General Forums => Aces High General Discussion => Topic started by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 12:30:49 PM
Title: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 12:30:49 PM
Now, before the virtue-signalers swoop in to protect HTC’s honor, I am not intending this as an attack on HTC, or a demand that they change things one way or another. A 3-sided vs 2-sided arena design is just an interesting game design question and I have an interest in game design, so I am merely intending a rational discussion of the topic as a concept, because I find it interesting. This is a strawman argument. Someone could convince me either way. In the end, I suspect there is not one answer that is best for all player count scenarios.
I’ve never really had a problem with a 3-sided arena. When you had 650 players regularly in the arena, I think it worked well. But seeing so many people wanting a two sided design I’m beginning to question if the 3-sided design still works AS well when numbers are much, much lower than the hay-days. I have begun to wonder if it worked well at the game’s peak for a reason different than Hitech assumed.
As I understand it, Hitech’s argument has been by dividing the players into 3 teams means that mathematically each player has two enemy players to fight. If you have 3 evenly divided teams that is arithmetically obvious. However, it doesn’t consider spatial factors. I have begun wondering if that has important effects that work against his assumption.
In a ground war, planners have the concept of “straightening the line”. This entails taking or releasing territory in order to create a straighter front line that reduces the surface area and allows a higher unit density per mile of frontage.
A thought experiment. Assuming idealized (i.e. not necessarily realistic) conditions. You have a 512 mi x 512 mi arena. Assume you have 1000 players. I know...work with me. :D Generally, the shortest lines you could achieve in a 3-sided war is is to divide the map like a pie chart with three fronts of ~300 mi length. Each side has to cover two fronts. Say they divide their force evenly across both fronts. Each of the !300 mi fronts would involve 1/3 of the total player count. With 1000 players that would create a ~1.11 possible-players-per-mile, or ~1.11 pppm. ;)
If you went to a 2-sided war and ran the front diagonally across the map, you would end up with ~1.3 pppm.
If you went to a 2-sided war and ran the front horizontally or vertically across the map, you would end up with ~1.9 pppm.
So, a 2-sided war with a horizontal or vertical front provides 173% higher pppm density than a 3-sided arena. I assume that ENY and other tools could maintain a 2-sided area as balanced as a 3-sided. Even if it came down to only allowing new logons to go to a lower count side.
When we literally had too many players in an arena on a good night, a 3-sided war probably helped distribute the action more evenly to make full use of the map.
When you don’t have enough players, maybe it tends toward making the action feel “thin”.
Now implementation is a complete separate discussion. Maybe they could create a test map and disable all planes and vehicles for one team and put all their stuff in one corner of the map and surround it with 1000 acks and just lay the other two sides out. Just as a test for a week. That might gather the data they need to decide if they ever want to make code changes to support two-sided arenas in a win-the-war environment.
Ideally, you would want to be able to support both depending on the map design and the player count needs.
This has nothing to to with AvA or rolling plane-sets.
Food for thought.
:salute
[edit] Sorry. that should have been phrase a 2-sided design has 173% of the density of a 3-sided. So 73% higher? I have never been good with percentages. Snailman??? But it is a higher density. :cool:
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 09, 2018, 04:43:41 PM
A three sided war takes a bit of the human nature out of the equation. With 2 sided wars you WILL have players always going for the "better" side. To many this will mean the side with a number superiority.
Forcing players to the lower numbered side is something you dont do. First your taking away the players ablity to "play" the way they want to. HTC has never be good at that and has alway striven to allow players to do what they want. Two it could/will split squads and that is one thing HTC has also pushed for, that social element of "hanging with your friends!". Three would be the ENY. This would be harder hitting and in force more often than not due to players either going to play "with their buddys" , or trying to get on the better team, be it numbers wise or the "mentality/spritial" wise. You cant count on players leaving both side at the same time so you would more than likely have a side imbalance more often than not.
Next, with 3 side you have more options. Some of those options are for players to AVOID fights. While most of us think this is just stupid, there are some players who want to play that way. Strat runs for fun, flattening a depot with a vehicle, milk running town in buffs, working on "achievements" and so on. As I said HTC like to let people do what they want. With a 2 sided war these players may have a hard time finding a quiet place to play.
As for the 3 sided war "not working" any more, why does it seem like when the "sfma" map is up everyone seems to have a good time. You only get the typicle "you HOed" type complaints on that one. There are always fights going both air and ground and ENY is rarely a problem ..... during prime time anyway, while the other maps do have ENY issues. The problem is not enough players per square mile to generate good action. With the medium maps we have now, and the large ones that have been mothballed the action gets too spread out and falters easily.
Also, Air Warrior did great with 3 sided war as well, they had small maps, and small numbers.
The lack of players to cover the map is the biggest issue. More players or smaller maps would help things move right along much better than the headaches you would be building switching to a 2 sided war.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 05:19:17 PM
A three sided war takes a bit of the human nature out of the equation. With 2 sided wars you WILL have players always going for the "better" side. To many this will mean the side with a number superiority.
Someone just posted stats from the arena a bit ago where one side had as many as the other two sides combined. Three sides doesn't seem to have had much effect on side balancing. In fact, I wonder if it has any effect at all. It seems that ENY (since so many complain) must be having a greater impact. In fact, maybe it's perverse. Neither of the two weaker sides has critical mass to turn the tide so some people just switch to the stronger. If the two weaker sides had been combine, you would have had even numbers. I can not see two sides doing worse. And any mechanism that can balance 3 sides, can balance two.
I agree smaller maps help. However I suspect they help not so much because you are reducing the volume, but because you are reducing the length of the fronts for a given number of players. On a smaller map, the fronts are shorter because they are stretching across a smaller map. Another way is to keep the map size the same and shorten the front by going 2-sided.
And to be clear, I'm not saying 3-sides doesn't work, I'm just wondering if it is optimal. Something can work pretty well, and still not be optimal.
A different genre, but I have played a lot of Battlefield the last couple of years. They are two sided and have no problem keeping sides balanced. They have some interesting mechanism that would be worth considering.
Somewhere you are going to piss someone off. Either with ENY, or forced side balancing. Pick your poison. :cool:
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 09, 2018, 05:50:55 PM
I don't believe you understand the reasoning for 3 sides. Unequal sides are bad with 3 sides, with 2 sides they are worse. Given human nature in a sandbox format, 3 sides is optimal. In a controlled situation like a scenario, 2 sides is fine.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: SPKmes on October 09, 2018, 06:07:33 PM
As Fuji said... two sides...although it sounds good will be more of a detriment in the end... three sides with ENY balancing, as has been shown doesn't help things either... well...it would if things were fair but if you have one side with big numbers and two sides sharing the same total number and each attacking the one high number side effectively the numbers are even...however they aren't as this usually causes the high number side to ignore one side and blitz the other...ignoring the third side...when they get the desired number they switch.
With the lower numbers in game these days...perhaps a different system.... that is front line bases only have eny, bases behind these are set as normal... sure defending with low eny planes may be hard...but really...those little suckers turn on a dime and are hard to hit... eny restrictions doesn't matter when the frenzy is on..but if you want you can up your prized D9 or 51 from a base back and come in to pick the pickers. or still run your missions of total domination (not a new thought...has been said before )Also maps that keep the front lines accessible...especially when we get low low numbers and strats are full up... some maps really don't help the lower numbers of your early hours strive for a take which in turn can start some dogfighting,GV action.
Places like the AvA work because the people who go there are self policing and are there for the fun action... It can not be done in the MA due to score whoring... most that go there deem this to be the ultimate prize fighting arena and as such lose all moral thinking.... it is all about me me me... nothing that a game developer does can combat that side of human nature....It does not matter what fail safes you put in place people will find a way to game the game to be the best (In their mind).... even if the best is ill gotten.... that side of things does not matter...
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Oldman731 on October 09, 2018, 06:29:03 PM
I don't believe you understand the reasoning for 3 sides. Unequal sides are bad with 3 sides, with 2 sides they are worse. Given human nature in a sandbox format, 3 sides is optimal. In a controlled situation like a scenario, 2 sides is fine.
Agreed.
- oldman
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 06:31:25 PM
I don't believe you understand the reasoning for 3 sides. Unequal sides are bad with 3 sides, with 2 sides they are worse. Given human nature in a sandbox format, 3 sides is optimal. In a controlled situation like a scenario, 2 sides is fine.
Perhaps I am misunderstanding. However, I believe "every player has two other players as his enemy" is pretty much a direct quote from Hitech from a previous thread years ago.
If sides have equal numbers, is a 2-sided arena fine?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: guncrasher on October 09, 2018, 07:08:00 PM
3 sides dont have equal numbers right now, what makes you think 2 sides will be balanced?
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 07:15:21 PM
3 sides dont have equal numbers right now, what makes you think 2 sides will be balanced?
semp
If 3 sides aren't balanced now, what makes you think 2 sides would be worse?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 07:49:41 PM
Let me back up a second. We might be talking past each other.
I think there may be two separate arguments here.
1. Does 3-sides in itself promote numerical balancing?
and
2. Does 3-sides promote strategic (not numeric) balancing in that the two lower populated sides would combine forces against the larger.
So I don't really see any basis for argument #1. Demonstrably so by people posting screenshots of player numbers for years that get grossly out of balance.
Some of you seem to be tacitly admitting argument #1 is weak, but that argument #2 is 3-sides true super-power.
So that depends on the theory that the two smaller sides will put their differences on hold and combine forces in a resistance to the larger side. I'm sure that happens at least sometimes.
But how often do you think the smaller sides just sees the other smaller side as weak and decides to take their bases before the larger side can? How often do you think the average MA player would attack the perceived weaker side rather than the harder work of attacking the numerically larger side?
Before you answer that question, be sure you can do so with a straight face. :rofl
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: SPKmes on October 09, 2018, 08:03:52 PM
That can and does seem to happen at times (two sides attacking one)...I don't think it is a conscious thing however... having three sides balances things in so much that you still have to attack and take bases % of both sides before a map win can be recorded... so with the ebb and flow of numbers sometimes the maps seem to be at an all time stalemate ... you can have a team so close to a map win but as they attack the third side the second side takes away a base or 2 and brings the map win to a halt... with two sides.... if it is close to a win...many will jump on that side to get those precious perkies for the win and with superior numbers the win is inevitable and basically a white wash as not many will stay on a sinking ship
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 08:52:20 PM
That can and does seem to happen at times (two sides attacking one)...I don't think it is a conscious thing however... having three sides balances things in so much that you still have to attack and take bases % of both sides before a map win can be recorded... so with the ebb and flow of numbers sometimes the maps seem to be at an all time stalemate ... you can have a team so close to a map win but as they attack the third side the second side takes away a base or 2 and brings the map win to a halt... with two sides.... if it is close to a win...many will jump on that side to get those precious perkies for the win and with superior numbers the win is inevitable and basically a white wash as not many will stay on a sinking ship
LoL. I hadn't thought of switching sides at the last to get perks. How does that work now? Can players on 3-sides switch at the last (assuming they haven't switched lately) and get the perks while only suffering the ENY for a short time?
I don't know how perks work. I never bothered paying attention. You would think perks awarded would be modified by some factor accounting for how long they had been on that team helping them win. you would think that someone joining 15 minutes before the win wouldn't get any. Is that how it works?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: RODBUSTR on October 09, 2018, 09:52:54 PM
15O players playing a 2 sided game. 75 players on each team. The odds are 1 to 1. You have a potential of 75 targets. 150 players on playing a 3 sides game with 50 players each odds are 2 to 1. and you have the potential to engage 100 targets. To me the 3 sided makes more sense for less people playing.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 09:59:38 PM
15O players playing a 2 sided game. 75 players on each team. The odds are 1 to 1. You have a potential of 75 targets. 150 players on playing a 3 sides game with 50 players each odds are 2 to 1. and you have the potential to engage 100 targets. To me the 3 sided makes more sense for less people playing.
Except those 100 are split across two fronts. Since you can't be in two places at one time, you are only facing 50 of them at one time. As opposed to 75 in 2-sided.
But I guess they are only putting half their force of that front, like yours, so its 25 vs 25 on that front, which is no better than 75 vs 75, but spread across a proportionally longer front resulting in lower player density.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Mister Fork on October 09, 2018, 10:12:37 PM
15O players playing a 2 sided game. 75 players on each team. The odds are 1 to 1. You have a potential of 75 targets. 150 players on playing a 3 sides game with 50 players each odds are 2 to 1. and you have the potential to engage 100 targets. To me the 3 sided makes more sense for less people playing.
This.
And that is exactly how Hitech explains his reasoning for the 3 side. 2 sides is a non-starter for the main arena because of it.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 09, 2018, 10:16:53 PM
Except those 100 are split across two fronts. Since you can't be in two places at one time, you are only facing 50 of them at one time. As opposed to 75 in 2-sided.
The point is that 3 side gives you options. You can either fight THIS 50 player, or THAT 50 players.... in RODBUSTR's post. That is the whole idea, is to leave MORE options for players.
As far as the ENY/perk idea, If you are not on the winning team for 12 hours you dont get the "perks" for the win. However, being on the underdog team EARNS you a bigger perk bonus. This means in a 3 sided war there is a team that will add more perk bonus than the other two, or one in a 2 sided war. It maybe something some players look for.
I think the ENY system has some flaws. As many others have said, a "zone ENY" system would work much better at slowing a team with a big numbers advantage in a certain area. This would help when two teams are ganging one that has to fight under an ENY penalty while being out numbered.
A 2 sided war will still have far too many problems in a MA configuration than we have with a 3 sided one.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 09, 2018, 10:36:18 PM
A 2 sided war will still have far too many problems in a MA configuration than we have with a 3 sided one.
Well we may have to agree to disagree for now, but I'll continue chewing on it.
Let me change the topic slightly.
Is an ENY system that annoys a lot of people yet is still incapable of keeping sides balanced preferable to more draconian measures that will also piss people off but will enforce side balance?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 09, 2018, 11:39:49 PM
ENY only gets to me when we have 20% in tower for hours on end. I have had it explained.."Well they put in 2 hours and we were close to winning, but the had to do such and such.".Something along those lines,any way. I just wish folk would think of fellow countrymen and log out. It can get pretty bad. I have no issue in flying high ENY planes..it bothers ME because it hurts the TEAM, and is unnecessary if folk would think of others. YES I KNOW good luck with that :rofl
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: ccvi on October 10, 2018, 02:42:57 AM
20% in tower? More often than not it seems to be 30 to 40%.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FESS67 on October 10, 2018, 03:34:15 AM
2 sides or 3 sides.....they are solutions.
What is the problem?
Define the problem correctly and then explore solutions. For me, the problem is sparse, infrequent combat.
Root causes:
Population density
Player preferences in fight styles
There may be many other root causes and obviously a plethora of possible solutions.
My preferred solution: Compress the action zone to place players in direct conflict with each other.
2 sides is an option. Only have front bases active for fighters is an option. Smaller maps is an option.......etc etc
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 05:22:31 AM
Perhaps I am misunderstanding. However, I believe "every player has two other players as his enemy" is pretty much a direct quote from Hitech from a previous thread years ago.
If sides have equal numbers, is a 2-sided arena fine?
I believe Hitech is describing opportunity not behavior.
Forcing equal numbers is also a problem.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Max on October 10, 2018, 06:40:24 AM
It doesn't matter how many sides there are. Just eliminate Bish Land and all will be well.
Bish are POO! :old:
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 10, 2018, 11:15:13 AM
Well we may have to agree to disagree for now, but I'll continue chewing on it.
Let me change the topic slightly.
Is an ENY system that annoys a lot of people yet is still incapable of keeping sides balanced preferable to more draconian measures that will also piss people off but will enforce side balance?
But ENY does work. It may be a bit harsh when the team with the ENY penalty is getting handed by the other two teams, but it works I. slowing down the team with a numerical advantage.
Remember, HTC is about options. with ENY you still have options, forcing a 2 sided war and controlling population by assigning players to one side or another as they log in removes options for players
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: caldera on October 10, 2018, 01:53:35 PM
"Two Side Tuesdays": use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country. The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY. Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018. Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 01:58:16 PM
Or just go the AvA arena on Tuesdays, show HTC how many people join you.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: caldera on October 10, 2018, 02:00:44 PM
"Two Side Tuesdays": use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country. The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY. Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018. Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.
It could be done as a proof of concept with a private arena, but people don't want to hear it, instead demanding the MA change.
Wiley.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 02:37:18 PM
You mean flying restricted plane sets without icons? No thanks.
Good point. I should have suggested Special Events not AvA.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: bustr on October 10, 2018, 02:46:06 PM
In all the years of this mental exercise to try and convince Hitech to change his business model. Very few offer mechanisms other than the implied "Force of Hitech" to deal with squads, unhappy customers, and side balancing that does not return to "Force of Hitech" to accomplish. The ideas have never touched on how Hitech manages the subscription paying customer base so he does not loose subscriptions and today, not have an empty test arena or, two even more sparsely populated main arenas. Mostly the presentation hopes Hitech will see the wisdom and unique perspective of the poster and wave his magic wand as the result. Almost 20 years and fat chance on his waving that wand.
It took me three MA terrains back to back over two years to bring our low numbers during prime time together as the largest groups possible. The best for this is riftval which has intense combat during prime time on at a minimum one of each country's boarder. And at no time did I resort to "Force of Hitech" as the magic wand to fill in the "blanks" most never bother to attempt when they start this topic up each time.
The "try it and see" is something you don't do to the MA if Hitech wants to keep his doors open even if you don't agree with his current business model. It's easy to flip him off with a cut your own business throat drive by comment, since you don't have skin in his game at his level. So far he has chosen to keep his doors open. The AvA can recreate the MA with two sides and advertise, for a few Monday nights when they did, side imbalances and chronic MA lame play would always screw the pooch each time. It eventually reminded me of the BS at Furball lake in the old DA. It devolved from a limited ride themed Monday night event, into a two sided lame twitch and jerk version of the MA as more and more rides were added in until it was the MA with two sides. At that point people went back to the real MA to be professionally HO'd and ganged.
None of you are willing to do more than hit keys on your keyboard. A few years ago Hitech refused to create something I thought was a good idea. When I created it myself, he helped me distribute it once it worked and passed the HOST error test. Not many used it, though they all loved the idea of it. Since then I've simplified and refined it but, that was after two years of none stop MA terrains to solve the problem of low numbers, three countries, and how to bring the most players together during prime time.
Wanting a two sided MA will first require you to convince Hitech to reduce his customer's freedom of choice. And that forcing them to side balance and adjust their in game relationships of who they associate with each evening will be in his bottom line best interests. Even Fortnite has two types of game play, team work capture the flag and self serving king of the hill. Over the last nearly 20 years, those wanting Hitech to change the MA to two sides have not been very interested in the team work capture the flag side of the game.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 02:50:27 PM
"Two Side Tuesdays": use converted AVA maps and keep all Melee rules, except for one less country. The "It didn't work in 1995" argument doesn't really hold water, considering there was no ENY. Try it and if it fails, well there is concrete proof that it doesn't work in 2018. Or don't try and keep the status quo, since everything seems to be going so well at the moment.
:aok
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 03:01:59 PM
Good point. I should have suggested Special Events not AvA.
I think that argument is a bit disingenuous. I think we understand the herd mentality that simply drives everyone to the Main, regardless.
How about we put a 2-sided test in the Main and put 3-sided in the Special Events? Lets that that scenario and see where people go. :D
A better test would be to try something in the Main for a week and then later post a logon survey, "Do you ever want us to do that again?"
Or even a logon survey, "Would you like us to try a 2-sided configuration for a week?" Then even if everyone hates it, you are covered because you only did it because people said they wanted to try. And if they don't want to try, they'll tell you that too.
If it could be done without having to make code changes, just a test map, then it seems like reasonable experiment. If nothing else, it at least shows the player base you are not ossified and are willing to try a variation. Maybe it would be fun to just add that option for 1 out of every 3 map rotation. Or maybe everyone would hate it.
:salute
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: caldera on October 10, 2018, 03:34:26 PM
It could be done as a proof of concept with a private arena, but people don't want to hear it, instead demanding the MA change.
Wiley.
I'm not making a demand. It's called a suggestion.
Opening up a private arena does nothing if the Melee arena is also open at the same time.
It's about numbers. People gravitate to where the numbers are, especially when there are so few of them.
Just like Titanic Tuesday, there was only one LW arena to choose from. This can't work without giving it a fair trial, which means no competing MA at the same time.
Also it would be for one day of the week, not a regular thing. If it sucks, HTC could pull the plug after the first night. If it doesn't, it could be good for the game.
In all the years of this mental exercise to try and convince Hitech to change his business model. Very few offer mechanisms other than the implied "Force of Hitech" to deal with squads, unhappy customers, and side balancing that does not return to "Force of Hitech" to accomplish. The ideas have never touched on how Hitech manages the subscription paying customer base so he does not loose subscriptions and today, not have an empty test arena or, two even more sparsely populated main arenas. Mostly the presentation hopes Hitech will see the wisdom and unique perspective of the poster and wave his magic wand as the result. Almost 20 years and fat chance on his waving that wand.
It took me three MA terrains back to back over two years to bring our low numbers during prime time together as the largest groups possible. The best for this is riftval which has intense combat during prime time on at a minimum one of each country's boarder. And at no time did I resort to "Force of Hitech" as the magic wand to fill in the "blanks" most never bother to attempt when they start this topic up each time.
The "try it and see" is something you don't do to the MA if Hitech wants to keep his doors open even if you don't agree with his current business model. It's easy to flip him off with a cut your own business throat drive by comment, since you don't have skin in his game at his level. So far he has chosen to keep his doors open. The AvA can recreate the MA with two sides and advertise, for a few Monday nights when they did, side imbalances and chronic MA lame play would always screw the pooch each time. It eventually reminded me of the BS at Furball lake in the old DA. It devolved from a limited ride themed Monday night event, into a two sided lame twitch and jerk version of the MA as more and more rides were added in until it was the MA with two sides. At that point people went back to the real MA to be professionally HO'd and ganged.
None of you are willing to do more than hit keys on your keyboard. A few years ago Hitech refused to create something I thought was a good idea. When I created it myself, he helped me distribute it once it worked and passed the HOST error test. Not many used it, though they all loved the idea of it. Since then I've simplified and refined it but, that was after two years of none stop MA terrains to solve the problem of low numbers, three countries, and how to bring the most players together during prime time.
Wanting a two sided MA will first require you to convince Hitech to reduce his customer's freedom of choice. And that forcing them to side balance and adjust their in game relationships of who they associate with each evening will be in his bottom line best interests. Even Fortnite has two types of game play, team work capture the flag and self serving king of the hill. Over the last nearly 20 years, those wanting Hitech to change the MA to two sides have not been very interested in the team work capture the flag side of the game.
HTC has "tried it and see" with a number of changes lately (including AH3 itself) and this would be no different. Nobody had the option to play in the regular Melee arena while radar testing was ongoing.
Despite you constantly reminding everyone of your map making accomplishments, your opinion of game play issues holds no more weight than mine.
And don't tell me I have no skin in the game. I've paid HTC $2,197.65 to play his game, not to mention three systems and bunches of joysticks. That is sunk cost.
I care about this game and want to keep playing but to completely dismiss my idea because I don't spend my free time making maps for a game I pay for, well bollocks.
I've never met a soul that doesn't make mistakes, yet you defend HTC's every decision as if they are somehow all-knowing and infallible. The state of the game proves they are not.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 03:42:24 PM
I'm not making a demand. It's called a suggestion.
And "Two-Sided Tuesday" does kinda sing. :lol
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 10, 2018, 03:54:49 PM
You do know that the 2-sided arenas (event, AvA, etc) require not only extra effort to set up but baby-sitting and emergency plumbing/damage control if the set up includes a winnable map option (that will pork the arena for much longer than the traditional map rotation in the MA), right? A three sided arena is a fundamental foundation of this game's design.
It's like some of you think the extra work others put in is just a flip of a switch.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 10, 2018, 03:56:53 PM
Well we may have to agree to disagree for now, but I'll continue chewing on it.
Let me change the topic slightly.
Is an ENY system that annoys a lot of people yet is still incapable of keeping sides balanced preferable to more draconian measures that will also piss people off but will enforce side balance?
The ENY system does work. While a team that is being hit with ENY may be double teamed, it still does what ti was meant to do, slow down the team with a numbers superiority. It also leave open options for players (switch sides, switch front, join a group, lone wolf it, and so on).
Where as if you force players to split in a 2 sided war you taking away some of those options.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 10, 2018, 04:00:20 PM
Despite you constantly reminding everyone of your map making accomplishments, your opinion of game play issues holds no more weight than mine.
Other than he spent a great deal of effort to put his theories to the test and came out of it with more than a small amount of insight and understanding. If that bothers you as much as, say, 'not having your ideas taken seriously enough on the forum' ... meh.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 04:03:46 PM
Other than he spent a great deal of effort to put his theories to the test and came out of it with more than a small amount of insight and understanding. If that bothers you as much as, say, 'not having your ideas taken seriously enough on the forum' ... meh.
I respect the work Bustr has put in. It's a lot of work, and often thankless.
I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.
We're not holding any hostages. We are not making any demands. :D
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 10, 2018, 04:07:57 PM
I respect the work Bustr has put in. It's a lot of work, and often thankless.
I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.
We're not holding any hostages. We are not making any demands. :D
I see projection. May wanna take a closer look at who gets triggered. Every time Bustr mentions how he gained his insight there are forum members that wet their skivvies. My making notice of that isn't anymore hostile. :D
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Wiley on October 10, 2018, 04:13:17 PM
I just don't understand why you and him seem to get hostile over us having a conversation.
Not necessarily you in particular, but the general tone when people are discussing this issue is usually in the vein of it being "just this simple". You can't find a single open world, pure PVP game on this scale that doesn't have 3 sides, or isn't in even worse shape than this one. There are 3. Planetside 2, Warbirds, and AH.
Personally, I think a two sided arena would result in more imbalance not less, unless some kind of draconian side balancing was enforced.
Wiley.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2018, 04:14:43 PM
I love the game. While yall sit around scratchin' you nether regions I am in the arena killin planes.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 04:15:23 PM
The ENY system does work. While a team that is being hit with ENY may be double teamed, it still does what ti was meant to do, slow down the team with a numbers superiority. It also leave open options for players (switch sides, switch front, join a group, lone wolf it, and so on).
Where as if you force players to split in a 2 sided war you taking away some of those options.
So I was first thinking that ENY wasn't very successful in getting people to switch to the lower side, but I can see how it would be successful in handicapping people who choose to stay on the larger side. So I concede that point to you.
But then I think ENY would solve many of the perceived weaknesses of a 2-sided area as well.
As far as your other points of it removing choices, other than the choice of playing for the third team, I just don't see it being any different than when we had higher player/front mileage density due to having 650 players. Instead of having more players, you are just increasing the density by shortening the front lines.
You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front. I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook. ;)
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 04:16:47 PM
I see projection. May wanna take a closer look at who gets triggered. Every time Bustr mentions how he gained his insight there are forum members that wet their skivvies. My making notice of that isn't anymore hostile. :D
His post didn't strike you as a little hostile?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2018, 04:18:24 PM
<snip> You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front. I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook. ;) <snip>
Could be bish or knit that is dropped........
I believe we will not have to worry which will be dropped. That test happened long a go.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 10, 2018, 04:21:10 PM
So you don't have confidence in ENY's ability to moderate imbalances?
I have 0 confidence in ENY's ability to overcome chesspiece underoos. The only thing it does in anything close to noticeable numbers IMO is get people to log off rather than switch sides.
Personally, I also don't see a material difference between being ganged by P47D11s vs being ganged by P51s.
Wiley.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2018, 04:33:39 PM
I have 0 confidence in ENY's ability to overcome chesspiece underoos. The only thing it does in anything close to noticeable numbers IMO is get people to log off rather than switch sides.
Personally, I also don't see a material difference between being ganged by P47D11s vs being ganged by P51s.
Wiley.
You can't control people's mentality. Logging off still works towards evening up the numbers.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 04:34:38 PM
What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2018, 04:55:54 PM
What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.
Your argument has been deemed argumentative just for arguments sake and we will argue that point until you run out of argus or ments. At which point we will poke you with a used toadstool.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 04:56:33 PM
What argument? I suggested a "try it and see if it works". I thought you liked those. And my suggestion doesn't include alienating all the people in the MA that don't agree with you.
I think Caldera explained that sufficiently.
Refer to post #31
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Shuffler on October 10, 2018, 04:58:42 PM
Try insulting me if you don't have an argument. Mind the irony. :D
The real issue is what do you want to do that you can't do now?
Try reading it again. I said your "argument" was disingenuous.
The bottom line is that you know how the herd mentality works, but you're trying to pretend that you don't.
The test is simple:
Put a 2-side in the Main. Put the 3-sided in the Special Events Arena.
If there is no herd mentality, and everyone prefers 3-sided, then the Special Events will be full and the Main empty. No one is being deprived. The 3-sided is right there in the Special Events Arena. Go play in it.
Would you agree that is a fair test? If not, why not?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 05:18:49 PM
Because I never said people prefer 3 sides.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 05:20:54 PM
You have no skin in the game. What if it's a disaster?
You didn't answer the question. Would it be a fair test?
Why would it be a disaster? Anyone who wants would just go play the normal 3-side in the Special Events, right? Being in the Special Events Arena wouldn't prevent anyone from going in there right?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 10, 2018, 05:33:32 PM
So I was first thinking that ENY wasn't very successful in getting people to switch to the lower side, but I can see how it would be successful in handicapping people who choose to stay on the larger side. So I concede that point to you.
But then I think ENY would solve many of the perceived weaknesses of a 2-sided area as well.
As far as your other points of it removing choices, other than the choice of playing for the third team, I just don't see it being any different than when we had higher player/front mileage density due to having 650 players. Instead of having more players, you are just increasing the density by shortening the front lines.
You are hardly shortening the front lines by going to a 2 sided war. Your example went from what 1.6 to 1.9? Yup, big jump there.
Quote
You can still switch sides, you can still lonewolf or play in a group as well as when you had 650 players, you can still move to different areas of the front. I just don't see you losing that much unless you just had your heart set on playing Rook. ;)
But in a 2 sided war you will be forcing players to one side or the other as they log in to continually try to balance the sides. Doing so will split squads/friends/groups, again Forcing them to switch side IF they have not done so with in the 6 hour limit. As the "social" side of the game is a big thing for most players that is a big limitation that your adding in. How can that be better over all for the game?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 05:40:06 PM
With a horizontal from 1.1 to 1.9. A significant increase, but not quite double.
I thought ENY was effective at moderating side imbalance?
oh ENY does, but a team is under ENY only now and then. In a two sided war it would be under ENY almost all the time. Can you imagine the cries? LOL!!! discuss all you want. Hitech is the only one that matters in this discussion and we all know what his views are.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 05:48:35 PM
oh ENY does, but a team is under ENY only now and then. In a two sided war it would be under ENY almost all the time. Can you imagine the cries? LOL!!! discuss all you want. Hitech is the only one that matters in this discussion and we all know what his views are.
So we agree. ENY would either encourage them to switch to the lower side, or limit their performance. Either way. Balance. Exactly what it was designed to do.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 05:49:46 PM
No it wouldn't be a fair test. You can have fun with two or three countries, a week wouldn't necessarily prove anything, but if it proved that unequal sides are worse with 2 countries it might annoy people.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 05:52:25 PM
No it wouldn't be a fair test. You can have fun with two or three countries, a week wouldn't necessarily prove anything, but if it proved that unequal sides are worse with 2 countries it might annoy people.
But if it annoyed people, they would just go over to the Special Events Arena where the 3-sided war is.
Is it a problem if it is in the Special Events Arena? Is there some reason people couldn't click on that arena?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 06:10:59 PM
You don't know what they'd do.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: SPKmes on October 10, 2018, 06:13:06 PM
any reason the two sided couldn't be in the special events arena?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 06:14:25 PM
So, is it a problem if the 3-sided is in the Special Events Arena instead of the Main? Is there some reason people couldn't click on that arena instead?
It's not being denied them, right? They could choose it if they wished, right?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 06:15:48 PM
So, is it a problem if the 3-sided is in the Special Events Arena instead of the Main? Is there some reason people couldn't click on that arena instead?
It's not being denied them, right? They could choose it if they wished, right?
You are confusing what they could do with what they would do, which is unknown. Is that disingenuous?
I'm still not clear on what you expect to gain from 2 countries.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: SPKmes on October 10, 2018, 06:29:51 PM
So, is it a problem if the 3-sided is in the Special Events Arena instead of the Main? Is there some reason people couldn't click on that arena instead?
It's not being denied them, right? They could choose it if they wished, right?
That in itself is a problem that would get posted and moaned about.... look at when the clipboard setup changed and you didn't get directed initially to the melee arena.... people posted and complained that they needed to click a couple of extra times to get where they were going...instead of the mindless..click click click..woohoo i'm in..... first world problems man..... when all is said and done we are just a bunch of angry old men who don't like millennials hahahaha but like the freedoms they have managed change at the same time hating the freedom and disrespect of what that offers.
except shuffler he likes everything...mind you he does make excessive use of that blender...not sure if that has something to do with his demeanor or not
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 06:39:48 PM
That in itself is a problem that would get posted and moaned about.... look at when the clipboard setup changed and you didn't get directed initially to the melee arena.... people posted and complained that they needed to click a couple of extra times to get where they were going...instead of the mindless..click click click..woohoo i'm in..... first world problems man..... when all is said and done we are just a bunch of angry old men who don't like millennials hahahaha but like the freedoms they have managed change at the same time hating the freedom and disrespect of what that offers.
So then putting a 2-Sided in the SE might not be a good way to judge how much people like it by the traffic because, as you say, they are too lazy to move the mouse and click on a different arena?
If so, then we are in agreement.
FLS had suggested putting the 2-sided in the SE, but seemed unwilling to admit that would be an unfair test.
I proved that to him by offering the opposite conditions: the 2-Sided in the Main and the 3-Sided in the SE. He admitted in post #78 that wouldn't be fair, but he doesn't want to admit why.
But you are right, laziness and habit, they are just going to go to the Main, or at least the bulk will. And the others just follow the herd. :D
So, in reality it is not fair to compare any alternative to the Main when they are running side-by-side, whether you put the 2-Sided in there or the 3-Sided. The Main will always win no matter what you put in there.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 10, 2018, 07:19:26 PM
I only suggested the SE to avoid mucking up the MA with experiments. :D
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: SPKmes on October 10, 2018, 07:25:30 PM
Yep that is exactly what I am saying...just no so eloquently...
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: guncrasher on October 10, 2018, 08:25:29 PM
this whole conversation reminds me of when hitech set up the pink arena. people would just jump to the arena with the most numbers regardless of the name.
you guys are wishing for an arena that we already have. a 2 sided war that is almost empty every day. if you people would only try to see if a 2 country arena would work go to the ava. I am pretty sure they can set it up to your satisfaction. and if enough people would go there instead of the 3 war arena I am pretty sure that would prove that hitech was wrong.
until that ava has more numbers than the ma all you guys area doing is beating a dead horse. prove that a 2 country arena will work with more than arguing go there and see how many will follow you. people here vote with their presence in which arena they would like to play.
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 10, 2018, 09:15:37 PM
this whole conversation reminds me of when hitech set up the pink arena. people would just jump to the arena with the most numbers regardless of the name.
you guys are wishing for an arena that we already have. a 2 sided war that is almost empty every day. if you people would only try to see if a 2 country arena would work go to the ava.
You realize you just argued against your point, right?
The AvA is empty because it is not the Main. The Early War was empty because it wasn't the Main. Mid-War was empty because it wasn't the Main. MatchPlay is empty because it isn't the Main. WWI is empty because it isn't the Main.
And if we put a 2-Side in the Main and the 3-Side in the SE, then the 3-side would be empty because it isn't the Main.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: flippz on October 10, 2018, 09:20:37 PM
In all the years of this mental exercise to try and convince Hitech to change his business model. Very few offer mechanisms other than the implied "Force of Hitech" to deal with squads, unhappy customers, and side balancing that does not return to "Force of Hitech" to accomplish. The ideas have never touched on how Hitech manages the subscription paying customer base so he does not loose subscriptions and today, not have an empty test arena or, two even more sparsely populated main arenas. Mostly the presentation hopes Hitech will see the wisdom and unique perspective of the poster and wave his magic wand as the result. Almost 20 years and fat chance on his waving that wand.
It took me three MA terrains back to back over two years to bring our low numbers during prime time together as the largest groups possible. The best for this is riftval which has intense combat during prime time on at a minimum one of each country's boarder. And at no time did I resort to "Force of Hitech" as the magic wand to fill in the "blanks" most never bother to attempt when they start this topic up each time.
The "try it and see" is something you don't do to the MA if Hitech wants to keep his doors open even if you don't agree with his current business model. It's easy to flip him off with a cut your own business throat drive by comment, since you don't have skin in his game at his level. So far he has chosen to keep his doors open. The AvA can recreate the MA with two sides and advertise, for a few Monday nights when they did, side imbalances and chronic MA lame play would always screw the pooch each time. It eventually reminded me of the BS at Furball lake in the old DA. It devolved from a limited ride themed Monday night event, into a two sided lame twitch and jerk version of the MA as more and more rides were added in until it was the MA with two sides. At that point people went back to the real MA to be professionally HO'd and ganged.
None of you are willing to do more than hit keys on your keyboard. A few years ago Hitech refused to create something I thought was a good idea. When I created it myself, he helped me distribute it once it worked and passed the HOST error test. Not many used it, though they all loved the idea of it. Since then I've simplified and refined it but, that was after two years of none stop MA terrains to solve the problem of low numbers, three countries, and how to bring the most players together during prime time.
Wanting a two sided MA will first require you to convince Hitech to reduce his customer's freedom of choice. And that forcing them to side balance and adjust their in game relationships of who they associate with each evening will be in his bottom line best interests. Even Fortnite has two types of game play, team work capture the flag and self serving king of the hill. Over the last nearly 20 years, those wanting Hitech to change the MA to two sides have not been very interested in the team work capture the flag side of the game.
no see bustr that where you are wrong, there is a lot a WHOLE lot that players do. I own a business and I don't let the customers load there cars, they are not allowed to rig there cars. I have absolutely no customer involvement in my business. here fso is done by players, scenarios are done by players skins are done by players maps are done by players mods are done by players. I haven't been involved in a lot of games in my life but this is the only one I have seen to date that players have to create maps, skins extra scenarios and so on.
you have to adjust with the times and what people want. in the 6 yrs my business has been opened my business model has changed 3 times, all due to customer input and watching what people ask for. have they all been a great success? no have they all failed? no. I take what works and get rid of what doesn't.
I am a huge believer in the 2 sided war, is it gonna work I don't know? I also look at it through different glasses as I like to fight in fighters and could careless the map out come winner. I can tell you my little over 2 years in here I have seen a lot of people leave and very few come in. you can take 100 people and divide them by 50 if you want but that don't create action. now you take a 100 people and divide them by 2 and give them a closer area of involvement then you create action. maps can be made to where the "open sandbox" is still applicable. have close tight bases up front and rearward base for the bombers guys and make strats available for defense and bombing. make a sprawling landscape for the 30 gvers that want to up and pound the crap out of each other. if a owner wants to sit on the laurels and refuse to change with time and customers then the world passes by.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: flippz on October 10, 2018, 09:35:37 PM
oh ENY does, but a team is under ENY only now and then. In a two sided war it would be under ENY almost all the time. Can you imagine the cries? LOL!!! discuss all you want. Hitech is the only one that matters in this discussion and we all know what his views are.
why cant the side switch time be lowered to say a hour? there is a lot of guys that would switch if it wasn't 6 hrs.
and eliminate all countries just go to colors say fuchsia and magenta. maybe creep eny with numbers.
I think it is well worth a try to just see what happens.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: ccvi on October 11, 2018, 02:13:13 AM
here fso is done by players, scenarios are done by players skins are done by players maps are done by players mods are done by players. I haven't been involved in a lot of games in my life but this is the only one I have seen to date that players have to create maps, skins extra scenarios and so on.
You may know counter strike. It was created by: players. Modifying/extending existing games is something that isn't too uncommon. Players don't "have to", but some seem to enjoy it.
You can't find a single open world, pure PVP game on this scale that doesn't have 3 sides, or isn't in even worse shape than this one. There are 3. Planetside 2, Warbirds, and AH.
This list is slightly short.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 07:27:01 AM
You may know counter strike. It was created by: players. Modifying/extending existing games is something that isn't too uncommon. Players don't "have to", but some seem to enjoy it.
This list is slightly short.
And two in that list were literally, LITERALLY, designed in a previous century.
Look, I understand the design goals of a 3-sided war. I have nothing against it in principle. It never bothered me personally. It has advantages and disadvantages as a game design.
It's main goal was to provide a self-balancing mechanism. However, it was so inferior in that role, that HTC had to design and implement an ENY system to do the job better. That is a superior mechanism for self-balancing. And with that, the argument that you MUST have a 3-sided war is greatly undermined. AW never had an ENY system that I remember. It had to resort to the inferior mechanism of 3-sides. HTC no longer has that constraint. They have a better tool now.
While the 3-sided design was not sufficiently effective as a self-balancing mechanism, by happy accident, it was very useful when we had 650 players in the arena because it tended to self-distribute the action. It was an elegant way to create more frontage surface area for a given map size and thin things out. However, that may now be working against HTC's interests, when you only have 160 players on the best of nights.
A 2-sided design would have the opposite effect. It would tend shorten the available frontage surface area for a given map size and increase player density along the front and create more action and a higher cadence of activity. At the same time, ENY provides the self-balancing mechanism to mitigate the degenerate tendencies a 2-sided design might devolve to.
The assumption that you MUST only have a 3-sided war was formed in a previous century, when HTC didn't have the self-balancing mechanisms it now has at their disposal. It might be worth honestly challenging whether those previous assumptions still apply in a new century, with a different size player base, with new, superior mechanisms for balance available to you.
The day a company starts refusing to constantly challenge their previous assumptions in an intellectually honest way, is the day it takes its first foot steps on the road to obsolescence.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Wiley on October 11, 2018, 08:37:18 AM
And two in that list were literally, LITERALLY, designed in a previous century.
Which invalidates the design... how exactly?
Quote
Look, I understand the design goals of a 3-sided war. I have nothing against it in principle. It never bothered me personally. It has advantages and disadvantages as a game design.
It's main goal was to provide a self-balancing mechanism.
What is that comment based on?
Wiley.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 09:28:33 AM
It simply means that assumption was formed a long time ago before other advances like the development of an ENY system that wasn't available at the time a 3-Sided design was chosen. And certainly long enough ago to justify reexamining those assumptions.
If you prefer FLS' definition of "limiting imbalance" instead of achieving balance, I'm OK with that. It's a distinction without much difference. If you sufficiently limit imbalance, you have balance. As you tend away from imbalance, you tend towards balance. FLS is just quibbling over phrasing because he is out of any other ideas.
In any case, if ENY can "limit imbalance" in a 3-sided war, it can do so in a 2-sided war.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Wiley on October 11, 2018, 09:31:37 AM
It simply means that assumption was formed a long time ago before other advances like the development of an ENY system that wasn't available at the time a 3-Sided design was chosen. And certainly long enough ago to justify reexamining those assumptions.
If you prefer FLS' definition of "limiting imbalance" instead of achieving balance, I'm OK with that. It's a distinction without much difference. If you sufficiently limit imbalance, you have balance. As you tend away from imbalance, you tend towards balance. FLS is just quibbling words because he is out of any other ideas.
No, what makes you think the 3 sided war had anything to do with side balancing? You're basing this entire line of thought on the idea that the 3 sided war was there primarily to promote side balance. Based on what?
Wiley.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 09:35:29 AM
No, what makes you think the 3 sided war had anything to do with side balancing? You're basing this entire line of thought on the idea that the 3 sided war was there primarily to promote side balance. Based on what?
According to FLS "it helps to limit imbalances." Apparently, it does it so well they had to go design an ENY system.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: guncrasher on October 11, 2018, 10:35:18 AM
You realize you just argued against your point, right?
The AvA is empty because it is not the Main. The Early War was empty because it wasn't the Main. Mid-War was empty because it wasn't the Main. MatchPlay is empty because it isn't the Main. WWI is empty because it isn't the Main.
And if we put a 2-Side in the Main and the 3-Side in the SE, then the 3-side would be empty because it isn't the Main.
you do realize that the calling something the main arena is just a name. you can change the ava name to the main arena or melee arena and the current main arena the 3 sided war.
you want to force people to fly in a 2 two side war when most people prefer a 3 side war. you know how I know that is going to fail, it's easy, the 2 sided war arena is empty while the 3 sided war arena has the most people.
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 10:40:29 AM
you do realize that the calling something the main arena is just a name. you can change the ava name to the main arena or melee arena and the current main arena the 3 sided war.
you want to force people to fly in a 2 two side war when most people prefer a 3 side war. you know how I know that is going to fail, it's easy, the 2 sided war arena is empty while the 3 sided war arena has the most people.
semp
So you agree that putting a 2-sided war in the current "Melee" arena and putting the 3-sided war in the Special Events arena should be no problem? Since those arenas are just "names"?
So I don't see how anyone is being forced to do anything. The 3-sided war would be right there in the arena "named" Special Events. All they have to do is click on it. How would they be "forced" to play in the 2-sided war?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 11, 2018, 10:53:53 AM
The 'so you agree' mindmeld hypnosis attempts can get rather tiresome. :old:
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 10:57:28 AM
Is this the 'queen bee' perspective on what the hive mind should be? :D
Well, it is certainly reasonable to infer based on not one of them being willing to see the 3-side war put over on the Special Events arena. Yet, they seem unwilling to explain why that would be a bad thing. Somehow that prevents people from clicking on it, but they won't explain how.
Do you honestly believe that what ever is in the Melee arena wouldn't get the vast majority of the traffic? Will you answer that honestly?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Mister Fork on October 11, 2018, 11:18:08 AM
@CptTrips - it's not like other MMO's haven't run in a two-sided setup before. And all the SEA events are two sided, so is the AvA.
Three sided war is where it's at.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 11, 2018, 11:20:36 AM
I admit that HTC will probably never give it a try in the Melee. Although, if they are as smart as I think they are, I hope they would just put their past assumptions aside, and really analyze whether is still doesn't make sense to give it even the smallest limited test given how much has changed since that original design decision was made.
I admit I don't know the full extent of what would be required to put together a test. I assume there is enough knowledge gained from scenarios and AvA that it is possible with some effort without requiring code changes for an initial trial. That may be completely not possible, but I don't get that impression. But I certainly wouldn't want them to have to go do code changes just to try it.
I admit that if they did try it, it might failed miserably. I think that can be mitigated by surveying the arena to see if enough want to see it tried. If people want to give it a try, give it a go. Then after a couple of Tues runs, survey again to see if it was enjoyed enough to be continued.
If people don't like it, you just drop it and continue with your regularly scheduled programming. I can't see how a couple of Tues is going to bring the world to an end.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 11:37:37 AM
Your comments seem to completely centered on me. So I assume you don't have anything intelligent to add to the topic at hand.
My thoughts to your thoughts ..... agree with me ..... I am right ..... you are wrong ..... don't focus on me .... I've inferred dishonesty on your part. :old:
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 11:45:41 AM
no see bustr that where you are wrong, there is a lot a WHOLE lot that players do. I own a business and I don't let the customers load there cars, they are not allowed to rig there cars. I have absolutely no customer involvement in my business. here fso is done by players, scenarios are done by players skins are done by players maps are done by players mods are done by players. I haven't been involved in a lot of games in my life but this is the only one I have seen to date that players have to create maps, skins extra scenarios and so on.
you have to adjust with the times and what people want. in the 6 yrs my business has been opened my business model has changed 3 times, all due to customer input and watching what people ask for. have they all been a great success? no have they all failed? no. I take what works and get rid of what doesn't.
I am a huge believer in the 2 sided war, is it gonna work I don't know? I also look at it through different glasses as I like to fight in fighters and could careless the map out come winner. I can tell you my little over 2 years in here I have seen a lot of people leave and very few come in. you can take 100 people and divide them by 50 if you want but that don't create action. now you take a 100 people and divide them by 2 and give them a closer area of involvement then you create action. maps can be made to where the "open sandbox" is still applicable. have close tight bases up front and rearward base for the bombers guys and make strats available for defense and bombing. make a sprawling landscape for the 30 gvers that want to up and pound the crap out of each other. if a owner wants to sit on the laurels and refuse to change with time and customers then the world passes by.
You have said nothing other than Hitech needs to try out what you and someone who agrees with you to see if it will work.
Neither one of you has ever built an MA world and analyzed the results of how players utilize it, but, talk like you have and are a information broker in touch with hundreds of ex-players with a database of their personal stories. The only players who will benefit from a single front between two countries are the same kind of player who likes the DA and take part in KOTH. You have admitted yourself as that kind of player. There are two sided combat arenas but the majority of customers want to play in the three sided combat arena for reasons other than KOTH\DA kinds of combat. They like being multidisciplinary to play capture the flag air combat and drive on the ground shooting at each other. KOTH\DA type of players have been in the forefront of trying to push Hitech into turning the MA into a giant 10x10 one front DA which two sides will create overnight. The capture the flag players will have no space to pull back to from failed initiatives and choose a less demanding front to catch a breather. While being constantly harassed by DA types who will make sure they never have a break becasue that is what a single front facilitates and will be gamed knowing that.
Ultimately if Hitech try's it, you might achieve the unspoken goal of driving out all the old dinosaurs who don't want to play in the three sided MA your way with a two sided MA. Your blind spot is you have no solution for Hitech to recoup that kind of revenue stream loss other than it's his problem to solve in his industry. Like all those who have pushed this topic for 20 years before you and CptTrps today. The gist of your assertions are to force through doom and gloom predictions, logic countering rationalization traps, and even silencing by any means, those who disagree with your assertions in the hopes it will force or persuade Hitech to give you your utopian vision of the MA.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Mister Fork on October 11, 2018, 02:27:58 PM
ya'll are forgetting the new hipster rule, 3 is the new 2.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: captain1ma on October 11, 2018, 02:38:29 PM
ok CptTrips, lets try this. you tell me what you want, PM me. tell me planes, map or terrain and settings. ill build it for you in the AVA. your job is to populate it. you can try it out. just remember that i change the terrain on monday and thursday night for a little while. it will be up all week otherwise! id be happy to help you prove your point.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 02:40:40 PM
ok CptTrips, lets try this. you tell me what you want, PM me. tell me planes, map or terrain and settings. ill build it for you in the AVA. your job is to populate it. you can try it out. just remember that i change the terrain on monday and thursday night for a little while. it will be up all week otherwise! id be happy to help you prove your point.
:bhead :bhead :bhead Lol you must not have read much of this thread have you? I don't blame you, :lol but that ground has already been covered extensively.
But thank you for the generous offer of your time. :salute
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: captain1ma on October 11, 2018, 02:44:41 PM
no, i dont have time to read 9 pages of crap. i just wanted to offer.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 02:47:55 PM
Ultimately if Hitech try's it, you might achieve the unspoken goal of driving out all the old dinosaurs who don't want to play in the three sided MA your way with a two sided MA. Your blind spot is you have no solution for Hitech to recoup that kind of revenue stream loss other than it's his problem to solve in his industry. Like all those who have pushed this topic for 20 years before you and CptTrps today. The gist of your assertions are to force through doom and gloom predictions, logic countering rationalization traps, and even silencing by any means, those who disagree with your assertions in the hopes it will force or persuade Hitech to give you your utopian vision of the MA.
Wow. You are off in the weeds in so many directions, I don't even know where to start.
How have I tried to silence you by any means? Did I accidentally press that button that sends the Ninja assignation team to your house? Crap. I'm sorry dude. I always get that one mixed up with the one that orders my afternoon coffee. :cool:
Oh, and I am a win-the-war guy. I was fighting furballers about the importance of win-the-war on this board years before you ever thought of downloading the game. One of my biggest gripes was Hitech refusal to add any kind of win-the-war support to WWI.
So....maybe some decafe?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: guncrasher on October 11, 2018, 02:48:39 PM
what he wants is to force everybody to fly in a two side arena.
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 02:49:50 PM
no, i dont have time to read 9 pages of crap. i just wanted to offer.
Jaeger is the smartest man on earth. He has no time for simple drivel.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 11, 2018, 04:33:10 PM
Yes...I have read EACH and EVERY line in this thread :eek: First...I dont really have an axe to grind,one way or another. Second I love this Game and Community. Third, I hate losing ANY players, new or otherwise. That being said, I dont understand the rejection of the "give it a go" and lets see what happens. We have an example of "How setting up this experiment in AVA or SE arenas" would go. HT had a SEPARATE ARENA for testing of AH3 running at same time as MAIN AH2. We ALL know how that worked out, most NEVER EVEN attempted to try it out. :headscratch: Lead to a lot of WTF is this after AH3 went live and AH2 was done away with. As was previously mentioned a TEST would be just that..dont see why folk would quit over it. WE ALL LOVE THIS GAME, and most see a need FOR SOMETHING TO CHANGE! What that something is...I HAVE NO IDEA. I trust HT and crew, and they have my support for life. it just seems odd to me, that suggestions like this are met with such animosity. What I have now..I love...IF THIS or any other changes can/could MAYBE make it better...I AM ALL IN to try it and see. Surely it couldnt be nearly as TOXIC as the GV dar/Radar "TEST" was? I may be wrong on that one, as to "Chess Piece" Loyalists...you would have to change the names. Then again LIMITED TEST....24 hours shouldn't make the sky fall...could it :uhoh If it starts to...poof..."back to regular scheduled programming". Sure it sucked when, before Cable TV, when say the State of The Union was ON EVERY CHANNEL and you had to wait till next week to watch the next episode of some show :furious BUT to my knowledge...NO ONE quit watching TV.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 04:34:36 PM
How would I be forcing them if the 3-side was right beside it in the SE arena?
Oh, that's right, you didn't answer the last time I asked that. :ahand
dude they are right now next to each other. do you even log in. Ava with two side war which was also offered to plan it as you wish is right next to the Melee arena.
two side war right next to a 3 side war. do you even pay attention to which one is populated?
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:00:08 PM
dude they are right now next to each other. do you even log in. Ava with two side war which was also offered to plan it as you wish is right next to the Melee arena.
two side war right next to a 3 side war. do you even pay attention to which one is populated?
semp
Duuuude!
You have a reading comprehension problem.
Nothing we are discussing involves AvA.
I will give you another opportunity.
We put a 2-sided in the Melee arena and a 3-sided in the Special Events arena.
Would you be ok with that?
If not, why not?
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:09:20 PM
We have an example of "How setting up this experiment in AVA or SE arenas" would go. HT had a SEPARATE ARENA for testing of AH3 running at same time as MAIN AH2. We ALL know how that worked out, most NEVER EVEN attempted to try it out.
Yes, and every one of them knows it. They are just desperate to avoid being trapped into admitting it. Although it's a little fun to watch them thrash around like a drowning person. Contorting themselves into pretzels to avoid getting pinned. :rofl
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: guncrasher on October 11, 2018, 05:10:25 PM
ok so why put the 3 sided war in the sea arena. put them side by side like they are now and let players decide.
semp
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 11, 2018, 05:21:14 PM
Seems the situation is like this :uhoh Noone/or not many...would even give the 2side arena even a passing glance. ITS NEW/DIFFERENT and Melee is THE ARENA. I could see it working Side by side..only if you changed the ARENA names. Folk stick with what they know. maybe 2 Front MELEE and Standard Melee (or some difference in names just to get folk to think about it for a second). Most Melee players HAVE NO IDEA what AvA even is and those that do would see it as SAME OLD AvA with limited plane sets. His reasoning seems sound...but I would say it would be UNFAIR to either Arena set in SE or AvA...folk would just click on WHAT they are USED TO clicking on. Then when it seems different..well we know what that sounds like as well :uhoh
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2018, 05:25:35 PM
If you prefer FLS' definition of "limiting imbalance" instead of achieving balance, I'm OK with that. It's a distinction without much difference. If you sufficiently limit imbalance, you have balance. As you tend away from imbalance, you tend towards balance. FLS is just quibbling over phrasing because he is out of any other ideas.
...
I understand you don't see the difference.
It's also clear that you have an agenda and aren't interested in discussion.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: The Fugitive on October 11, 2018, 05:26:22 PM
You keep coming back for more. :neener: You take a long time to say goodbye.
It looks like your the one who should say good bye. For the last few pages all you have done is argue and go off on these rants.
How long have you been here? Way back in the day when HTC first added EW, MW, and LW arenas the first 3 days or so EVERYONE was in the EW arena. Why? because it was at the top of the list. Once the players figured out there were more arenas and READ the titles they switched to the 3rd one done.... LW arena.
Even if HTC setup the arenas as you request..... and if you have been here more than a year or two you will KNOW that aint going to happen...... You may get everyone in the new MA with 2 sides, but I think they would switch back to the 3 sided arena just for the sake of getting their name back... 2 sided jacks and aces, 3 sided Knights, Bishops and Rooks. Human nature will win.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:27:10 PM
ok so why put the 3 sided war in the sea arena. put them side by side like they are now and let players decide.
semp
Why? Because I was needling the person who was suggesting shunting the 2-sided area off the the Special Events arena would be a fair test. :t That was just a thinly veiled attempt to strangle it in its crib. :cool:
You're right. If you wanted to run them side, they should be listed (in order on the online arena list)
2-Sided Melee 3-Sided Melee etc..
2-sided would be first in the list and the default selection. I would consider that fair.
But what about the alternative of just running it on a couple of Tues like Caldera suggested? "Two-Sided Tues!"
I honestly think a lot of people would enjoy something different.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 11, 2018, 05:32:54 PM
Just three words .....
Spanish Civil War. :D
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:37:53 PM
Why? Because I was needling the person who was suggesting shunting the 2-sided area off the the Special Events arena would be a fair test. :t
Who do you imagine said "fair test"? That was you... I said it would not be a fair test.
Just stop the clown parade now. You have a preference with no good argument for it.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Arlo on October 11, 2018, 05:39:53 PM
We will never know how great a Spanish Civil War arena will be until we try it in place of the MA. I don't know why people don't just give it a try and prove me right. :D
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:40:50 PM
We will never know how great a Spanish Civil War arena will be until we try it in place of the MA. I don't know why people don't just give it a try and prove me right. :D
Then go start you a thread and make your argument. :aok
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 05:44:02 PM
No one if forcing you to click on this thread Fugitive.
Done!
You here to do nothing but argue. Heres a quote from your first post.... "so I am merely intending a rational discussion of the topic as a concept," so much for that huh.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: CptTrips on October 11, 2018, 06:35:44 PM
Heres a quote from your first post.... "so I am merely intending a rational discussion of the topic as a concept," so much for that huh.
Yeah, you guys have made that pretty hard.
FLS says I have some dark hidden agenda. guncrasher says I'm trying to enslave everyone into my arena gulag. Bustr accuses me of, I'd don't know...something. :rofl
And I suspect you just can't stand that I won't back down from my opinion no matter how much hostility you and your friends pile on. Good luck with that. :lol
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: flippz on October 11, 2018, 06:45:58 PM
You have said nothing other than Hitech needs to try out what you and someone who agrees with you to see if it will work.
Neither one of you has ever built an MA world and analyzed the results of how players utilize it, but, talk like you have and are a information broker in touch with hundreds of ex-players with a database of their personal stories. The only players who will benefit from a single front between two countries are the same kind of player who likes the DA and take part in KOTH. You have admitted yourself as that kind of player. There are two sided combat arenas but the majority of customers want to play in the three sided combat arena for reasons other than KOTH\DA kinds of combat. They like being multidisciplinary to play capture the flag air combat and drive on the ground shooting at each other. KOTH\DA type of players have been in the forefront of trying to push Hitech into turning the MA into a giant 10x10 one front DA which two sides will create overnight. The capture the flag players will have no space to pull back to from failed initiatives and choose a less demanding front to catch a breather. While being constantly harassed by DA types who will make sure they never have a break becasue that is what a single front facilitates and will be gamed knowing that.
Ultimately if Hitech try's it, you might achieve the unspoken goal of driving out all the old dinosaurs who don't want to play in the three sided MA your way with a two sided MA. Your blind spot is you have no solution for Hitech to recoup that kind of revenue stream loss other than it's his problem to solve in his industry. Like all those who have pushed this topic for 20 years before you and CptTrps today. The gist of your assertions are to force through doom and gloom predictions, logic countering rationalization traps, and even silencing by any means, those who disagree with your assertions in the hopes it will force or persuade Hitech to give you your utopian vision of the MA.
Im not trying to force anything on anyone, stating an opinion is not forcing. Ive never made a game or coded or made a map, like I have said in previous post not my job to do that.
I find it very hard to play about 4 days of the week when there are any "decent" numbers are on. the weekends are filled with the herd mentality and constant hoarding of one country. then 2 nights a week are filled with large squads that continually run there missions against one country. now im not crying about getting hoarded or blah blah but when you have two countries going after one country no one on that one country ups so many times the few of us they do up are annihilated rather quickly from the red guys fighting so hard to get a kill. so lets examine the other three days of the week when there are "decent" numbers on. its usually filled with flying 5-7 mins to a base to either chase a 190d or tempy or 51d either a sector or to 4 of his friends, or you can dive in to the 6 that are on the deck and attempt to get a few kills before you are drug into the ack or totally swarmed. now again I have never built a game nor collected a data base of players that play, but that's my experience and I am a paying customer so why should my game play be affected by the "mega squad" night (if you want to call it that with these numbers) or the weekend play when its pointless for fighters to up as most go to gvs? why cant I ask for what helps my game play in this sand box of excitement is my question?
if there was a active ava with enough people in there to be decent, even with a limited plane set I would go there. I go to the da often when people are in there. the da gets a bit dull after fighting the same guy in the same plane 20 times. and don't tell me to setup a ava room, again not my job.
the other 2 games I play are IL2 which is a capture the flag type game only no base takes just destroying them and they have 2 sides. seems to work fine in there except for the real early war battles they get side skewed. the ack in there is not over powered to the point of 1 ping kills. every one seems to be pretty involved in fighting as far I can tell.
so to wrap this up, because I am the minority now as 95% of the others fighters including a few in my squad have left the game doesn't mean I cant say what I want in the game. some one said it best that the last fight in Aces High will be a fuel mileage battle that will end in the others ack.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FLS on October 11, 2018, 06:56:54 PM
You know, even if you don't get your custom arena, that might still make a cool pack of Staged Missions tied to a custom offline terrain map and make you some custom skins to embed in it.
But I'm just a sucker for anything with two wings. :lol
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Lazerr on October 12, 2018, 12:25:33 AM
Looks like you got your answer.. from the same 5 guys that answer every thread about gameplay discussions, and tell you how they know everything about everything in every other thread also. I was going to let you know the response you were about to get when you first posted this. I guess my time logging into the boards is starting to match my time online.. lol
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: 1stpar3 on October 12, 2018, 01:10:02 AM
:aok Better late than NEVER! Yeah,its all the same :uhoh Good to see though LAZER...i sort of missed ya! :salute
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: FESS67 on October 12, 2018, 02:49:23 AM
Looks like you got your answer.. from the same 5 guys that answer every thread about gameplay discussions, and tell you how they know everything about everything in every other thread also. I was going to let you know the response you were about to get when you first posted this. I guess my time logging into the boards is starting to match my time online.. lol
Lol my sentiments exactly. Nothing wrong with 3 sides, nothing wrong with ENY, if you have not built a map and poured your heart out over it you cannot possibly understsnd the dynamics of the game.
To the OP, you started out ok but let emotion drive you and played into their hands. You simply cannot debate this stuff as they simply will not adjust their positions. I suspect people like us are done here. Sad but true.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: caldera on October 12, 2018, 06:22:34 AM
Not possible to have a reasonable discussion with the unreasonable, intractable, dogmatic defenders of the faith.
Title: Re: 2-Sided vs 3-Sided Arena Design
Post by: Skuzzy on October 12, 2018, 06:31:29 AM