arena.
Split arenas were made to get the numbers back down per arena to make the hordes smaller and and a bit easier to defend against. To some it also had the added effect of cutting squad numbers. Some squads had gotten so big that they had become "hordes" themselves. 32 is the limit HTC put on squads, maybe there is a reason for this.
When they first split the arenas, they all had a cap of 350. A problem came up when one LW arena would reach cap, and the over flow was "forced" to fly in the second LW arena. One arena would be full, and the other would have low numbers.... kinda like how you see the EW arena these days. The complains where loud and many to HTC about not being able to play everyone else. HTC solution was the "dynamic cap" system.
Dynamic cap system is this, both LW arenas are tied together and start with a cap of 200. When the cap of "Blue reaches a certain percentage of "full" the cap raises on "orange". The same works from the orange side. So as the numbers raise in one arena, it creates more room in the other arena there by bring the cap, and populations of each arena more evenly. So instead of having 400 in one arena and 100 in the other, you'll have closer to 250 in each arena. This also work with the populations dropping after "prime time" This is why you see numbers like 310 in an arena with a cap of 250. It just means the numbers have dropped below the "percentage" number in the other arena.
Is this perfect? maybe not, but nothing ever is. Maybe its the best they can do with the limitation of the human condition. Now adays there are more "gamers" than there are "history buffs" playing this game. Do squads suffer? maybe the big ones, but do you really need to have 40 wingman to have fun? HTC has given everyone a number of options of game play in a number of arenas. I'm still having fun :D
-
Originally posted by The Fugitive
While not "someone from HTC" I am lucky enough to be able to have the boards running while at work, and spend probably more time than I should reading them. Having said that, this is what I get from all the responses I've read from HTC.
Non healthy game play was the "hordes" that never seemed to bang into each other. 60 or so people attacking one base and vulching the 10 or so people trying to slow the advance of the horde. Frustration resulted and accounts were canceled due to NOT wanting to be part of the horde, or NOT wanting to be on the low end of 6 to 1 all the time. Game play suffered. So we get a split arena.
Split arenas were made to get the numbers back down per arena to make the hordes smaller and and a bit easier to defend against. To some it also had the added effect of cutting squad numbers. Some squads had gotten so big that they had become "hordes" themselves. 32 is the limit HTC put on squads, maybe there is a reason for this.
When they first split the arenas, they all had a cap of 350. A problem came up when one LW arena would reach cap, and the over flow was "forced" to fly in the second LW arena. One arena would be full, and the other would have low numbers.... kinda like how you see the EW arena these days. The complains where loud and many to HTC about not being able to play everyone else. HTC solution was the "dynamic cap" system.
Dynamic cap system is this, both LW arenas are tied together and start with a cap of 200. When the cap of "Blue reaches a certain percentage of "full" the cap raises on "orange". The same works from the orange side. So as the numbers raise in one arena, it creates more room in the other arena there by bring the cap, and populations of each arena more evenly. So instead of having 400 in one arena and 100 in the other, you'll have closer to 250 in each arena. This also work with the populations dropping after "prime time" This is why you see numbers like 310 in an arena with a cap of 250. It just means the numbers have dropped below the "percentage" number in the other arena.
Is this perfect? maybe not, but nothing ever is. Maybe its the best they can do with the limitation of the human condition. Now adays there are more "gamers" than there are "history buffs" playing this game. Do squads suffer? maybe the big ones, but do you really need to have 40 wingman to have fun? HTC has given everyone a number of options of game play in a number of arenas. I'm still having fun :D
Fugitive, I always like reading your posts'- they always seem very well composed and thought out. Unfortunately, I don't really agree with you on some of these points.
For example, I know Hitech initially had a concern with what is termed "Healthy gameplay". However, In an open MMOG like this, where you are given many options' as to how to play, You gain incentive through loss of control, as it were. You can fly a light fighter for air to air, you can take a heavy jabo to attack ground targets' such as buildings or GV's, you can fly formations' of medium and heavy bombers' against strategic targets' such as factories, cities', or airfields. But with the options' you have, you have fewer controls on gameplay. Someone who likes' to fly bombers, for example, might decide to drop all the hangars' at an airfield where a big furball is taking place. It's something you can do with the game, and the bomber pilot actually get's scored for it. But what about the people that were having fun in the furball? With no hangars', it's over.
How should Hitech fix this? Make hangars' invulnerable? Give negative score to bomber jocks' who bomb hangars?
The Horde complaint has been around forever. However, do most people really know what a horde is, or how it's formed?
I believe a horde is one side of a furball that has showed up to the party early.
A horde is not caused by the people who join a large mission, or a large squad flying together. It's caused by those on the other side who don't wish to up to meet them. For whatever reason, they don't want to risk their score, or bruise they're ego by getting shot down in defense of a field. They look out of the tower, and see a bunch of enemies' coming in higher than they possibly can, so they don't even try to up, they just complain on ch.200. What we call "Milkrunning" of an undefended field is just as much a symptom of defenders' that won't even look at they're map, or can't be bothered to drop what they're doing to go stop the sneak attack, as anything else.
If we wish to fix the gameplay, we need to do it as a community, and we need to do it soon. It's going to take a total effort, because any changes' that Hitech makes, the way I see it, will be in the elimination of gameplay choices' for the community as a whole.
-
Originally posted by FrodeMk3
Fugitive, I always like reading your posts'- they always seem very well composed and thought out. Unfortunately, I don't really agree with you on some of these points.
For example, I know Hitech initially had a concern with what is termed "Healthy gameplay". However, In an open MMOG like this, where you are given many options' as to how to play, You gain incentive through loss of control, as it were. You can fly a light fighter for air to air, you can take a heavy jabo to attack ground targets' such as buildings or GV's, you can fly formations' of medium and heavy bombers' against strategic targets' such as factories, cities', or airfields. But with the options' you have, you have fewer controls on gameplay. Someone who likes' to fly bombers, for example, might decide to drop all the hangars' at an airfield where a big furball is taking place. It's something you can do with the game, and the bomber pilot actually get's scored for it. But what about the people that were having fun in the furball? With no hangars', it's over.
How should Hitech fix this? Make hangars' invulnerable? Give negative score to bomber jocks' who bomb hangars?
The Horde complaint has been around forever. However, do most people really know what a horde is, or how it's formed?
I believe a horde is one side of a furball that has showed up to the party early.
A horde is not caused by the people who join a large mission, or a large squad flying together. It's caused by those on the other side who don't wish to up to meet them. For whatever reason, they don't want to risk their score, or bruise they're ego by getting shot down in defense of a field. They look out of the tower, and see a bunch of enemies' coming in higher than they possibly can, so they don't even try to up, they just complain on ch.200. What we call "Milkrunning" of an undefended field is just as much a symptom of defenders' that won't even look at they're map, or can't be bothered to drop what they're doing to go stop the sneak attack, as anything else.
If we wish to fix the gameplay, we need to do it as a community, and we need to do it soon. It's going to take a total effort, because any changes' that Hitech makes, the way I see it, will be in the elimination of gameplay choices' for the community as a whole.
Thank-you FrodeMK3, I didn't say I agreed with what HTC did/does, I just try to have fun with in parameters HTC gives us.
I agree with you, there are many reasons "why" things are the way they are, and I believe HTC is doing their best to make things as good as they can with out crippling the game play. It really is the community that can make the game better at this point. Sure some moderators who are completely unbiased, but with strong powers to "police" the arenas would be a strong step in the right direction, but it is really up to us, the core of the community, to make the game play fun for all.
For me, if I'm in a buff I'll choose my targets carefully. If there is a vulch fest going on, I wouldn't bother hitting the FH, I'll take out BH, ammo, town, maybe a VH if they are really looking to take the place. Not so much because I prefer hit those targets, but because I might be the one doing the vulching next time :t
You can have fun playing all aspects of this game without really pissing off the other guy. Just takes a little class, a little honor, a little respect.
-
I think the best thing to do is have three airfields near each other, one from each country, that are uncaptureable. Also make their fighter hangers, VH, and field ack, undestructable. That way these airfields will always be a torn in the side of the country that is hording. Plus it would be a great Tanktown and Fightertown.
-
I am not really a supporter of the split arenas being an."old timer" of sorts and thus resistant to change on principal....as many others are apparently.
But I have to say, being the original CO of the C HAWKS in AH after some of us moved here from AirWarrior, and now one of the largest squads if not the largest active membership squad in the game( 3 wings of over 20 active). We don't have much trouble getting into the same arena. Sure on occasion a couple of us get stuck in the other arena cause we stop trying after a couple of minutes but I can get in any arena 19 out of 20 nights in my experience.
I prefer the large single MA...but this regular ccomplaint that I see has really not been a true or regular issue...if you try for a few minutes to get in an arena by continually refreshing the arena selection screen you will be able to get into the arena of your choice. At least I always can.