Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => Wishlist => Topic started by: TheRapier on January 14, 2014, 08:27:33 PM
-
I don't think it is a surprise that the number of players in the game has shrunk unless you only play at the peak times 6 pm - 10 pm EST.
The large maps were made at a time when the player base was larger and are really only effective when the number of players online reaches around 300. They are awesome if 350 - 1000 players are on, but we are not seeing that at all. At anything less than that number, finding people to interact with (this means combat) becomes progressively harder outside of peak hours. This is killing game play and I'm sure it has a major impact on the number of non-US players in the game (Europe or Asia) as they can't find anyone that makes paying their $ per month. I'm seeing fewer and fewer of these guys and they are playing less and less. All too often, two countries are having a fight on the other side of the map, leaving 1/3 of the players out of any kind of action.
Previously we had a map switch at about 11 pm to a smaller map. This kept game play alive for the off hours. The map size should be such that all three countries can participate in fights. This would help rebuild the off hours play. Right now its pretty much dead.
It is of course a business decision. Right now the large maps make this a 6 pm - 10 pm EST business. If that is the desire, then leave it the way it is. If the desire is to expand it, then there a number of options.
I'm sure its not surprising that great many posts here go nowhere because they are cluttered by noise. In the hope that this thread can actually help HTC to make decisions the maximum benefit comes if your post would gives the times that you normally play. That way your post can be weighted properly.
-
:salute
Concur, sir.
-
I flat refuse to play this game from the highest populated side anymore. so I don't play those hours. (which would be any time before 4pm pacific, basically)
reducing the 12 hour country switch time would get me to play earlier in the day maybe 3 hours earlier.
the way it is anymore, I just wait till about 4-5pm pacific, because that's the predictable time bishops start becoming outnumbered.
so, essentially what I'm saying is the total population is being reduced by 1, for those hours.
I'm not even sure the maps matter.
-
Tonight was very bad, gameplay wise. Not only were fights scattered but if you wanted to look around for a fight, you could not because of the 12 hour country change rule.
Something has to give, either change the country change rule back to one hour or give us small maps where no one can hide.
-
Tonight was very bad, gameplay wise. Not only were fights scattered but if you wanted to look around for a fight, you could not because of the 12 hour country change rule.
Something has to give, either change the country change rule back to one hour or give us small maps where no one can hide.
that works for me.
:aok
-
Tonight was very bad, gameplay wise. Not only were fights scattered but if you wanted to look around for a fight, you could not because of the 12 hour country change rule.
Something has to give, either change the country change rule back to one hour or give us small maps where no one can hide.
:aok
-
I think we can all agree this is a good idea. :aok
-
Very good idea Rap.
I play between what would be prime time evenings (6pm - 10pm ish MST). Without question these large maps are a real wet blanket at these population levels, even during these peak population times. The uber-maps like the current one don't even work well in peak times with 300 people online. they're just so big that even that level of players is the very bottom of the required level needed to make gameplay flow.
However what makes them much worse is that their extreme size means they can't be conquered, so they stay until they timeout. Makes for long painful periods where gameplay goes into the crapper. Worse, the smaller maps that encourage the very activity you want to see (furballs, lots of activity over small areas with base taking, etc), roll much faster and thus push us back into the uber-maps.
So rather than keeping more of the smaller maps in the rotation more frequently, we have these uber-maps just sucking the life out of the gameplay for extended periods of time. It really is brutal, which is a shame because the game is a blast if you can get onto a smaller map.
-
Time to go back to one hour. God I hate being left out of the fight. Almost as much as I hate having to be in the horde.
-
+1 Huge maps are virtually impossible to play on at European hours especially during the day in European time zones
-
Just logged in... 9 Bish 13 Knights 16 Rooks on Ozkansas with 204 bases... a single con on the dar every 100 miles...
-
Some of the big maps really need to be taken out of the rotation. Even with 250-300 players online they feel empty.
-
Just cut the fuel off at all bases except those on the tank islands during non peak hours. One tank island doesn't have air fields seems like now that I think about it. Tank island air fights gets exciting at times especially with all three countries.
I agree with the 12 hour rule. One hour just isn't enough. Had one player over the weekend change sides to seek revenge on a fellow countryman he got in an argument with over something. Heard another player say he was switching sides because no one called a six for him. I know some switch sides to find a good fight but others would abuse a one hour rule.
-
I agree with the 12 hour rule. One hour just isn't enough. Had one player over the weekend change sides to seek revenge on a fellow countryman he got in an argument with over something. Heard another player say he was switching sides because no one called a six for him.
So? what is the problem with that?
-
Just cut the fuel off at all bases except those on the tank islands during non peak hours. One tank island doesn't have air fields seems like now that I think about it. Tank island air fights gets exciting at times especially with all three countries.
I agree with the 12 hour rule. One hour just isn't enough. Had one player over the weekend change sides to seek revenge on a fellow countryman he got in an argument with over something. Heard another player say he was switching sides because no one called a six for him. I know some switch sides to find a good fight but others would abuse a one hour rule.
While that is true that some would abuse the one hour rule. It is also true that those you mentioned would find out that they wouldn't get check 6's all the time on any of the 3 sides either :neener:
On a side note: I do find it funny that some people say on here "it's my 15 dollars I'll play the way I want", yet nag at me if I don't check 6 them (even if I just got there!).
:ahand
:salute
-
I just get tired of the "12 hour change limit" whine! :devil
-
Most people that complain about no check six just got caught not checking it themselves and are really mad at their own blunder. I know it makes me mad when I get caught like that.
-
+100 to this wish
But I feel like even if the change was implemented (which it won't be) it's probably too late...kinda like closing the barn door after the horse has already bolted
-
The 12 hour rule really needs to be reduced. After I've switched to even the sides a little or to get to the fight and then the fight dies down I just log off. Then I spend the next 12 hours logging on, seeing nothing going on, and log off. I know I'm not the only one who does this and soon people are just going to end their subscriptions. I know I've thought about doing so a few times now.
More small maps are very needed! Especially during the off hours. I say pull the large maps from rotation until we get more people playing this game. After the new terrain is added and some more advertising I think we might see a boost in numbers. Then we can see some fun on the large maps again.
-
I think the biggest issue is that we'd be running the same 2-3 maps if we took out all the ones that are "too big". And that's including that piece of crap Luzon. Much rather play on a map twice the size of Trinity than play on Luzon.
-
I just get tired of the "12 hour change limit" whine! :devil
+1 ^^^this^^^
-
The 12 hour rule really needs to be reduced. After I've switched to even the sides a little or to get to the fight and then the fight dies down I just log off. Then I spend the next 12 hours logging on, seeing nothing going on, and log off. I know I'm not the only one who does this and soon people are just going to end their subscriptions. I know I've thought about doing so a few times now.
More small maps are very needed! Especially during the off hours. I say pull the large maps from rotation until we get more people playing this game. After the new terrain is added and some more advertising I think we might see a boost in numbers. Then we can see some fun on the large maps again.
If you pull them, then HT better make more small maps then. I don't want to see the same small map every other day. This would make me say good bye AH.
-
My question is this. Why are we not circulating the maps used in fso and AvA, In the Ma? They seem to be a decent size. Would turn around quick, and speed up the fight.
This may have been asked for in the past.
-
My question is this. Why are we not circulating the maps used in fso and AvA, In the Ma? They seem to be a decent size. Would turn around quick, and speed up the fight.
This may have been asked for in the past.
from what I understand, they are not made to work in the MA's, I could be 100% wrong :salute
-
I just had a neat thought. During off hours, fog in or cloud most of the map. That would be real world. As the numbers go up, let the fog lift. Might be an interesting way to control side off balance instead of ENY.
-
My question is this. Why are we not circulating the maps used in fso and AvA, In the Ma? They seem to be a decent size. Would turn around quick, and speed up the fight.
This may have been asked for in the past.
Those maps are generally set up for two sides, and many have custom objects. They typically don't have equal territory or base counts either. In the case of many AvA maps, the size is 64 or 128 miles square, and the Main arenas need to have 256 or 512 miles square.
-
My question is this. Why are we not circulating the maps used in fso and AvA, In the Ma? They seem to be a decent size. Would turn around quick, and speed up the fight.
This may have been asked for in the past.
1. FSO/AvA maps are "Two sided" Axis and Allies and not 3 sided
2. They aren't balanced but rather historical
3. They build for specific historical theater with geographical data altitudes - when the MA are usually symmetrical with deep canyons and high hills that are not realistic but good for a gameplay
-
There may be a need for HTC to crop some of the larger maps if their is a shortage of usable small population maps. I've read elsewhere that the company doesn't work on maps, arguing lack of resources. I do not know if this is true or not.
I do know that maps are the underpinning of the play environment and are one of the primary factors in the customers' overall game experience. Having the wrong maps in the rotation just for the sake of having another map is counterproductive. If a map is being used, it should be confirmed as enhancing game play, not hindering it, based upon current population levels. There are several huge maps in rotation now doing the latter, not the prior.
How HTC handles that (removes them or modifies them) is up to them based on their available resources. IMO however, its one of the key factors facing the health of the game today. Currently, if you have an uber-map stuck in place for a week, AH is a game that is, at best, playable and inviting for 3-4 hours a day when you have numbers in the 300 range. One cannot stress this enough. With a huge map the game is not inviting to customers for roughly 20 hours a day.
How does that fit into a business plan or marketing discussion? I'd like to be in that meeting because it would be interesting to see how this is not a priority.
-
I just get tired of the "12 hour change limit" whine! :devil
Curious since a whine is a nuance of voice , how do you tell it is a whine from text ?
-
If it hasn't been mentioned, what about reducing the radius of the fight area on the large maps when the 'off hours' are in play?
Lock the map at a point in time, say 3am EST, then reduce the playable area to the center 5 x 5, 7 x 7, or 10 x 10. This would require some changes to make uncapturable bases in the decided upon area.
At another point in time, remove the lock on the map, and let the game pick up where it previously left off.
-
IIRC only 3 or 4 of the current 13 maps are of the larger 512 mile size, but they are up for something like 3/4 of the time each tour. One way to help balance this would be to adopt Fester's idea of having different war win conditions for each map. So for big maps you might have to get say 10% of each of the other two sides fields to win and for small maps 25%, or whatever percentage works to turn over the maps at a more even rate.
-
IIRC only 3 or 4 of the current 13 maps are of the larger 512 mile size, but they are up for something like 3/4 of the time each tour. One way to help balance this would be to adopt Fester's idea of having different war win conditions for each map. So for big maps you might have to get say 10% of each of the other two sides fields to win and for small maps 25%, or whatever percentage works to turn over the maps at a more even rate.
That's a very good idea, and a sensible starting point in resolving this issue. As you correctly note, the large maps have a disproportionate representation of time in the map rotation cycle due to the fact that they are rarely conquered. Although I would prefer to see them removed outright, I think some tweaking along the lines of what you suggest is a positive alternative.
-
IIRC only 3 or 4 of the current 13 maps are of the larger 512 mile size, but they are up for something like 3/4 of the time each tour. One way to help balance this would be to adopt Fester's idea of having different war win conditions for each map. So for big maps you might have to get say 10% of each of the other two sides fields to win and for small maps 25%, or whatever percentage works to turn over the maps at a more even rate.
I still like my bases fogged in idea but I can see his approach would be easier on man hours. Would the different win conditions float with the number of players?
-
Whether you "fog" the bases or just make the ones on the periphery non-usuable (which I suggested months ago) or just make smaller maps or change the winning conditions per map, the main point is that the game on the current rotation of maps is only viable for 4 out of 24 hours in a day. This would seem to be clearly unacceptable for an MMOG business. The writing has been clearly on the wall for a while.
It would be like having an internet retailer whose site only functions 4 hours a day, and for the European and Asia users, in the middle of their night. Such a business shouldn't be surprised when their business drops through the floor. Action sooner rather than later would seem to be a wise thing to do.
There have been a number of moves that have benefited sub communities within the overall. This one would benefit everyone and based on that, it would be the hope that it gets attention ahead of releases that benefit segments.
-
If people truly wanted to fight, they'd go to where other people were gathering; size of the map wouldn't matter. The fact that everyone wants to sneak around or go somewhere to avoid others, speaks more of a problem with the player base than with the maps.
If those 40 or so "off-peak" players all wanted to fight, they would ask around the arena and the action would be concentrated in small areas even on big maps.
-
IIRC only 3 or 4 of the current 13 maps are of the larger 512 mile size, but they are up for something like 3/4 of the time each tour. One way to help balance this would be to adopt Fester's idea of having different war win conditions for each map. So for big maps you might have to get say 10% of each of the other two sides fields to win and for small maps 25%, or whatever percentage works to turn over the maps at a more even rate.
This "fix" would only alienate more players and lower the user base even further.
-
This "fix" would only alienate more players and lower the user base even further.
You're going to need to explain that.
-
Tonight was very bad, gameplay wise. Not only were fights scattered but if you wanted to look around for a fight, you could not because of the 12 hour country change rule.
Something has to give, either change the country change rule back to one hour or give us small maps where no one can hide.
(http://i.imgur.com/SxprH.gif)
-
This weekend went from horrible on Saturday to playable on Sunday.
It's amazing how your can drop 350 people into a map and end up with no action at all. Saturday wasn't even 4 HourMart. When you a sizable number of people involved in avoiding combat like the 2 hour Bish raid on the strats that was completely off the map, circling outside the outside edge, you start to wonder what is the point.
ImADot is correct but there is an incredible number of people who enter a combat game to avoid combat and gain points. I would humbly suggest that if the solution were simple, it would be accomplished already. I believe that its more helpful to embrace the fact that there are forces at work that can't be addressed by saying "the players just have to change what they are doing". The reality is that the game conditions and here specifically map size, is killing the reason for having a game.
Both sounds very good at this point. Beats the heck out of literally wasting 6 hours online to do nothing.
-
Both sounds very good at this point. Beats the heck out of literally wasting 6 hours online to do nothing.
I used to fly several dozen sorties a day back when we had the 1 hour rule. Ever since it was switched to 12 hours my flying time has been declining. Now I'm only flying 2-4 sorties a day and spending roughly 6 hours in total just looking at the map, finally getting fed up and logging off. There are more people doing just this as well, and over time more people have just stopped logging in or ended their account. AH2 not being as well known as something like War Thunder is one of the causes for us not getting more blood into this game, but I think everyone leaving at an increased rate since the 12 hour rule is another problem and one that can be fixed immediately.
We need to make the needed changes to keep the players we currently have or else even the small maps will be pretty barren as well.
-
This weekend went from horrible on Saturday to playable on Sunday.
It's amazing how your can drop 350 people into a map and end up with no action at all.
. . .
The number of players in GVs throws off the look of the map. I keep thinking there should be more planes. Maybe Lusche could throw up something that shows a ratio of "Kills by" GVs and planes or something like that to understand the weekends play.
-
The number of players in GVs throws off the look of the map. I keep thinking there should be more planes. Maybe Lusche could throw up something that shows a ratio of "Kills by" GVs and planes or something like that to understand the weekends play.
This weekend we had CraterMA (Greebos small map), which on which GV vs GV usually have a 60%+ share of all arena kills (tour average is ~33%)
However, this is a bit misleading, as there are far from being 60% of all players in GVs. The crater spawn battle is extremely intensive, resulting in very high GV kills per hour. This is also supported by having not much less than the usual amount air to air kills in the same time.
My own estimation would be that the number of players in GV's is only somewhat higher than the standard average of 25% of all players in a sortie, maybe in the 30-35% range? When I logged in during off hours, there were times with nothing happening in the crater at all (at a total arena population of 50-80). During peak, I checked the numbers in TT by film, finding about 20% of the players on my side (rooks) being in GV in the crater itself.
-
If you take from how the majority of WT players play that game, and the current in game population driving tanks to fight as a cautionary tale. The majority in our game don't want to the expend effort at becoming Latrobe to succeed in the air. Nor do they want do more than point their pipper at something and calculate beyond two dimensions.
Unless you corner someone who doesn't want to fight, he will avoid you. If you do make him fight, when it's over, all you will have accomplished is validating his self knowledge that he sucks at what you enjoy, which ends up making him feel lousy about himself and this game. People do not pay to have a bad time, that's called their real life.
If you allow all the Latrobe(s) to concentrate themselves at any time, anywhere, to maximize their fun. Quickly you will see more players enjoying the GV game because we have a limited population right now. Whenever Greebo's new map is up, TT has the longest run of players staying to play past US prime time when I look in. Everyone just hides behind trees and berms shooting one shot at a time feeling some what secure and a higher sense that they can accomplish something other than be Latrobe(s) fodder. How do you know they are having fun, guys just keep coming back no matter how many times they get nailed by a Tiger II, hiding a gazillion miles away using it's laser vision sniping them.
Does something need to change, YES. Let Hitech change it, he is the expert at this kind of social dynamics. The Latrobe(s) would have a great time right down until the last red guy quit and went to WT.
More bomber crewmen died in ww2 than fighter pilots. Goes to the nature of men, and why the number of Latrobe(s) in any combat game is predictably below 20% of the player base.
-
This weekend we had CraterMA (Greebos small map), which on which GV vs GV usually have a 60%+ share of all arena kills (tour average is ~33%)
However, this is a bit misleading, as there are far from being 60% of all players in GVs. The crater spawn battle is extremely intensive, resulting in very high GV kills per hour. This is also supported by having not much less than the usual amount air to air kills in the same time.
My own estimation would be that the number of players in GV's is only somewhat higher than the standard average of 25% of all players in a sortie, maybe in the 30-35% range? When I logged in during off hours, there were times with nothing happening in the crater at all (at a total arena population of 50-80). During peak, I checked the numbers in TT by film, finding about 20% of the players on my side (rooks) being in GV in the crater itself.
When I logged in Sat. TT had about 45-50 rooks with 90 rooks online that's a lot more than 20%. Over 100 players at TT total out of about 190.
-
Okay Bustr, I've read about a dozen of these "people who are good at fighter combat drive away players" and "most people are doomed to hopeless incompetence at online fighter-pileiting" posts of yours and I think it is horsehockey.
When one gets shot down, one's natural instinct is to re-up for vengeance. When one gets shot down by a "leet" move, ones natural reaction is to try and become more "leet"-for vengeance. And you don't have to be leet to kill as much as you die in furballs anyway-who could ask for anything more? ACM IS the draw of a game like this to most people, if they matriculate to something else it is likely because somehow game play conditions are not rewarding fighter combat/air superiority. Oh, and also all sides have their "Latrobes", so that bit balances out.
If anything drives away players, it is not being able to find a place to engage other human-controlled aircraft in combat during off hours. I've heard lots of complaints about that and not one cry of "I quit because the uber-pilots spanked me too hard"
If you take from how the majority of WT players play that game, and the current in game population driving tanks to fight as a cautionary tale. The majority in our game don't want to the expend effort at becoming Latrobe to succeed in the air. Nor do they want do more than point their pipper at something and calculate beyond two dimensions.
Unless you corner someone who doesn't want to fight, he will avoid you. If you do make him fight, when it's over, all you will have accomplished is validating his self knowledge that he sucks at what you enjoy, which ends up making him feel lousy about himself and this game. People do not pay to have a bad time, that's called their real life.
If you allow all the Latrobe(s) to concentrate themselves at any time, anywhere, to maximize their fun. Quickly you will see more players enjoying the GV game because we have a limited population right now. Whenever Greebo's new map is up, TT has the longest run of players staying to play past US prime time when I look in. Everyone just hides behind trees and berms shooting one shot at a time feeling some what secure and a higher sense that they can accomplish something other than be Latrobe(s) fodder. How do you know they are having fun, guys just keep coming back no matter how many times they get nailed by a Tiger II, hiding a gazillion miles away using it's laser vision sniping them.
Does something need to change, YES. Let Hitech change it, he is the expert at this kind of social dynamics. The Latrobe(s) would have a great time right down until the last red guy quit and went to WT.
More bomber crewmen died in ww2 than fighter pilots. Goes to the nature of men, and why the number of Latrobe(s) in any combat game is predictably below 20% of the player base.
-
If anything drives away players, it is not being able to find a place to engage other human-controlled aircraft in combat during off hours. I've heard lots of complaints about that..
Another reason to make a few planes available at GV bases... engage a human controlled Tank in the off hours :banana:
-
This weekend we had CraterMA (Greebos small map), which on which GV vs GV usually have a 60%+ share of all arena kills (tour average is ~33%)
However, this is a bit misleading, as there are far from being 60% of all players in GVs. The crater spawn battle is extremely intensive, resulting in very high GV kills per hour. This is also supported by having not much less than the usual amount air to air kills in the same time.
My own estimation would be that the number of players in GV's is only somewhat higher than the standard average of 25% of all players in a sortie, maybe in the 30-35% range? When I logged in during off hours, there were times with nothing happening in the crater at all (at a total arena population of 50-80). During peak, I checked the numbers in TT by film, finding about 20% of the players on my side (rooks) being in GV in the crater itself.
Thanks Lusche for putting that together.
-
BnZ,
You just got back. Notice the numbers are smaller and more players than ever avoiding each other by flying high, flying in groups and just leaving the area the moment things are not in their favor?
Or you and your small circle of acquaintances wouldn't be observing the same issues to each other. When numbers were higher, the proportional numbers of players who wanted to fight in the manner you wish AH operated, was high enough to have an excess, and make it appear like everyone was looking to tear it up. During the past high numbers glory days, hoards were the hiding place of choice by the majority, who didn't want to risk much during their few short hours a week, or spend any time learning acm and air combat. Their idea of fun is not yours. The inability to accept this is called intolerance in it's real sense.
Times have changed, and changing the game is best left up to Hitech who has a 50,000 foot perspective to the needs of the whole game. The forum community making noises all the time, is a small minority to the overall subscription base paying Hitech to play his game. And most of them don't play the game your way.
-
And you don't have to be leet to kill as much as you die in furballs
I'm pretty sure the average k/d is below 1.0
snailman?
-
No one first signs up for a game called "Aces High" with the intent of shooting hangars. They sign up for air combat maneuvering, which does not take a huge amount of time to learn.
The problem is one of herding cats-If there are twenty people on a side, twenty on another and twenty enemy bases each side can possibly attack, well lo and behold its no wonder you get tiny attacks on 15 different bases. It makes it difficult for a furball to grow.
-
I'm pretty sure the average k/d is below 1.0
snailman?
There are lots of ways to die that don't involve being shot down by another player, such as jabo runs and acks. Anyway, just checked my stats and it looks like I had a K/D pretty close to 1 in my *first tour* back in 2006, hardly a time of leet flying on my part.
Oh, and I think the forum has a pretty decent cross-section of the actual player base.
-
I agree with everything bustr says, in this and other threads
Just do nothing and let Aces High continue to die :aok
-
Had small map when I logged in. Fights everywhere, close, lots of action. Fun!
Map conquered.
New map massive. Log in, no fights, 1 gang bang. Same old, same old on the big maps.
Really wanted to keep an account going this time. Tough to do.
-
I guess you all better download the terrain editor and start making some smaller terrains then to replace the large ones you dislike so much. Oh wait, that's right, 99% of you are either too lazy, too good, or blame the horrible terrain editor (that works just fine for the rest of us) to do it. Funny, all of you same people that whine about the same thing over & over in thread after thread about how you are "looking for a fight" and "don't fly with the dreaded horde" and are so much better than everyone else are nowhere to be found "looking for a fight" in-game. I don't see any of you putting up or joining missions that would start a fight (oh wait, a mission is a horde). Pot meet kettle. You people do the exact same thing you come in here and whine about and expect HTC to "change things" for you. Shame on all of you. I have never seen a bigger group of outright hypocrites as I have over the years on this BBS. A bunch of grown men wanting to be spoon fed their entertainment. If you dislike the game so much then change your ways (again, hyp-o-crites) or quit. Your whining and pot-meet-kettle won't be missed. I guarantee none of you "superior" players are going to do anything different, just continue to come here & whine like you always have. No one forces you to stay. There's the door--->
-
I guess you all better download the terrain editor and start making some smaller terrains then to replace the large ones you dislike so much. Oh wait, that's right, 99% of you are either too lazy, too good, or blame the horrible terrain editor (that works just fine for the rest of us) to do it. Funny, all of you same people that whine about the same thing over & over in thread after thread about how you are "looking for a fight" and "don't fly with the dreaded horde" and are so much better than everyone else are nowhere to be found "looking for a fight" in-game. I don't see any of you putting up or joining missions that would start a fight (oh wait, a mission is a horde). Pot meet kettle. You people do the exact same thing you come in here and whine about and expect HTC to "change things" for you. Shame on all of you. I have never seen a bigger group of outright hypocrites as I have over the years on this BBS. A bunch of grown men wanting to be spoon fed their entertainment. If you dislike the game so much then change your ways (again, hyp-o-crites) or quit. Your whining and pot-meet-kettle won't be missed. I guarantee none of you "superior" players are going to do anything different, just continue to come here & whine like you always have. No one forces you to stay. There's the door--->
psst, I'm not paying for a game to code for it as well. Besides, I don't know the first thing about building a map and certainly am not about to learn as a requirement to give a company money for a monthly service. Lastly, as has been noted up thread numerous times, you don't need new maps, and more smaller ones thrown into the current rotation changes little. The large, hard-to-conquer maps will still dominate.
The entirety of your post has nothing of merit or value, which itself is quite the accomplishment for such a rant.
-
I guess you all better download the terrain editor and start making some smaller terrains then to replace the large ones you dislike so much.
The problem is not the non-existence of smaller terrains, they already exist. The problem is using them at the right time, times of low numbers.
-
The problem is not the non-existence of smaller terrains, they already exist. The problem is using them at the right time, times of low numbers.
And that brings its own set of problems because if you switch to smaller maps during off hours there will be a substantial portion of people who will whine because they were working toward winning the other map and now they can't. Gameplay be damned.
Wiley.
-
And that brings its own set of problems because if you switch to smaller maps during off hours there will be a substantial portion of people who will whine because they were working toward winning the other map and now they can't. Gameplay be damned.
Wiley.
Bare in mind the very large maps should have a very limited (if any) roll to play in the rotation with current population levels. 300+ people online and they are often a wasteland of activity. However they are allowed to dominate the rotation due to the difficulty in conquering them.
I don't think an off-hours rotation works. I just think that the extremely large maps are not condusive to a game that hosts 50-300 people.
-
I guess you all better download the terrain editor and start making some smaller terrains then to replace the large ones you dislike so much. Oh wait, that's right, 99% of you are either too lazy, too good, or blame the horrible terrain editor (that works just fine for the rest of us) to do it. Funny, all of you same people that whine about the same thing over & over in thread after thread about how you are "looking for a fight" and "don't fly with the dreaded horde" and are so much better than everyone else are nowhere to be found "looking for a fight" in-game. I don't see any of you putting up or joining missions that would start a fight (oh wait, a mission is a horde). Pot meet kettle. You people do the exact same thing you come in here and whine about and expect HTC to "change things" for you. Shame on all of you. I have never seen a bigger group of outright hypocrites as I have over the years on this BBS. A bunch of grown men wanting to be spoon fed their entertainment. If you dislike the game so much then change your ways (again, hyp-o-crites) or quit. Your whining and pot-meet-kettle won't be missed. I guarantee none of you "superior" players are going to do anything different, just continue to come here & whine like you always have. No one forces you to stay. There's the door--->
:aok
-
The problem is not the non-existence of smaller terrains, they already exist. The problem is using them at the right time, times of low numbers.
so do you just switch maps, and have no winner? then go on to a new map? all the perk farmers would go ballistic. unless they recode something, theres no way to save points and settings and then come back to it. so to end the fight, to switch to a smaller map, then switch back in the morning when there are "more players on"? it would be alot of coding. not that i even have a clue how to do something like that.
assuming that you can just tell a game to do something and it will do it, just isn't realistic. it takes hours of code changes, testing and more testing, to get it right.
or do you change map, and winners are based on the highest percentage of bases captured at the time of the switch?? ok its 12am EST, sorry folks, time for a map change to a smaller one. you guys flying the b-29's for 45 minutes to get to a target, dont worry, we'll save your spot, but oh, if you dont come back, you lose all those perkies. ok carry on and by all means, have fun!!
the variables are endless...
-
psst, I'm not paying for a game to code for it as well. Besides, I don't know the first thing about building a map and certainly am not about to learn as a requirement to give a company money for a monthly service. Lastly, as has been noted up thread numerous times, you don't need new maps, and more smaller ones thrown into the current rotation changes little. The large, hard-to-conquer maps will still dominate.
The entirety of your post has nothing of merit or value, which itself is quite the accomplishment for such a rant.
No your paying to play in the sandbox HTC has provided. Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.
so do you just switch maps, and have no winner? then go on to a new map? all the perk farmers would go ballistic. unless they recode something, theres no way to save points and settings and then come back to it. so to end the fight, to switch to a smaller map, then switch back in the morning when there are "more players on"? it would be alot of coding. not that i even have a clue how to do something like that.
assuming that you can just tell a game to do something and it will do it, just isn't realistic. it takes hours of code changes, testing and more testing, to get it right.
or do you change map, and winners are based on the highest percentage of bases captured at the time of the switch?? ok its 12am EST, sorry folks, time for a map change to a smaller one. you guys flying the b-29's for 45 minutes to get to a target, dont worry, we'll save your spot, but oh, if you dont come back, you lose all those perkies. ok carry on and by all means, have fun!!
the variables are endless...
They could set it up like they had it when the 2 mains didn't work well for the Euro crowd. They had the "single" arena for their prime time and then it switched to the "dual arenas" for US prime time. In stead of switching to a dual arena setup they could switch to a normal map rotation and for the Euro prime time switch to a small map only rotation of maps.
-
so do you just switch maps, and have no winner?
There are no "winners" pal. It is not a real war, just a pretext to foster combat. If the combat is at low idle the "war" isn't doing its joy. Also, sorties get cut short whenever the war is "won", so what? I've flown till arena dump many a time, what's the big deal?
-
Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.
Again, this is an argument devoid of reason because small maps already exist.
-
Again, this is an argument devoid of reason because small maps already exist.
It isn't "devoid of reason" as it is strait to the point. We all pay to play in HTC sandbox. This includes large and small maps. If all large maps were removed, then the cries of prime time US would be deafening. This is why we have both map sizes. At this point the real answer would be to make medium size maps. Use the large size format that we have now, but only use the center area leaving the outside edges empty. This would concentrate the bases in a smaller area with out being a small map.
Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time. Either way, we are in the sandbox we are paying for. Should some players build a bunch of maps to replace those "horrible" large maps :rolleyes: I'm sure HTC would have a problem using them to replace the large ones.
-
It isn't "devoid of reason" as it is strait to the point. We all pay to play in HTC sandbox. This includes large and small maps. If all large maps were removed, then the cries of prime time US would be deafening. This is why we have both map sizes.
We now have both small & large maps in a single LW arena, just like had in AH II (when it was actually still called so) in 2004-2006.
The main difference is, we have vastly less players in the air these days. Compared to how many players were online at US prime time on a large map back then (not to speak of small maps), the small maps wouldn't be anywhere near crowded today.
By the way, after the arena split in 2006 we often had twice as many players than today in two arenas, in other words: The same number of players in one LW arena as we do have now. And we had only small maps for a year back then...
Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time. Either way, we are in the sandbox we are paying for. Should some players build a bunch of maps to replace those "horrible" large maps :rolleyes: I'm sure HTC would have a problem using them to replace the large ones.
We have 10 small maps in the rotation, I don't see any reason why it would have to be mandatory to replace the large maps with additional small ones. Additionally, I don't see how paying palyers would be oblieged to put that much work due to a simple arena setting issue. It's not about disliking the maps per se (I lobbied hard to get them back in 2006-2007), it's about finding their size problematic for the player numbers these days...
-
Use the large size format that we have now, but only use the center area leaving the outside edges empty. This would concentrate the bases in a smaller area with out being a small map.
So you're saying make a new map that has all the bases concentrated in a small area, but go ahead and leave plenty of empty wasteland all around it? Fugi, did you run this idea through your head at least twice before you posted it man? :devil
Of course this leads us back to "building new maps" which many players either don't want to be bothered with, or they just don't have the time.
Building new maps is beside the point, as plenty of small maps *already #&*!@^%^^ing EXIST!!!!". It is putting these maps into use during low number hours that is needed to make a difference.
-
Hey Lusche,
I have no horse in this races as I don't have time to dedicate to the MAs on top of my other activities.
As you may know, there are arena settings for how many Airfields, and Total Bases at which point the arena resets. So it might be that a utility could be built to capture user numbers and adjust the Airfields* and Total bases numbers on a sliding scale depending on the terrain. Maybe it could even display text messages in the buffer when the settings change.
The effect would allow a reset with fewer base captures needed.
Do you think it might be helpful for off hours?
*ResetAirFieldCnt
ResetTotalFieldCnt
-
Hey Lusche,
I have no horse in this races as I don't have time to dedicate to the MAs on top of my other activities.
My horse is just a pony in here. I'm not actually lobbying for small maps only, but I absolutely wouldn't object to it. ;)
As you may know, there are arena settings for how many Airfields, and Total Bases at which point the arena resets. So it might be that a utility could be built to capture user numbers and adjust the Airfields* and Total bases numbers on a sliding scale depending on the terrain. Maybe it could even display text messages in the buffer when the settings change.
The effect would allow a reset with fewer base captures needed.
Do you think it might be helpful for off hours?
*ResetAirFieldCnt
ResetTotalFieldCnt
It's not about the problem of winning the war. It's about the lack of combat activity ("battles") resulting from having way too much space for too few players. If you have too much room, there's a natural tendency to spread out all over the map and much avoiding the enemy. And you can't just change that (aka "start a fight"). Of course this is much more a problem at off hours, 30 (euro noon) to 100 players on a large map (early euro evening) creates very much different gameplay than 300 to (if lucky) 400 on US prime time.
-
No your paying to play in the sandbox HTC has provided. Don't like the sandbox, move along, but do remember HTC has given you the tools to build a new sandbox if you would like.
Its not an absence of small maps at issue. Its the existence of a couple HUGE maps that throws everything out of wack. We need to remove, not add.
...and insofar as moving along goes, yes, indeed, that's certainly an option. I just came back to the game a few months ago and haven't flown actively for probably 5 years +. Moving on is no problem, if there isn't value there, it only makes sense. I'd prefer to keep giving HTC a monthly subscription, hence why I bother to post on this issue. But right you are, that may not be in the cards. *shrug*
-
So you're saying make a new map that has all the bases concentrated in a small area, but go ahead and leave plenty of empty wasteland all around it? Fugi, did you run this idea through your head at least twice before you posted it man? :devil
Building new maps is beside the point, as plenty of small maps *already #&*!@^%^^ing EXIST!!!!". It is putting these maps into use during low number hours that is needed to make a difference.
And did you take the time to think through what I said? Here, I know some people work better with pictures.
(http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii253/maddogjoe_photos/map_sizes_zps2b667547.jpg) (http://s266.photobucket.com/user/maddogjoe_photos/media/map_sizes_zps2b667547.jpg.html)
The red circles represent the base coverage. As you can see the bases aren't as spread out on the "medium" size map, nor is it as concentrated as they are on the small maps.
We now have both small & large maps in a single LW arena, just like had in AH II (when it was actually still called so) in 2004-2006.
The main difference is, we have vastly less players in the air these days. Compared to how many players were online at US prime time on a large map back then (not to speak of small maps), the small maps wouldn't be anywhere near crowded today.
By the way, after the arena split in 2006 we often had twice as many players than today in two arenas, in other words: The same number of players in one LW arena as we do have now. And we had only small maps for a year back then...
We have 10 small maps in the rotation, I don't see any reason why it would have to be mandatory to replace the large maps with additional small ones. Additionally, I don't see how paying palyers would be oblieged to put that much work due to a simple arena setting issue. It's not about disliking the maps per se (I lobbied hard to get them back in 2006-2007), it's about finding their size problematic for the player numbers these days...
I thought there was only 6, but will bow to your knowledge. 10 wouldn't be a bad rotation, but 14 is better. Of those 10 many don't see them often as they are won so quickly. Why are those maps won so quickly?
Could it be they are small and the horde has a much better chance of rolling over them? Defenders don't like to defend against the horde. The quickness of the attacks of the horde due to the closeness/density of the bases makes them easy pickings. Spacing out those bases on a medium size map would give more warning to those who wish to defend against the horde. It would also give those players looking to avoid the horde from either side more room to avoid it.
US prime time and a small map while not as bad as it was before can become cramped. It does force the hordes to fight each other more often, but finding smaller fights along the edges is almost impossible due to not having any edges.
If they switched to small maps only I think we would have a ton of people crying about it.... view trinity as an example. I think the adjustable win the war percentage has a lot of merit. It may take a bit of tweaking to adjust to keep a map up a couple days before the win percentage was hit, but that would make all the maps run long enough for everyone to get a chance to fly on it, but not so long as to get everyone frustrated by being stuck on a map.
-
I thought there was only 6, but will bow to your knowledge. 10 wouldn't be a bad rotation, but 14 is better. Of those 10 many don't see them often as they are won so quickly. Why are those maps won so quickly?
Small maps have generally less bases, but the % needed for victory is still the same. It takes many more bases, and thus much more time to win a huge map. And the more bases/time you need, the less likely it is you can keep the momentum and both other teams at bay.
-
If they switched to small maps only I think we would have a ton of people crying about it.... view trinity as an example. I think the adjustable win the war percentage has a lot of merit. It may take a bit of tweaking to adjust to keep a map up a couple days before the win percentage was hit, but that would make all the maps run long enough for everyone to get a chance to fly on it, but not so long as to get everyone frustrated by being stuck on a map.
It is probably best to start trying different things to see what works. There have been numerous ideas floated in this thread that are worth further consideration, and perhaps simple trials to see what works and what doesn't.
Large maps, although much fewer in number, significantly dominate the play environment. I would guess, about 80% of the overall map time (but that is an entirely subjective number). That is a problem. In any game the envinronment within which you play is absolutely critical as it dictates play optins, styles, etc. AH is no different, and the maps are the tools by which our gaming options ebb and flow. They are, far and away, the single most important factor regarding how this game functions, and how we function within it.
We have seen that size of map is extremely important in determining play options and game flow. That is simply irrefutable and I do not think anyone in this thread would dispute that basic truism. The intent should be to find a format that simply does not allow a couple maps to dominate the vast majority of the rotation time and thereby promote a very specific set of play options and game flow.
This is the root of it. The intent should be for balance. Small/medium maps, and their related play options and game flow, are simply not getting represented proportionately.So the goal should be at the very least, to balance this. To put it the simplest way, if one took the average time that a small/medium map was active and simply capped the huge maps so they would flip after that same average amount of time, we would be on a positive track. We would be looking to some semblance of balance in the play environment that is presented to the customer. Simple options like this are what should be attempted imo.
Moreover, in doing this you immediately address the lower population concerns for off hours. Smaller maps would see more of the relative map time, and thus help lessen that feeling of emptiness one gets when the huge map is in place for a week...because it simply wouldn't be allowed to do that anymore. Now, I have no idea whether or not this is even possible from a programing point of view, but the intent here os to move forward the idea. The details of implementation are for those far smarter than I.
-
I would guess, about 80% of the overall map time (but that is an entirely subjective number).
In the past 3 months, the three large maps have been up approximately 50% of the time (we have 3+10 maps total in rotation) :old:
-
In the past 3 months, the three large maps have been up approximately 50% of the time (we have 3+10 maps total in rotation) :old:
Ok, thanks for that. Disproportionately high % still, but not the 80% range I had mentioned.
-
Small maps have generally less bases, but the % needed for victory is still the same. It takes many more bases, and thus much more time to win a huge map. And the more bases/time you need, the less likely it is you can keep the momentum and both other teams at bay.
It has been asked before that smaller maps have increased capture % to win the war. I think for the larger maps either keep it how it is (20%) or lower it to 15-18%.
But I think that for the smaller maps the reason why they go so quickly is because they are the same percentage as large maps (20%) and I think that should change. What I find interesting is the capture percentage in mid-war is 33% IIRC. Which I wouldn't mind seeing 33% being the base requirement to 'win the war' for small maps. Maybe 25-30% for medium maps and 20% for large maps.
That way we get to see some of these smaller maps more often, potentially during off-peak hours. That way those who want to see smaller maps during off peak hours have a better chance to, and larger maps aren't see as much. SO we get to enjoy these smaller maps more often, even if it is for slightly longer time periods.
Just a thought.
<<S>>
P.S. And it wouldn't require much work (that I know of) on HTC's part :pray :angel: