What's more important to the AvA

[Mister Fork]

a) Historical match-ups that do not take into account the Main Arena style gameplay. Meaning, you don't care about field captures - it's all about World War II.

b) Gameplay that is based on historical match-ups that enhance the style of play outside of the main arenas.  Meaning, you enjoy the arena that offers Main Arena gamplay but based on historical World War II settings and periods.

Please discuss.

[Chilli]

Hiya FORK!
Been away from AH for some time now.  What I really enjoyed about it mostly was the historically accurate plane sets.  This allowed for less lopsided fights.  However, my biggest complaint about the arena is the low volume of usage.  IMO, arena style , historical style:cool:, or drunken monkey style:rolleyes: , neither is as much fun as it can be without large number of combatants.(number somewhere in the range of 50 players) Mr.

Okay, you probably are thinking well you just want another Main Arena.  I disagree with that sentiment.  Having large numbers of players will have both positive and negative impact on whatever design of the arena.  But, the positve impact on gaming will far outweigh the negative.  Eventually, the majority of players will police the arena themselves.

My suggesstion, lighten up.  Keep putting up those amazing maps that we enjoy so much in AvA.  Once the word gets around on what an awesome job that you all are doing, a lot more of the hard core historical minded players will be as hooked as I was on the arena.

Answer to your question:  Stick with the plane set and historical map scenario concept.  Just make sure that you have enough targets (be it opponent or bases) to keep the casual visitor occupied long enough to build up the numbers and momentum in making for a GREAT battle.

Chilli  -  good topic

[sparow]

Hi Fork!

I must confess that both options are very much alike to me. I may have interpretation problems due to natural difficulties in interpretating reasonings in a foreign language...

My opinion about AvA has been expressed before. I feel that AvA should keep the historical match-ups and planesets in the most historically correct maps available, wich, by no accident, happen to have been developed for AvA by the Map Team...

I once suggested that AvA maps should have very few airfields available and operational. I keep that suggestion. Two closer fighter bases (but not too close), two fighter bases further back in the map (but not very far away), a couple of bomber bases even further back (just enough to let them to climb to altitude without beeing ripped apart). Six bases to each country. All other airfields available for emergency landings, eventually rearming and refuelling, but no spawning. Not even ack enabled. No capturable bases at all, this would be a "land grabbing-free" arena. Same concept applied to Vehicle Bases.

I also would like to see the RPS in the maps and a sequential rotation of historical theatres of operations. Something like inverting the logic of the map rotation and making it with a RPS, but defining that each week or two weeks would represent a year in the conflict. Something like starting in 1939, Battle of France, then Dunkerque, then BoB, then Barbarossa, Mediterranean ops, Far East, back to Europe , Russia - lost track of time here, we must put Winter War around here - then Early Pacific, and so on, until we would reach Defense of the Reich and the Bombings of Japan...

If we set it by year, we would choose a close series of aerial battles in different TO's, sequentially, and the RPS would be natural...I am aware of the planeset gaps, of the map availability, et all. This is just an idea.

Also, as I stated in other threads, I wish that AvA had no enemy dot dar, only sector Dar Bar. I also wish that wind and clouds was set up the closest possible to the historical conditions of the place and time of event.
Also, I would like icon range reduced to minimum, about 2k or less. I also would like to see all aircraft topped up at 100% fuel by default. Also no Ch1 or Ch200 enabled in flight.

I believe that this would bring AvA to assume itself to be what it really is: a arena for people that wants to fight mainly in aircrafts, be it fighters or bombers, in an historical environment, with an above the average difficulty. Some GV'ers could also take advantege of the setups and have fun shooting themselves into oblivium. In the end, everyone would be happy and numbers would grow if enough advertisement was made in the forums.

Communication is the key to attract new players to AvA. They must arrive here in full knowledge of what they are going to find: it is important that they arrive here because they want a different experience, more demanding, less crowded, more relaxed in some ways, more deadly in others...

Cheers,

[Eagler]

never cared about base capture, its all about the a2a for me.
I like close bases and even planeset even it if means having the same planes on both sides. That is the attraction of EW and MW arenas.

[C(Sea)Bass]

Although I've only flown AvA once before I think that if the suggestions that sparrow gave were implemented that I, as well as other people, would be there more often.

[humble]

Originally posted by sparow
Hi Fork!

I must confess that both options are very much alike to me. I may have interpretation problems due to natural difficulties in interpretating reasonings in a foreign language...

My opinion about AvA has been expressed before. I feel that AvA should keep the historical match-ups and planesets in the most historically correct maps available, wich, by no accident, happen to have been developed for AvA by the Map Team...

I once suggested that AvA maps should have very few airfields available and operational. I keep that suggestion. Two closer fighter bases (but not too close), two fighter bases further back in the map (but not very far away), a couple of bomber bases even further back (just enough to let them to climb to altitude without beeing ripped apart). Six bases to each country. All other airfields available for emergency landings, eventually rearming and refuelling, but no spawning. Not even ack enabled. No capturable bases at all, this would be a "land grabbing-free" arena. Same concept applied to Vehicle Bases.

I also would like to see the RPS in the maps and a sequential rotation of historical theatres of operations. Something like inverting the logic of the map rotation and making it with a RPS, but defining that each week or two weeks would represent a year in the conflict. Something like starting in 1939, Battle of France, then Dunkerque, then BoB, then Barbarossa, Mediterranean ops, Far East, back to Europe , Russia - lost track of time here, we must put Winter War around here - then Early Pacific, and so on, until we would reach Defense of the Reich and the Bombings of Japan...

If we set it by year, we would choose a close series of aerial battles in different TO's, sequentially, and the RPS would be natural...I am aware of the planeset gaps, of the map availability, et all. This is just an idea.

Also, as I stated in other threads, I wish that AvA had no enemy dot dar, only sector Dar Bar. I also wish that wind and clouds was set up the closest possible to the historical conditions of the place and time of event.
Also, I would like icon range reduced to minimum, about 2k or less. I also would like to see all aircraft topped up at 100% fuel by default. Also no Ch1 or Ch200 enabled in flight.

I believe that this would bring AvA to assume itself to be what it really is: a arena for people that wants to fight mainly in aircrafts, be it fighters or bombers, in an historical environment, with an above the average difficulty. Some GV'ers could also take advantege of the setups and have fun shooting themselves into oblivium. In the end, everyone would be happy and numbers would grow if enough advertisement was made in the forums.

Communication is the key to attract new players to AvA. They must arrive here in full knowledge of what they are going to find: it is important that they arrive here because they want a different experience, more demanding, less crowded, more relaxed in some ways, more deadly in others...

Cheers,

[evenhaim]

a

[C(Sea)Bass]

Originally posted by evenhaim
a

interesting

[Dichotomy]

I like it the way it is...

[ergRTC]

I am sorry evenheim your are full of it.


b

[E25280]

I'm not sure why it is or should be an either-or proposition.

The fact that a few of the more regular players mostly choose "a" does not surprise me in the least bit.  It also shouldn't surprise anyone that no one who doesn't already occasionally show up in the AvA has posted.

The question should be, what will attract more new players to the arena?

I'm not going to claim that making the AvA more "MA-like" would do it, because it might be just as likely to drive away the regulars without attracting replacements.  But in all seriousness, "a" is what we have now, and people still gripe about low numbers.

[evenhaim]

Originally posted by ergRTC
I am sorry evenheim your are full of it.


b

well because your so rash,
the reason i choose a because i dont care about base captures, i dont like ma play as much but base captures are the lowest on my list.

[evenhaim]

Originally posted by E25280
I'm not sure why it is or should be an either-or proposition.

The fact that a few of the more regular players mostly choose "a" does not surprise me in the least bit.  It also shouldn't surprise anyone that no one who doesn't already occasionally show up in the AvA has posted.

The question should be, what will attract more new players to the arena?

I'm not going to claim that making the AvA more "MA-like" would do it, because it might be just as likely to drive away the regulars without attracting replacements.  But in all seriousness, "a" is what we have now, and people still gripe about low numbers.

Agreed this is what i want:aok

[Soulyss]

To me the CT and now the AvA was and is about individual plane match ups, particularly fighters,  bombers are included to allow players to run missions and have little mini-events but to me base capture causes more problems than it's worth in the AvA.  Plane match ups are historically based but tweaked with game play in mind, plane with similar flight characteristics and strengths are more interesting than dissimilar planes.  I used to include N1K's in my PTO setups when I was on the staff even if I was shooting for a time period earlier than the N1k historically saw much deployment because I felt the N1k offered a better encounter against the allied planes than the zero or even the tony did.  

As much as I loved PTO environments a group of P38, P47's and F4U corsairs against a bunch of zekes makes for a bored group of axis players.

[Mister Fork]

Valid points Soulyss - its something you know personally that all admins struggle with: working with a very limited Axis planeset.  For Germany, no problemo - more 109's and 190 variants than a bingo hall. (G-14, G-2, D-9 etc).  For Japanese, we are really really short on aircraft.

We're missing aircraft like the K-43, J2M, G4M, and the D4Y to help fill time-line gaps.  Most would be MA hangar queens, but operationally in the CT, SEA, and AvA, gems.  

That being said, I think I'm hearing that historical match-ups are what the AvA is about.  Gameplay can be a gem, especially for Squads with set objectives.  But field capture is not important to keeping and attracting new players - or bringing back veterans.   Increasing numbers is something I think I'm hearing and is a goal of all the AvA admins and staff.

All of the admins have been watch this discussion with great interest.  I've also asked my fellow admins what they want out of each other and the arena.  Making exciting setups that last longer we think could increase #'s in the arena.  I also think we need to step-up our advertising: something we haven't been doing much lately.

Thanks to all who have contributed to this discussion.  The admins are committed into bringing you all exciting historical experiences in the arena.  It's you guys, the players, who we are ultimately serving.  Without you, we wouldn't have the AvA.  Give us a while to work out our strategy.  If you have any more ideas and comments, please don't hesitate to contact us, especially if you're interested in volunteering.