Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheRapier on July 23, 2012, 08:01:31 PM
-
Or perhaps I should subtitle that "or have a way of scaling them to match the number of players online".
I'd like to humbly suggest that the time of the big dumb (by this I mean non programmable to scaling) massive maps is OVER. I've been on several times on weekends where its been impossible to find fights or even opposing players for hours at a time. And this isn't at 4 am, its at 2-3 pm PDT when theoretically there should be sufficient numbers to find a fight. The problem is that the maps are so HUGE that even 200 or less players are like grains of sand on a basketball court. There may be a lot there but they are so spread out they can't find each other. Nothing kills a game faster than having no one to play with. Given the comments on country, I'd say this was a problem.
I'm not talking about bringing back the rotating big map/little map system. That worked but kinda well sucked, although I think it would be better than the present situation.
The ideal system would collapse and expand playable area depending on number of players. The computation would be that each field supports X players (my uneducated guess is 1 field per 5 players per country). I believe this was floated before and the answer was that the way maps are created makes this difficult.
Obviously if the maps were numbered from the center, this would be easier. You could make fields active from #0 to #X as long as 1/3 was Rooks, 1/3 Bish, 1/3 Knights. I would recommend that all new maps be constructed this way. However since the number of fields is higgly piggly on most maps, another method is needed.
We CAN assume that contiguous numbers tend to be close together in proximity. That is number 1-10 or 220-230 tend to be somewhat close together. Obviously this won't always be true but it should get us close enough to make it work. The code needs to find a continguous set of numbers where the distribution is 1/3 Rooks, 1/3 Bish, 1/3 Knight.
So the hypothetical computation is:
1. Between 100 and 150 players have been on for X minutes. To make the math easy, lets assume that the distribution is 1/3 Rooks, 1/3 Bish, 1/3 Knight. Based on the high end of 50 players per country, we need to have 10 fields for each country.
2. The code looks through field number until it can find a contiguous run of field numbers where there are 10 Rook bases, 10 Bish bases, 10 Knight bases. All other bases are marked inactive. If more players come in for X minutes, additional bases are added per the preset value.
3. When players take a base, one base is added to the side that lost one from a number closest to the contiguous set.
It won't work perfectly but it will address the current horrible situation. In some cases one or more bases may be off by themselves but since they won't be close to anything that can be attacked so nothing will be lost. It WILL concentrate the available players into a space where they can find each other. The code will have to accomodate for times when it can't reach a perfect 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 distribution by adding a country field with the number closest to the contiguous run. You could also make the number of fields 20% higher than calculated to cover these issues.
There is of course the option to do nothing, but I'll argue that making it so that people can actually PLAY ALL THE TIME is more valuable than a new plane that keeps them entertained for a weekend. If they are playing they are happy, if they can't play they get frustrated and ultimately leave. This set up will make the play experience more consistent over time and ultimately retain customers.
The kangaroo court is now in session . . .
-
Slight problem, not everyone is looking for a fight - some rather swarm a base or simply not attack.
Believe me I love having a furball at 2-3pm its my down time in the afternoon, however after looking at the map its usually one sided and few players only vs the entire #s.
-
I get what you're saying Butcher and I've seen it. I think the numbers can be made large enough to make a sweet spot.
Unless you are saying that it's in the game's best interest to make HordeWarrior the only supported game play? :) Cause the other way, leaves the guys who are looking for a battle out.
-
But if you get rid of those huge maps, when it gets well over 400 players whats going to happen? sure it sucks when its down to 100 players total, but those big maps do spread some of the combat out.
What really sucks is to see 400 sheep crammed into a map that only fits 200, some of the fights get overwhelmingly large, but it happens.
What I do is if I don't see a fight brewing I up from a base with ample fuel and go fly over to enemy field and ring the dar, sometimes someone answers :D
-
Well the Trinity map is an awful lay out and it stifles fights no matter the numbers. I'm not articulate enough to properly express my distain for that map. On the other hand FesterMA may be the best MA map ever created due it's design. So I don't think it's the size so much as how the map is laid out.
Does anyone have a pic of the old AKdesert map? (pizza)
-
Maybe the solution is to have it like we did before with 2 arenas....One with a small map and one with a large map. This time though, only ever have one map up at a time. At a certain time of night, when the numbers get light, it will close the big arena, pausing the fight. At the same time, it will open the smaller arena, resuming the fight from the previous day. Also, when that switch does happen, reset the country switch timer. That way someone can switch to where the fights are, and since the entire map changes, the whole "DERRRR HES A SPYY" crybaby argument is invalid.
-
duplicate post. :bhead
-
I think it is more a question of map design than map size. The problem is more the number of available (i.e within 25 miles or with a SP) fields at the front line than the total number of fields. When you have front lines a dozen fields wide it scatters the players too much. When it is just 1 or 2 fields wide you get stagnation as in Trinity's start position. I reckon 4 to 6 available fields is the best compromise.
There is no reason a large map couldn't be designed with a front line 4 to 6 fields across. A ribbon of fields that width could snake across the terrain with big gaps between those ribbons.
Trinity could be improved by simply halving the terrain height (5 minute job involving changing a number in a text file). That would drop the border mountains from 15K+ to half that and would open up the front lines far more.
-
Well the Trinity map is an awful lay out and it stifles fights no matter the numbers. I'm not articulate enough to properly express my distain for that map. On the other hand FesterMA may be the best MA map ever created due it's design. So I don't think it's the size so much as how the map is laid out.
Does anyone have a pic of the old AKdesert map? (pizza)
Oh how I miss that map :D
-
No, I my self like big map's.
-
I routinely fly spit XIV to both enemy HQ in a single sortie if a 163 doesn't come up at the first one I go to.
-
Well the Trinity map is an awful lay out and it stifles fights no matter the numbers. I'm not articulate enough to properly express my distain for that map. On the other hand FesterMA may be the best MA map ever created due it's design. So I don't think it's the size so much as how the map is laid out.
Does anyone have a pic of the old AKdesert map? (pizza)
Trinity is the only real problem map as far as large maps go.
Though with a couple minor alterations it could be improved significantly.
For example. adding a few islands with bases inbetween. would open things dramatically.
-
The issue is the people playing not the map.
-
The issue is the people playing not the map.
You can't "fix" people ;)
-
Well the Trinity map is an awful lay out and it stifles fights no matter the numbers. I'm not articulate enough to properly express my distain for that map. On the other hand FesterMA may be the best MA map ever created due it's design. So I don't think it's the size so much as how the map is laid out.
Does anyone have a pic of the old AKdesert map? (pizza)
Trinity can be easily improved by randomly assigning bases to chess pieces. :aok
-
You can't "fix" people ;)
No, but you can guide people using game mechanics. Make it harder for a large group to capture a base, but easier if you have a small group. Make the strats worth something in the battle to win the war.
By using game mechanics you can spread the fights out over a wider area, with smaller groups.
-
No, but you can guide people using game mechanics.
That was actually my point :)
-
:noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid :noid
-
Trinity can be easily improved by randomly assigning bases to chess pieces. :aok
Thats we todd did.
-
I'm sorry, I'm trying to understand.
Big maps are good BECAUSE they spread out the action to the point of non-being? If game play is based on the interaction between human players, it would be anti intuitive to attempt to reduce those interactions.
The only way that makes sense is if the object of the game is to make an infinite number of undefended fields that can be rolled by smaller groups. If that is the case, you don't need a multiplayer arena at all. You could do that offline. Unless the whole point is to only allow a token defense?
If that is the case, I think we have much bigger problems :).
-
Big maps are good because they allow all kinds of types of action. If players decide their type of "action" is to have one huge horde fly against another huge horde, then they'll concentrate the numbers in certain places. If, on the other hand, players decide their type of "action" is to spread out all over the map into smaller groups, in an effort to avoid fights, then that's what they'll do.
Forcing everyone onto a smaller map, just because you might think bigger swarms is more fun, potentially ruins what others think is fun. As was already said, it's not the maps, it's how players use them.
-
Big maps are good because they allow all kinds of types of action. If players decide their type of "action" is to have one huge horde fly against another huge horde, then they'll concentrate the numbers in certain places. If, on the other hand, players decide their type of "action" is to spread out all over the map into smaller groups, in an effort to avoid fights, then that's what they'll do.
Forcing everyone onto a smaller map, just because you might think bigger swarms is more fun, potentially ruins what others think is fun. As was already said, it's not the maps, it's how players use them.
I like big maps; well put. :aok
MH
-
I'm not for or against the OP (yet), I just want to make a more general remark:
The personal experience of MA gameplay can very much differ depending on the time you are on. While a pure prime time US player doesn't see a problem and may go "WTF? They want to cram us oll into a small map now",
an offpeak player (and I'm thinking especially of our JAP and AUS/NZ friends) is facing an arena where he can chase single dot across the sector just because the action is so much spread out. In the end, it's all about population density.
To illustrate this, here is a typical distribution of player activity (simply measured in kills) over time.
(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7367/clipboard01uy.jpg)
(Time is given in CEST, EDT would be -6 hours)
As was already said, it's not the maps, it's how players use them.
But players are what they are. And as said before if game mechanics and player behaviour do not match well anymore (still speaking in general terms!), it would be a reason to think about adjustments to game mechanics. More than 10 years ago ENY limit was introduced due to the problem of almost everybody flying the F4U-C only. Players had been "the problem" even back them, and game mechanics were adjusted
-
Hey Lusche!
That is a great graph! To make sure I understand it, its a 24 hour clock so that say 4 = 4 am on a 12 hour clock. So 4 would equal 8 pm PDT?
If that is the case, it pretty graphically (no pun intended :)) shows exactly the problem. The difference between the peak and the bottom is greater than 700%. This means that the difference in gameplay between peak and base is night and day. My observation is that there are significant issues at hour 22, which looks great compared to 7-18.
The idea here is not to totally eliminate huge maps though I would argue they are only marginal even at peak hours. They are hopeless in hours 7-18 and in essence are the same as solo play or very near it. The idea is to make the maps elastic and able to adjust to player volume. I think this ensures a much more even player experience, but I would be open to other ideas that accomplish the same thing.
I think its pretty easy to hit a sweet spot that works much better for a majority of players, without cramming everyone into a virtual closet or letting them wander a wasteland.
-
Easy fix. Just adjust things so that only fighters are available in the wee hours. No troops. :devil
-
That is a great graph! To make sure I understand it, its a 24 hour clock so that say 4 = 4 am on a 12 hour clock. So 4 would equal 8 pm PDT?.
yes, that's a 24 hour period. 4 o'clock CEDT on the chart = 10 PM EDT (should be 7 PM PDT, if I calculated correctly)
This means that the difference in gameplay between peak and base is night and day.
Literally :D
-
No, but you can guide people using game mechanics. Make it harder for a large group to capture a base, but easier if you have a small group. Make the strats worth something in the battle to win the war.
By using game mechanics you can spread the fights out over a wider area, with smaller groups.
The strats are worth little at the moment, as we know. :) That is why I suggested making them part of the win the war requirements in other threads (even asked HiTech, which of course I didn't get a response on :noid).
Reduce the industrial capacity of the enemy nations to below 20% (Industrial Center AND Factories) and have 20% capture to win the war. A heavy handed approach to this is to have it set to where the industrial capacity stays below 20% for one hour, a light handed approach is to just knock everything down to 20%. For gameplay, just getting everything down to 20% is a more feasible option. :aok
-
Hey Volron!
Not really understanding your post and how it relates?
It did occur to me that actually to make this idea work, its not necessary that all the fields be grouped together. You just need fields from opposing sides together. That might make the code simpler by just looking adjacent numbered fields being held by more than one country . . .
-
Hey Volron!
Not really understanding your post and how it relates?
It did occur to me that actually to make this idea work, its not necessary that all the fields be grouped together. You just need fields from opposing sides together. That might make the code simpler by just looking adjacent numbered fields being held by more than one country . . .
Personally I would think it would be a nightmare to code bases to turn off and on. All bases are part of the map, as well as all objects on the base. To turn off or on a plane I think takes an arena reset as it is.
While I'm sure HTC staff is well able to do the coad work necessary, would it really be worth the time and effort to do it? Forcing players to follow a path has already been tried and failed miserably. By you having the bases turned off while the numbers are low your doing the same thing by concentrating the players to a smaller and smaller area. And as posted, a lot of players these days DON'T WANT to fight others, but avoid them.
-
Why not switch from 3 sides (Knights, Bishops and Rooks) to two? We went from 2 MA's to 1 and it helped tremendously so the logical next step would be to eliminate one side, no?
-
And as posted, a lot of players these days DON'T WANT to fight others, but avoid them.
Then this game is already dead, we are just playing out the end.
-
Where is the evidence that overall player density (related to map size) affects the chance of finding *a fight*?
So long as we have radar, it is easy to find “a fight” on any map. The problem is that most players only want to fight under conditions which give then the advantage, such as numbers, plane type, altitude, or some combination of these or other factors. If you are one of those exceptional individuals who find this type of opposition acceptable, then you are good to go (American expression).
If you are not one of those exceptional individuals, then you will be unhappy with the fights you find, and the culprit is *player behavior* rather than the map.
MH
-
To illustrate this, here is a typical distribution of player activity (simply measured in kills) over time.
(http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/7367/clipboard01uy.jpg)
What this chart demonstrates is that the best time to take a base when nobody is around to defend it is 11am CEST.
MH
-
Where is the evidence that overall player density (related to map size) affects the chance of finding a fight?
I could show you that the there are less kills/hour per player at low density times than at high population density times. ;)
Which is all logical, as one who is playing at both times (like me) can see day after day. If there are few players on a large map, the population is generally spread out much more. At 50-60 player on a map like Ozkansas, I often fail to find more than occasional single enemy dot. Players love to do 'their thing' and that results in 4 players attacking 5 different bases, so to speak ;) Offpeak gameplay is often a matter of sneaking bases and avoiding opposition, because it's easily possible.
-
I could show you that the there are less kills/hour per player at low density times than at high population density times. ;)
Which is all logical, as one who is playing at both times (like me) can see day after day. If there are few players on a large map, the population is generally spread out much more. At 50-60 player on a map like Ozkansas, I often fail to find more than occasional single enemy dot. Players love to do 'their thing' and that results in 4 players attacking 5 different bases, so to speak ;) Offpeak gameplay is often a matter of sneaking bases and avoiding opposition, because it's easily possible.
Yes, but I think you are overlooking the qualification on *fights* (numbers, altitude, etc.) I allude to in my post. If you increase the number of players or shrink the map, you get more encounters, but they are more than likely going to be those which are unsatisfying to all but the exceptional players I refer to. Most likely, you will encounter hordes. This is a consequence of player behavior, as is the “doing their thing” behavior you refer to above. If most players really wanted relatively balanced encouters, you would find them using the radar. The problem is, they don't.
MH
-
MH you may not have yet played in one of the slow times.
A huge map and low player count can mean flying for hours without finding ANYTHING to shoot. You can see it on radar and by the time you can get to its gone. A bomber comes into your dar and bombs the field and bails out before you can even get to it.
I saw this on Sunday and it wasn't even and the uber low period. I shudder to think what Lusche and other Euro players must see.
-
MH you may not have yet played in one of the slow times.
A huge map and low player count can mean flying for hours without finding ANYTHING to shoot. You can see it on radar and by the time you can get to its gone. A bomber comes into your dar and bombs the field and bails out before you can even get to it.
I saw this on Sunday and it wasn't even and the uber low period. I shudder to think what Lusche and other Euro players must see.
Hmmm; you're saying that there are no large bar dar concentrations at all?? I guess I haven't experienced that. What I have experienced is that it is hard to find someone willing to go one-on-one with equivalent aircraft in the MA; it's usually a horde, or someone who doesn't want to fight. In either case, though, I wouldn't want to sacrifice large maps such as Trinity in a futile attempt to "fix" player behavior.
MH
-
Hmmm; you're saying that there are no large bar dar concentrations at all??
On a large map that can absolutely happen when there is a total of 50-80 players online. Or there is one single battle, but unfortunately on the wrong side (mostly the result of a failed CV sneak attack).
Regarding the horde - There are both extremes: Too few players in a given area or too many. For the standard player, 50 players on a 400 sector map may as much 'fun' as 400 players on a 100 sector map. In one case you may not find any battles, in the other there is no way to avoid megahordes at all.
That being said, I too think the OP 'solution' is too complex. I just wanted show that timezones one is playing in can result in very different perspectives on the game :)
Right now, with a mix of large and small maps I see just good days and bad days both at peak as well as offpeak. In the end a good compromise, in my opinion.
-
If maps and win requirements That could grow and shrink with population grades that might not be a bad idea. But I'm thinking hard to do and I rather see the effort spent on Ads, new vehicles/planes/ intricacies and historical details.