Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: HawkerMKII on July 25, 2011, 07:36:25 PM
-
Can we please go back to 2 LW arenas. 1 arena get old and stale :salute
-
I can't say I don't like the idea.
-
Since we got back to 1 LW, the fun & fight is back in game. And no one longer each arena dominated by one chesspiece alone. THAT stuff was "stale".
-
Some of us prayed for many years for a single LW to return. :salute
-
Only when numbers are on average more than 600-700 on per night again.
-
Can we please go back to 2 LW arenas. 1 arena get old and stale :salute
You don't need another arena, you need players who want to "play" the game instead of horde and NOE base after base.
-
You don't need another arena, you need players who want to "play" the game instead of horde and NOE base after base.
thank you. a single arena was the best thing to happen to Aces High in a long time
-
Keep 1 LW arena, no cap whines and I like having 1 big arena, more targets :airplane: :joystick: :banana:
-
thank you. a single arena was the best thing to happen to Aces High in a long time
This! :old:
-
You don't need another arena, you need players who want to "play" the game instead of horde and NOE base after base.
So this will never happen, so what is the answer?????
-
Since we got back to 1 LW, the fun & fight is back in game. And no one longer each arena dominated by one chesspiece alone. THAT stuff was "stale".
+1 I would like to see the map rotate slightly more often , but that's for a different thread
:noid
-
+1 I would like to see the map rotate slightly more often , but that's for a different thread
:noid
More often than what?
I think this map has been up for all of three days, since Friday and it's Monday now.
Before Friday maps were lasting between a day and 3 hours it seemed.
So, in the spirit of the OP's wish, would you like maps to change twice a day again?
wrongway
-
Yeah - this is really a map whine. This map bottlenecks action and limits hordability. :noid
-
orange and blue maps should come back, I'm not opposed to 1 arena though
if the maps were large maps.
flak
-
+1 I would like to see the map rotate slightly more often , but that's for a different thread
:noid
orange and blue maps should come back, I'm not opposed to 1 arena though
if the maps were large maps.
Since we went to one area on June 6th, we had 20(!) map changes. On average a map is up for less than 3 days. Large maps had been up 2/3rd of the time. Keep in mind a large map is pretty large, almost too large, for the longest time of the day, so keeping a mix in the rotation is the best solution... unless you want the peak/offhours system back :devil
-
So this will never happen, so what is the answer?????
It could. Personally I'd set it up so that the larger the force that tries to capture a base, the harder it is. 10 enemy players inside the Dar ring it is as it is now. 20 enemy players inside the ring and you need a higher percentage of the town down, and the fighter hangers and vehicle hangers need 50% more to take down.
Make players fight for a base, and give defenders a chance to defend. It still leaves open small groups, that now hit a number of bases creating more fights.
-
It could. Personally I'd set it up so that the larger the force that tries to capture a base, the harder it is. 10 enemy players inside the Dar ring it is as it is now. 20 enemy players inside the ring and you need a higher percentage of the town down, and the fighter hangers and vehicle hangers need 50% more to take down.
Make players fight for a base, and give defenders a chance to defend. It still leaves open small groups, that now hit a number of bases creating more fights.
Just curious, in a base taking effort, what ratio of attackers to defenders do you consider a fair fight?
-
Just curious, in a base taking effort, what ratio of attackers to defenders do you consider a fair fight?
Any in which the attackers don't have a real chance? :D
-
Any in which the attackers don't have a real chance? :D
I think it's a valid question that Fugitive needs to answer. ;)
-
It will be an answer obfuscating reality.
4 guys in La-7's can stop a base take any day of the week. Needs to be 6 of them if there are 20 in the horde.
-
Yeah - this is really a map whine. This map bottlenecks action and limits hordability. :noid
NOE w/ 200 A20s in our future with a new map? :O :airplane: :airplane: :airplane: :airplane:
Thats older than my computer :cry
Just curious, in a base taking effort, what ratio of attackers to defenders do you consider a fair fight?
2:1 defenders to slow the 20 Lancstukas
1:2 to stop 20 real Stukas, but that's unlikely
Ack to stop NOE Typhoons + 1 or 2 defenders in Komets to catch them on the way out.
I saw the pics of A9 :O :aok, I have no ideas how to stop that.
3-4:1 if attackers have fighter escorts.
-
Just curious, in a base taking effort, what ratio of attackers to defenders do you consider a fair fight?
I'd say even up to 2 to 1 in favor of the attackers.
First of, this isn't war and nobody dies so 3 to 1 or more isn't needed to cover the casualties.
Second, its a game. It is supposed to be fun yet challenging. Take away the challenge and why bother playing ?
Third, nobody uses tactics, or skill, of planning any more . When a base capture mission is running, where is the goon or m3? Draw a strait line from the nearest base or spawn point and you will find it along that line.
Today's player are uneducated in HOW to play the game. All they know is brute force with 30 others. They run heir missions hoping that.with 30 guys they have enough bombs to get the job done due to their lack of skill.
What's wrong with having a goon or two come from.a different base than the main attack? What's wrong with having an la7 escort them ? Oh that's right they don't have the know how to make a plan, nor do they have the skill to kill another la.
This game has far.more.elements in it than most people know. They whittled it down to its simplest form. I don't see why HTC adds new things. If they are not the top of the lime most uber thing out they won't use it.
-
Just curious, in a base taking effort, what ratio of attackers to defenders do you consider a fair fight?
Once a battle for a field has been established I think the attackers must have a numerical superiority to succeed w/out destroying the hangars. Any defender that is shot down will be back in the fight much quicker than the attacker because of simple geography, time in transit means that a side who is closer to their own field can make good their loses quicker, so outside a significant skill differential which can move the fight one way or the other on the map, numbers are the most common force multiplier that can tip the scales in a battle of attrition and move the fight over the field and set up a vulch.
-
ever since I started playing aw many years ago, i found one thing to be true. having a fighter with the goon is just so you can have somebody taking pictures of the goon dying.
fugitive we dont come here to play the game, we come here to have fun. that's what the game is all about. it doesnt matter if a base is taken or you defeated a zillion cons 1v1. what matters is if you had fun. only one time since 1996 was an offensive planed 1 week before execution. the az/bz decided to get together and attacked the cz on a sunday afternoon. plans were finalized 1/2 hr before the attack. we had most az squads organized and given a sector, most bases were taken with a minimum of players. after we captured all the cz bases then we attacked the island of hawaii. over 250 airplanes took part in the assault both az and bz. that was a lot of fun that day.
if you really want to have some kind of organized and planned offensive, perhaps you should take some leadership and organize it. talk to some of the squads co, make some plans see how it goes. you cant just sit back there and talk about how things should be done without actually doing it yourself. who knows, maybe the game could change and be played the way you want.
semp
-
ever since I started playing aw many years ago, i found one thing to be true. having a fighter with the goon is just so you can have somebody taking pictures of the goon dying.
fugitive we dont come here to play the game, we come here to have fun. that's what the game is all about. it doesnt matter if a base is taken or you defeated a zillion cons 1v1. what matters is if you had fun. only one time since 1996 was an offensive planed 1 week before execution. the az/bz decided to get together and attacked the cz on a sunday afternoon. plans were finalized 1/2 hr before the attack. we had most az squads organized and given a sector, most bases were taken with a minimum of players. after we captured all the cz bases then we attacked the island of hawaii. over 250 airplanes took part in the assault both az and bz. that was a lot of fun that day.
if you really want to have some kind of organized and planned offensive, perhaps you should take some leadership and organize it. talk to some of the squads co, make some plans see how it goes. you cant just sit back there and talk about how things should be done without actually doing it yourself. who knows, maybe the game could change and be played the way you want.
semp
A lot of fun for who that day Semp? If you are using that AW example to state your case, you just made Fugi's.
-
I feel that 1 arena is justifiable. Having 2 was a headache because of caps in the arena's and people were complaining about that. Its a give take situation. We give HiTech our monthly subscriptions and he gives us a way to relieve stress. I hated to 2 arena because my squad was in one and the danged thing was capped. Plus look at it this way, its only a game and have fun.
-1 on 2 MA been there done that.
LawnDart
-
A lot of fun for who that day Semp? If you are using that AW example to state your case, you just made Fugi's.
see what I mean, give you an example, then you question it. point is no matter what/how gets planned there will always be somebody in the back whining about the details.
-organize a bomber/fighter attack from two different directions. then you are a dweeb because you killed the hangars.
-bring 20 fighters because you dont know how many will up, then you are a hording skilless dweeb.
-kill the ords so the enemy dont bomb you. then you are an idiot who only destroys things that dont shoot back.
-bring only a few fighters with you, then you are a dork for not anticipating how many would up.
instead of just complaining about the lack of skill in the general player population. perhaps you should start organizing missions and teach others how it was done back in the good ol' days. like i said before, who knows, perhaps we could learn a thing or two.
semp
-
Semp I remember that day in AW. Do you remember the 444th Air Mafia? That was us.
Here's an example for todays game....
Launch a buff group and a single fighter. The figter goes to the target base and drops radar. Have the buff launch 2 sectors back from the target. Have it drop and take out as much of the town as possible. Continue on to the next base.
15 minutes later launch another set of buffs and do the same thing.
5 minutes later launch ground attack ( 3 or 4 panzers a wirble and a couple of M3s) or air attack (fast fighters and a couple goons).
What do you think would happen? First buff set "may" draw notice but soon it would be "just another town center hitter". Second buff may do the same, but now the town is white flag. If the buff makes a wide turn base is flashing, but everyone still thinks its the "town guys". GVs could slip in with ease, drop the ack and capture the town. Aircraft will cause dots so make it tougher. Might be fun to run, Right?
While you say that "having fun" is what your playing for, if your honest, the game is about defending or taking bases. You have FUN while doing that, other wise you might as well sit in a chat room and just tell stories and telling jokes. As you say, having fun is your game, how much fun is it just rolling over base after base?
You want to put 20 TBMs together and try to take a base? OK I can see that as fun, but not if you hide under dar to do it. The fun is the challenge. If it wasn't how come ya'll aren't flying in EW and flying together take base after base?
-
Semp I remember that day in AW. Do you remember the 444th Air Mafia? That was us.
Here's an example for todays game....
Launch a buff group and a single fighter. The figter goes to the target base and drops radar. Have the buff launch 2 sectors back from the target. Have it drop and take out as much of the town as possible. Continue on to the next base.
15 minutes later launch another set of buffs and do the same thing.
5 minutes later launch ground attack ( 3 or 4 panzers a wirble and a couple of M3s) or air attack (fast fighters and a couple goons).
What do you think would happen? First buff set "may" draw notice but soon it would be "just another town center hitter". Second buff may do the same, but now the town is white flag. If the buff makes a wide turn base is flashing, but everyone still thinks its the "town guys". GVs could slip in with ease, drop the ack and capture the town. Aircraft will cause dots so make it tougher. Might be fun to run, Right?
While you say that "having fun" is what your playing for, if your honest, the game is about defending or taking bases. You have FUN while doing that, other wise you might as well sit in a chat room and just tell stories and telling jokes. As you say, having fun is your game, how much fun is it just rolling over base after base?
You want to put 20 TBMs together and try to take a base? OK I can see that as fun, but not if you hide under dar to do it. The fun is the challenge. If it wasn't how come ya'll aren't flying in EW and flying together take base after base?
No offense, but your description of a base capture sounds a lot like avoiding combat. Capture through subterfuge and sneakiness. Is that really any better/different then avoiding combat by downing hangars and bringing overwhelming numbers?
-
No offense, but your description of a base capture sounds a lot like avoiding combat. Capture through subterfuge and sneakiness.
ahhh but I'm not hiding. I'm right out there. I'm just using tactics to get the job done with the least number of people. If I had more I'd run a different plan, something a bit more head to head. The point is you don't HAVE to run NOE, you don't HAVE to have 30 guys. There are ways around it. And on top of that picture this, instead of having one big horde hitting a single base you could have 4 or 5 fights going on at the same time up and down one or BOTH fronts creating more places to "have fun".
-
:huh You're not 'hiding' in the conventional sense, but everything you've described about that mission talks about how it deflects attention away and minimizes the possibility of detection or attack. Everything about your description states how they won't notice the attack for these reasons.
At least it's a way of avoiding combat that takes a little creativity, I'll grant you that.
Wiley.
-
ahhh but I'm not hiding. I'm right out there. I'm just using tactics to get the job done with the least number of people. If I had more I'd run a different plan, something a bit more head to head. The point is you don't HAVE to run NOE, you don't HAVE to have 30 guys. There are ways around it. And on top of that picture this, instead of having one big horde hitting a single base you could have 4 or 5 fights going on at the same time up and down one or BOTH fronts creating more places to "have fun".
How 4 or 5 sneaks, which by definition are only going to be successful if the other side doesn't notice, are less an avoidance of actual fighting then 1 big overwhelming attack, I just don't see. I don't see that either approach encourages any fighting at all.
-
a complaint already :O
2 weeks :bolt:
:noid
-
How 4 or 5 sneaks, which by definition are only going to be successful if the other side doesn't notice, are less an avoidance of actual fighting then 1 big overwhelming attack, I just don't see. I don't see that either approach encourages any fighting at all.
I'm using tactics, where as your comparing them to endless NOE horde attacks.
A mission with tactics can be defeated with better tactics. Miss-direction isn't avoiding a fight, its out plating the other players. Horde NOE doesn't take any skill, or thought, and in most case unbeatable. Creating many little fights than you could lose creates more challenge, more fun. Where as a horde NOE creates a large group of unskilled players rolling base after base until even THEY get bore.
The point here is there are no tactics, there are no players trying to put "game" back into the game. So we get people subscribing, unsubscribing, taking breaks, announcing their returns so on and so on, all because they are bored out of their trees by either hording base after base, or trying to stop a horde.
Maybe it's time people try to learn how to play the game and see ALL that it really offers, instead of the same old thing.
-
see what I mean, give you an example, then you question it. point is no matter what/how gets planned there will always be somebody in the back whining about the details.
-organize a bomber/fighter attack from two different directions. then you are a dweeb because you killed the hangars.
-bring 20 fighters because you dont know how many will up, then you are a hording skilless dweeb.
-kill the ords so the enemy dont bomb you. then you are an idiot who only destroys things that dont shoot back.
-bring only a few fighters with you, then you are a dork for not anticipating how many would up.
instead of just complaining about the lack of skill in the general player population. perhaps you should start organizing missions and teach others how it was done back in the good ol' days. like i said before, who knows, perhaps we could learn a thing or two.
semp
LOL, in those days we did the same as these days. We flew for the least number side. You were describing a mission that involved 2 countries attacking one with overwhelming numbers. Apparently that was 'fun' for you. I'd rather watch grass grow. And yes my thought process has been the same since AW3 went to an all out win the war base capture system. I much preferred limited base capture cause it promised fights in specific areas of the map and it was then take and hold, not take and take and take and take and take and take.....you get the idea.
All the numbers in the world could only take you so far and then you had to resort to defending and holding no matter how many you had. Those who could, fought, and those who couldn't, went down to the VoD and vulched to get their attaboys.
-
LOL, in those days we did the same as these days. We flew for the least number side. You were describing a mission that involved 2 countries attacking one with overwhelming numbers. Apparently that was 'fun' for you. I'd rather watch grass grow. And yes my thought process has been the same since AW3 went to an all out win the war base capture system. I much preferred limited base capture cause it promised fights in specific areas of the map and it was then take and hold, not take and take and take and take and take and take.....you get the idea.
All the numbers in the world could only take you so far and then you had to resort to defending and holding no matter how many you had. Those who could, fought, and those who couldn't, went down to the VoD and vulched to get their attaboys.
what exactly is limited base capture?
semp
semp
-
what exactly is limited base capture?
semp
semp
when I found airwarrior in 96 the map was set up where there were three bases that could be taken on the edge of each country. To take one was the only way to get a foothold on another country. So you'd have this battle in the center of the map between the three countries that went back and forth and took some effort and coordination to take over those bases, If you did it right it called for a good defense and opened the door to hit the other airfields nearby. At the same time the bad guys had a motivation to get you off their turf.
So there was a real effort to get that foothold and hang on to it as you knew the battle was coming to you once you got control. In the meantime there were bases set up that promoted combat between those bases. C83-B83 was a constant back and forth. c84-A84 A83-B84 all had ongoing fights between them. They all were close enough to the capturable N bases that they could support that fight too.
And there was a spot called the Valley of Dweebs where there was an ongoing back and forth vulchfest between two fields
Then the game expanded to include base taking to the extreme and the 'win the war' crowd was born
-
when I found airwarrior in 96 the map was set up where there were three bases that could be taken on the edge of each country. To take one was the only way to get a foothold on another country. So you'd have this battle in the center of the map between the three countries that went back and forth and took some effort and coordination to take over those bases, If you did it right it called for a good defense and opened the door to hit the other airfields nearby. At the same time the bad guys had a motivation to get you off their turf.
So there was a real effort to get that foothold and hang on to it as you knew the battle was coming to you once you got control. In the meantime there were bases set up that promoted combat between those bases. C83-B83 was a constant back and forth. c84-A84 A83-B84 all had ongoing fights between them. They all were close enough to the capturable N bases that they could support that fight too.
And there was a spot called the Valley of Dweebs where there was an ongoing back and forth vulchfest between two fields
Then the game expanded to include base taking to the extreme and the 'win the war' crowd was born
Even when the win the war crowd was born it wasn't bad because the players STILL had that "battle it out" mentality. Map watchers were born and some guys were very good at spotting where an attack was coming from. Sweep fighters were sent out to look for the odd mission doing an "end around" type thing sneaking in from an odd side and so on. Even when they switched to the bigger maps you could almost "know" where the fights were going to be before you logged on. Fronts didn't move all that much as everyone FOUGHT for the bases, not rolled them.
-
if hi-tech makes it harder to take bases im out of this game !! :furious
make towns white flaged at 50% :aok
flakhapy
-
if hi-tech makes it harder to take bases im out of this game !! :furious
make towns white flaged at 50% :aok
flakhapy
...and why is that? Is it that hard to hit a town that doesn't move? Is it that hard to have a half dozen guys who can shoot down more than the odd 1 or 2 they get now in a HO cap the area? Is it that hard to organize both a ground and an air assault? You personally have almost 10 base captures, and that isn't even 4% of your squads total. It doesn't look like it's too challenging to you guys. How much fun is it to roll base after base? Is there any "thrill" left when you capture one now or is it the first thing you think of after you capture a base"where to next?".
When I have a great fight whether in a plane, gv, or grabbing a base my first thoughts are "Holy crap!!! That was close!!" "OMG !!! did you see how he flipped that plane!!", "WOW! I got that guy just as the last troop got in !!!".
If you can throw a ringer every time why play horseshoes? Do you think anyone is going to want to play against you? Aces is turning into the same thing. Hordes roll base after base, why because you really can't stop a horde the way the game is set up. The game is setup for offense. Nobody wants to sit around and fly caps and fighter sweeps to spot attacks early and give enough of a warning that you can scramble a 20 man defense to intercept. I wouldn't mind something coaded in to help out against hordes.
-
when I found airwarrior in 96 the map was set up where there were three bases that could be taken on the edge of each country. To take one was the only way to get a foothold on another country. So you'd have this battle in the center of the map between the three countries that went back and forth and took some effort and coordination to take over those bases, If you did it right it called for a good defense and opened the door to hit the other airfields nearby. At the same time the bad guys had a motivation to get you off their turf.
So there was a real effort to get that foothold and hang on to it as you knew the battle was coming to you once you got control. In the meantime there were bases set up that promoted combat between those bases. C83-B83 was a constant back and forth. c84-A84 A83-B84 all had ongoing fights between them. They all were close enough to the capturable N bases that they could support that fight too.
And there was a spot called the Valley of Dweebs where there was an ongoing back and forth vulchfest between two fields
Then the game expanded to include base taking to the extreme and the 'win the war' crowd was born
Sounds to me like the way it was set up is the reason it was fun, not because the humans playing were any different than the humans that play now.
I actually have an incredibly promising strategic addition that would promote sustainable, meaningful combat in a way this game has never seen. It will be hard for me to muster up motivation for a proposal though since I am usually ignored. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort at this time.
-
we had about 7 or 8 of us taking a base last night, we had the white flag in town, but a single la killed our first goon. we killed several uppers who hid in the ack, then we killed the ack and the uppers, but several guys ran out of ammo and had to rtb. next thing you know we have 20 guys upping to face about 3 or 4 attackers and our goons were not near the base. so we gave up and ended up furballing, that was just as fun.
fugitive wish I could join some of your missions. i bet they would be pretty cool and very well planned with just a few attackers.
you know what you remind me of, and wish you would post a cartoon about it. I am 46, but back when i was 7 or 8, I would listen to my uncles talk about how in the old days everything was so much better. how the people had no idea how to do things the right way anymore, or how to plan and enjoy. how they only lived for the day without planning for the future. I think it's funny :salute :bolt:.
semp
-
Sounds to me like the way it was set up is the reason it was fun, not because the humans playing were any different than the humans that play now.
I actually have an incredibly promising strategic addition that would promote sustainable, meaningful combat in a way this game has never seen. It will be hard for me to muster up motivation for a proposal though since I am usually ignored. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort at this time.
oh I think the players are much different today than they were "back then". The end game is totally different. Today it's capture the base and win the war NO MATTER HOW! As an experiment I'd like to see HTC give out nukes for the B29. The only way to get them would be for your squad to maintain, in the fighter catagory better than a 2 k/d, a 1 k/s, and a 5 k/h. This would give them 5 nukes for next month. Can you image the dilemma those squads would have? To get the nukes that would help them capture more bases faster and win the war sooner they would have to be pretty good fighter pilots and fight! :rofl
I'd like to hear your ideas Grizz. Everyone ignore mine as well, but it's fun to bounce ideas around, and who knows who might see them and give them a twist and use them :noid
-
2 country war :bhead :furious :bolt:
-
I'd like to hear your ideas Grizz. Everyone ignore mine as well, but it's fun to bounce ideas around, and who knows who might see them and give them a twist and use them :noid
Well since you want to hear it, this gives me a little added motivation. :D
-
With the new 16 player H2H arena's I say no to, 2LMA's.
-
Well since you want to hear it, this gives me a little added motivation. :D
I'll give you my opinion. :devil
Looking forward to what you have.
wrongway
-
I'll give you my opinion. :devil
Looking forward to what you have.
wrongway
I sense Minus One's in my future.
-
Sounds to me like the way it was set up is the reason it was fun, not because the humans playing were any different than the humans that play now.
I actually have an incredibly promising strategic addition that would promote sustainable, meaningful combat in a way this game has never seen. It will be hard for me to muster up motivation for a proposal though since I am usually ignored. Doesn't seem to be worth the effort at this time.
I believe that set up kept the focus on combat, not conquest. It's flip flopped now where the focus is conquest with minimal combat if possible. It made it worthwhile to get involved in the defense of those limited base captures as it protected your foothold on the other guys turf so you could get to the combat part faster. Of course they wanted you out of their front yard so it was a constant back and forth. Once the base taking expanded, avoiding a fight in the name of speed and 'winning the war' took over.
-
Ok soooooooooooo what does 90% of what you all posted here have to do with 2 LW arenas. What would be so wrong having 2, if I dislike a map or bored with a map I could go to another arena, just have NO arena caps :salute
-
Ok soooooooooooo what does 90% of what you all posted here have to do with 2 LW arenas. What would be so wrong having 2, if I dislike a map or bored with a map I could go to another arena, just have NO arena caps :salute
With that logic wouldn't 8 maps be better than 2?
Point is, the player base has thinned out over the past year to the point that people aren't having fun with 2 maps at most times during the day because there simply aren't enough players.
-
make a town white flaged at 50 % ?
game would'nt be boring after that.
flak :bolt:
-
I'm torn on this one. I am a firm believer in having at least one late war map that is large enough to allow a front line that is more than 2 bases wide.
-
With that logic wouldn't 8 maps be better than 2?
Point is, the player base has thinned out over the past year to the point that people aren't having fun with 2 maps at most times during the day because there simply aren't enough players.
and 300 to 500 players on a small ap is a real joy also......not
-
and 300 to 500 players on a small ap is a real joy also......not
So is 80-100 on a large map. So the current situation is a good compromise, as we have small & large maps in the rotation, so neither daytime nor night players are getting the downside constantly.
And since the the single LW format went online, we are playing on a large map about 2/3rd of the time.
-
So is 80-100 on a large map. So the current situation is a good compromise, as we have small & large maps in the rotation, so neither daytime nor night players are getting the downside constantly.
And since the the single LW format went online, we are playing on a large map about 2/3rd of the time.
and bored to tears 75% of the time. Whats going to happen when all the kiddies go back to school.....players will fall off so what then,,,,,,WW1 arena only?
-
and bored to tears 75% of the time.
Now large maps are bad too?
-
Doesn't anyone remember the constant complaints when we had 2 main arenas. :rolleyes:
I guess you just can't win :confused:
-
HTC could be providing people with a case of good scotch and an open-minded blonde coed to deliver it with your subscription and people would still find something to complain about with that.
A different dozen or so people complain either way, but honestly I'm not even sure the majority actually cares much either way. You see what, maybe a half dozen people in an evening grumbling about the setup? Out of the 300 and change on at a time?
Wiley.
-
HTC could be providing people with a case of good scotch and an open-minded blonde coed to deliver it with your subscription and people would still find something to complain about with that.
A different dozen or so people complain either way, but honestly I'm not even sure the majority actually cares much either way. You see what, maybe a half dozen people in an evening grumbling about the setup? Out of the 300 and change on at a time?
Wiley.
That makes sense. Too much sense :noid
Making sense here is a violation of bbs policy I'm pretty sure :bolt:
-
You don't need another arena, you need players who want to "play" the game instead of horde and NOE base after base.
:lol Not so long ago you were defending the split arenas. It's even funnier since I told a certain someone that if a single arena was proposed there would be a mass rollover. I wonder how many more are out there. I dont see the support for the split these days.
Been a while since Ive played, who can tell me what's the average number of players you see during peak hours these days? What are the highest numbers you see?
-
Ok soooooooooooo what does 90% of what you all posted here have to do with 2 LW arenas. What would be so wrong having 2, if I dislike a map or bored with a map I could go to another arena, just have NO arena caps :salute
What kind of game would it be if every time one country or another was at a disadvantage tactically they could all just leave the map for a better position? And what if you were the country with the advantage and the entire enemy force logged off for the other arena?
-
Some of us prayed for many years for a single LW to return.
Yes we did. Please just one big fun arena. Always something to do! Can nearly always find planes and vehicles to engage. :old:
Only advantage I see to having fewer planes in an arena is doing milk runs...which I tend not to do.
-
Since we got back to 1 LW, the fun & fight is back in game. And no one longer each arena dominated by one chesspiece alone. THAT stuff was "stale".
+1.
no longer have one MA to gather in. :ahand
-
Ok soooooooooooo what does 90% of what you all posted here have to do with 2 LW arenas. What would be so wrong having 2, if I dislike a map or bored with a map I could go to another arena, just have NO arena caps :salute
Hawker if you dislike a map you should try winning it.
-
Hawker if you dislike a map you should try winning it.
We do unlike the rooks/nits who cant win on their own. So again, whats the big deal about having 2 LW arenas?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
-
We do unlike the rooks/nits who cant win on their own. So again, whats the big deal about having 2 LW arenas?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
You are also against caps though aren't you? So basically what you want is two uncapped populated arenas.
-
We do unlike the rooks/nits who cant win on their own. So again, whats the big deal about having 2 LW arenas?
LMAO if you actually think there is a difference between Rooks, Knights and Bishops.
Well, historically the Bishops had the worst K/D ratio of the lot, so HTC took that stat away from us.
-
:lol Not so long ago you were defending the split arenas. It's even funnier since I told a certain someone that if a single arena was proposed there would be a mass rollover. I wonder how many more are out there. I dont see the support for the split these days.
Been a while since Ive played, who can tell me what's the average number of players you see during peak hours these days? What are the highest numbers you see?
Yes, because at the time split arenas are what was needed. As the numbers dropped it was wasn't possible to support a good number of players in two arenas any more so yes I support a single arena now. Again, when the numbers climb back up I will support a split arena agian.
The whole point is GOOD GAME PLAY. If there are only 20 people on a side your not going to have good game play, the same goes for 200 per side. The whole idea here is for people to PLAY the game, NOT to find loop holes, and ways around good game play.
If good game play isn't important, then give them the the nukes and let them roll the maps faster. At least that way when they finally get bored they will leave and we can get back to our regularly scheduled game
-
Yes, because at the time split arenas are what was needed. As the numbers dropped it was wasn't possible to support a good number of players in two arenas any more so yes I support a single arena now. Again, when the numbers climb back up I will support a split arena agian.
The whole point is GOOD GAME PLAY. If there are only 20 people on a side your not going to have good game play, the same goes for 200 per side. The whole idea here is for people to PLAY the game, NOT to find loop holes, and ways around good game play.
If good game play isn't important, then give them the the nukes and let them roll the maps faster. At least that way when they finally get bored they will leave and we can get back to our regularly scheduled game
Gameplay? You seem to have forgotten your facts in such a short time. It was about the cesspool. Gameplay was sacrificed, supposedly to clean up the toxic environment. Even many of the split supporters conceded that.
In case you cant remember, there werent enough players to support 2 arenas 90% of the time during the split. Try real hard and you might recall the 100-200 caps that lasted almost all day until the peak hours.
Admit it, you are just playing Simon Says with HT.
-
Gameplay? You seem to have forgotten your facts in such a short time. It was about the cesspool. Gameplay was sacrificed, supposedly to clean up the toxic environment. Even many of the split supporters conceded that.
In case you cant remember, there werent enough players to support 2 arenas 90% of the time during the split. Try real hard and you might recall the 100-200 caps that lasted almost all day until the peak hours.
Admit it, you are just playing Simon Says with HT.
I'd love you to find some quotes that will back that up ! LOL!!
"cesspool", is of course another name for poor game play. Huge hordes, lack of fights, players going out of their ways to avoid a fights. That is what caused the split arenas to curb that type of play some what. It never cleared it out, but it did help and gave players more avenues to look for their type of game play.
There were plenty of players to support two arenas, and even the Euro crowd was ok at the first, but as numbers dropped they were the first effected. Eventually HTC switched to the multiple arenas to give the Euro guys some relief, while the "prime time US" players continued to have good numbers to support 2 arenas. Again the number drop finally caught up with them and HTC switched to a single LW arena.
And yes I have supported HTC decisions in EACH of the changes (though I thought they were a bit slow to react each time). All of these changes, while helping, I don't think address the real problem and that is the poor play of the player base we have today, as well as over the last few years. Too many "gamers" have joined in and not enough "simmers". So in stead of people looking to "reenact" the battle of yesteryear, you have players looking to cut corners and do the easiest, quickest thing to get to their end game. Their "end game" is more often than not the capture of a base, the capture of as many bases in a certain time limit, or the winning of the war that day/night.
It is very rare that you see missions that are well planned out and/or executed, and that is because there is no "history" in the game with todays players, it's all about rolling the next base.
-
I'd love you to find some quotes that will back that up ! LOL!!
Back up what specifically?
"cesspool", is of course another name for poor game play. Huge hordes, lack of fights, players going out of their ways to avoid a fights. That is what caused the split arenas to curb that type of play some what. It never cleared it out, but it did help and gave players more avenues to look for their type of game play.
Since ht would never say what exactly an unhealthy arena was, I couldnt in all fairness say you are wrong about that. But since hording and base sneaking NEVER stopped, then split arenas and caps were a complete failure and there is no use in ever going back to them.
And as for lack of fights, the split and caps were the biggest cause of this in the history of the game.
There were plenty of players to support two arenas, and even the Euro crowd was ok at the first, but as numbers dropped they were the first effected.
BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
Are you going to sit there and tell me that arenas locked at 100 to 200 people was enough people? 2 at 200 was more fun than a single 400? Because that's what it was for the majority of the day until they tried to fix a useless system by changing to a single arena for off peak.
Do you remember what that did for player numbers? Yea that's right, it gave us at LEAST another whole hour of low numbers. When the single closed and split, it was at least a half hour if not more before those arenas were re-populated. then when it went back to a single at night, half of the 200 or so that were still on didnt log in after reset. Altogether I think it was more like 2+ hours of avoidable low numbers as a direct result of the arena changes.
If 200 players is enough, why is it you are supporting the current single arena? There must be an average of 500+ players during peak. That must be one heck of a cesspool.