This Mornings Arena Caps

[kvuo75]

Not sure what the "gameplay" considerations are when numbers get this low. Force people to fly around looking for fights in unpopulated arenas? I agree with Money. Another example of some arbitrary rule making the game less fun for the people who pay to play it.

so, 98 people is "unpopulated"?

I think about 30-50 each side is about right, especially on a small map.



I don't know what people think they're missing in the arena with 150 people vs. the one with 90. really.. I cannot figure it out..

[Dace]

I don't know what people think they're missing in the arena with 150 people vs. the one with 90. really.. I cannot figure it out..

60 more people=roughly 40 more targets. How's that?

[TnDep]

  Not picking on your post TnDep just using it to reply, I have an idea, why not let HTC run THEIR GAME as they see fit to do. If players don't like it they either leave or play the game as Dale
intends it to be played. I see so much    here because the game is not played the way someone wants it to be played. Players can vote with their money either pay or don't.
the CAP thing has been explained over and over but still people come here and  . I will say TnDep I really don't think it is up to a player to tell HTC wheather they need to advertise or not, that is their choice
and their call. Yes it would be a disappointment if it goes away but we will all survive.

my post was opinion oriented, never once did I say tell htc my quote was "Few Ideas for HTC" Dale said if he could have 5000 players he would point is why they are advertising.

The reason for this post is that the only late war arena he could get in had 90 people and we've all been in there when theres not much action.  The only fix for this is we need more players.

Every great invention or idea started with one mans dream, determination, experimentation, hypothesis, ect.  As long as the person offering the suggestion is polite and respectful, htc welcomes this and one of the reasons why we have this forum to discuss different ideas and suggestions.

Do you think every change in this game was made strictly by htc? or did they take ideas from players of the game?

Think outside of the box alittle, offering positive suggestions is only going to make us bigger and stronger

[Money]

 

[HatTrick]

As someone new to the game, I have to agree with the OP.  Late night in Blue sucks.  It may show 90 people in the room but usually almost half of them are afk or not in the air.  It's just generally slow action.  When the game is busy, this is by far the most fun I've had in an online sim and that goes back to the hey day of Fighter Ace when it was magical to me.

[kvuo75]

60 more people=roughly 40 more targets. How's that?

you gonna fight all 40 at the same time?

[Lusche]

you gonna fight all 40 at the same time?

While fun isn't directly related to numbers...

More player generally means more combat opportunities. More players = more possible variations in gameplay. More often means more action densitiy, instead of just a single dot here and there.

[AWwrgwy]

so, 98 people is "unpopulated"?

I think about 30-50 each side is about right, especially on a small map.



I don't know what people think they're missing in the arena with 150 people vs. the one with 90. really.. I cannot figure it out..

+1

60 more people=roughly 40 more targets. How's that?

This begs the question, how many people are you flying with?

The game is what you make of it.  Can't find a fight?  Take three or four like minded souls and attack a base.  Start to deack it.  If no one ups, start taking down the town.  Maybe take the field.

Stir things up and they will come.

Or, are we just looking for a hord to fight our hord?

I enjoy the irony between the "can't find a fight" and "can't find a one-on-one" crowds.


wrongway

[grizz441]

you gonna fight all 40 at the same time?

30-40 on each side does not mean all 30-40 are in flight.  There are usually 5-10 afkers, 5-10 gvers, and 20 actually cons spread across the map, possibly fighting the other country.  90 in an arena is not enough for quality sustainable gameplay imo.  60-70 per side is needed.

[TnDep]

30-40 on each side does not mean all 30-40 are in flight.  There are usually 5-10 afkers, 5-10 gvers, and 20 actually cons spread across the map, possibly fighting the other country.  90 in an arena is not enough for quality sustainable gameplay imo.  60-70 per side is needed.

that was my point of some different advertising techniques and I get called out for crying  Just offering some positive suggestions for recruiting but I agree with your assessment of sustainable gameplay 90 players is not enough 200-250 is almost perfect.

[Dace]

+1


This begs the question, how many people are you flying with?

The game is what you make of it.  Can't find a fight?  Take three or four like minded souls and attack a base.  Start to deack it.  If no one ups, start taking down the town.  Maybe take the field.

Stir things up and they will come.

Or, are we just looking for a hord to fight our hord?

I enjoy the irony between the "can't find a fight" and "can't find a one-on-one" crowds.


wrongway

I was illustrating the difference between 90 and 150. Never did I say "can't find a fight" or "cant' find a one on one". I think grizz put it best, "90 players is not enough for quality sustainable gameplay". On a big map 150 is barely enough. When a big map has 90 players, 20 from each side are in the middle of the map in a big glob and the other 10 from each side are running circles around the map trying to stay away form each other. So, you can either take your 4 like minded buddies to the big glob, or you can try to chase the "other 10" who will move there attack to the other side of the map at the first sign of resistance.

[Money]

30-40 on each side does not mean all 30-40 are in flight.  There are usually 5-10 afkers, 5-10 gvers, and 20 actually cons spread across the map, possibly fighting the other country.  90 in an arena is not enough for quality sustainable gameplay imo.  60-70 per side is needed.