Arena caps are...

[ghi]

The one thing I and Doug have become very good at, is discerning the difference between what players as a whole ask for and what they really want.

HiTech

Did you ever ask for  a beer, but the waiter brought you a milkshake because he is very good discerning the difference between what you ask for and what you really want  ?
You guys created a Great game, i find it entertaining after playing 4-5 years, but unfortunately mutilated by arena split and caps.

[bongaroo]

I enjoy the split arenas.  I honestly was close to canceling my subscription before the split.  I gave the split a try and I've found it easier to find the type of engagements I want to fly in.

[The Fugitive]

All I have is my gameplay experience to go by.  What I see is that gameplay is not affected from the arena split.  Are you all telling me that all of us mindless sheep magically change our strategies when we go from an arena with 215 to one with 70?   Do the evil wolves you all speak of break up becuase there are less of them? 

I don't think so.  But I do think getting stuck in an arena of 70, while an arena of 215 still could use a few hundred before gameplay is affected sucks.

I wish HTC didn't think letting me go in that arena would ruin it by allowing me and my stupid sheep turd tactics to ruin everyones day.

Looks like its all about you doesn't it? HT has to think about everyone, not just you. He has to make the game enjoyable for as many people as he can, even if that means you can't fly in your favorite arena ( you can if you have a little patience, and wait for the numbers to change) .

[DMBEAR]

Looks like its all about you doesn't it? HT has to think about everyone, not just you. He has to make the game enjoyable for as many people as he can, even if that means you can't fly in your favorite arena ( you can if you have a little patience, and wait for the numbers to change) .

Ok, Fugitive, you have to approach it that way?  Don't get your feathers in a ruffle and start nit picking.   I can only give my opinion. I don't claim to know what everyone else wants.  If I did, I'd get a response as follows....

We??? Why do so many folks say "We"? I'm fine with how it is setup. I fly MW on tuesdays.
So many folks seem to know what "WE" want that I am surprised there are not 5000 WW2 flight sims online.


Keep up the great work HT!

[drdeathx]

I do have to say 1 thing. When someone gets disco's, and the arena is full, it takes much longer than in the past for arena to increase in size. Many squads are running missions and it does take much longer to relogg.

[mechanic]

can't get into your arena and fly with squad? sounds like a perfect oppertunity to hit the DA and learn something for your next MA run.
 

[Zazen13]

On your list of things to change, I see nothing that has anything to do with affecting arena size,only things you wish were different? When I look at your suggestions I see most of them would be detrimental to game play, and have 0 impact on why split arenas were put in place.

HiTech

Split arenas were put in place to spread players out and encourage a more equitable distribution of force...What better way to spread them out without having to restrict their ability to play together in the same environment than to diversify the relevance and importance of additional and existing infrastructure.

For example, take my two examples of base size and type specialization and factories. Imagine if we had a more meaningful, less hap-hazard and random, distribution of field sizes so that in every 3-5 square sector area there was only one large field, which was also the zone field and the only field capable of launching 4 engine bombers supported by vbases and med/small fields in a loose concentric circle. Then say we have factories that respectively represent production of German/Italian planes, British Planes, US planes, Jap planes, Jets/Rockets, Prop Perk planes, Etc.

Now, imagine the the map living in real-time. One force is attacking your German aircraft factory near the front, another force is attacking your only large field near their British aircraft factory after capturing some of its adjacent supporting fields, while yet another is attacking your only port in another area that is the supply point for two friendly task groups in the vicinity conducting offensive operations. If the port is lost, the task groups will cease to regenerate battle damage..Of course you would also be doing similar things to them elsewhere and likewise the third country.

What would that do to the distribution of force in the MA? It would spread them out, it would rally different subsets of players to different objectives at different times for different reasons, which in and of itself, as an ancillary benefit, would help unify the community. For example, if your German Aircraft factory is under attack, every flier who loves Luftwaffe will rise up like hornets in defense. Similarly, the port being under attack will cause those who like amphibious and seaborne sneak attacks to get involved. The large zone field under attack will cause the "strategists" and the bomber guys to get their freak on...etc...

Suddenly, a map that was once the monotonous repetition of the exact same handful of activities for the exact same reason, in the exact same way, over and over becomes a diverse and intriguing playing surface with a wide variety of strategic considerations and reasons to distribute force in a focused way, but over a plethora of single contentious focal points rather than just 1 or 2. As it is currently on the HUGe maps, there's no compelling reason to really defend anything, so most just look for the biggest fight on the map and just pile on, or gather an overwhelming force to steamroll the vast expanses of undefended portions of the map. The design itself is largely to blame for the problem you are trying to cure with the arena caps, it would be far more logical and rewarding to simply use some imagination and vision to tweak your design.

If you can't see how creative solutions along these lines would be far more interesting and exciting, while at the same time achieving the gameplay goals while pleasing rather than disgruntling your customers, I don't know what else I can tell you...It's as obvious as a dog's balls to me...

[The Fugitive]

...It's as obvious as a dog's balls to me...

Maybe your just blinded by your own brilliance? The reason we don't have FT on the maps any more is because of the friction between the fighter types, and the land grabber type. Land grabbers continually took FT bases to "get back at" the fighter type because they weren't helping wining the war. What makes you think "every flier who loves Luftwaffe will rise up like hornets in defense"? The fighter type wouldn't defend against the greifers taking FT bases, I don't think that has changed all that much.

I don't believe that the "majority" of the people who play the game are into the "war" thing. Most are into the fights. Whether its in the air, or a GV most people are looking for "kills" of one type or another. Strategy and wining the war are just side lines.

[BaldEagl]

Even though I miss being able to play with and against everyone at the same time I do like having two LW arenas to choose from.

Whether intentional or not though, the "system" has trained people to go to the Orange arena.  I know it has trained me to do so.  Here's what I mean:

I log on and the caps look something like this:

Orange 300/450
Blue  250/400

So I go into Blue to see what map is up.  I probably already know which big map is in Orange as they don't change that often.  I get into Blue and it's not one of the maps I like or there's no good fights or whatever so I log out to go to Orange.

Without a doubt, everytime I do this, when I log back out of Blue the caps look like this:

Orange  300/200
Blue  250/300

So... even though I may sometimes want to play in Blue if some of my more favorite maps are up, I rarely take the chance to even check in to see what maps are up as I KNOW that if I do I'll be locked out of the Orange arena.

So, HT can say what he wants but he has created a system that, intentionally or not, coerces everyone to log into one arena (outside of EW, MW, etc.).

[hitech]

Split arenas were put in place to spread players out and encourage a more equitable distribution of force...What better way to spread them out without having to restrict their ability to play together in the same environment than to diversify the relevance and importance of additional and existing infrastructure.

This is not why split arenas were put into place. And is why I stated your ideas do not address the problems created by to big of arena.

If you can't see how creative solutions along these lines would be far more interesting and exciting, while at the same time achieving the gameplay goals while pleasing rather than disgruntling your customers, I don't know what else I can tell you...It's as obvious as a dog's balls to me...

Is it possible you are seeing what would really happen incorrectly, and only view things from the perspective of how YOU think the game should be played?

Now, imagine the the map living in real-time. One force is attacking your German aircraft factory near the front, another force is attacking your only large field near their British aircraft factory after capturing some of its adjacent supporting fields, while yet another is attacking your only port in another area that is the supply point for two friendly task groups in the vicinity conducting offensive operations. If the port is lost, the task groups will cease to regenerate battle damage..Of course you would also be doing similar things to them elsewhere and likewise the third country.

Zazen13: In your justification for your ideas, you have made the classic player idea game design mistake, you envision how you want it to be played, and not looked at how it really will be played.

A classic example of this was done in AW with a 1 life per day arena. This on the surface sounds like a great idea. Described as you would describe it, Imagine arena where the enemy became real , because if you died, you could not fly again for 1 day. Imagine the sweat this would cause you and the real fear. It would be almost real to life.

Now to how it really was played. Since you if you died you were finished for the night, living was much more important than getting a kill.
Since this was the case, there was no reason to attack some one if you did not have the advantage. So with everyone trying to run if they did not have an advantage, almost all the time was spent chasing or running from people and not fighting. While spending the night hunting for 1 kill might be fun to some, it is not what the majority of players want.

[Zazen13]

I don't believe that the "majority" of the people who play the game are into the "war" thing. Most are into the fights. Whether its in the air, or a GV most people are looking for "kills" of one type or another. Strategy and wining the war are just side lines.

I'm not arguing with you there. But, in my example what we would be doing is creating "war" reasons for more fighting and fighting for the "war" in several different places, at the same time, for multiple reasons. So, instead of having the "war" and the "fights" occurring in 1 or 2 places, we will have it occurring at 8-10 places...Currently on a HUGE maps 90% of the playing surface is ignored, 90% of the players are concentrated into 10% of the map in a giant glob, the other 10% are roaming the empty 90% of the map in a milk/vulch horde. My little scenario would fix that.

[Zazen13]

Now to how it really was played. Since you if you died you were finished for the night, living was much more important than getting a kill.
Since this was the case, there was no reason to attack some one if you did not have the advantage. So with everyone trying to run if they did not have an advantage, almost all the time was spent chasing or running from people and not fighting. While spending the night hunting for 1 kill might be fun to some, it is not what the majority of players want.

Ok, let's apply this same logic to your current game design. Currently, and especially on HUGE maps, which predominate the rotation, there is no compelling reason to defend or attack multiple bases or areas simultaneously in focused, but less numerous concentrations of force. With so many fields, in the context of one player's typical 2-3 hour play session, it is extremely unlikely enough fields, of the vast number, of equally minor individual significance, could be lost or taken to have any real strategic impact or precipitate a reset. So, without any compelling reason to diversify or spread out, players tend to conglomerate in a giant blob in a very finite geographic area. Those that do not choose to do that form a single overwhelming force to "cherry" undefended bases throughout the other vacant 90% of the playing area.

That is really where the game design fails in creating a more diverse, wide ranging possibility of experience for the players and more equitable gameplay balance. You can't blame the players, because they are just doing what is the most reasonable thing to do given the design. Change the design, the substrate or template upon which the players are superimposed and you immediately alter the entire dynamic in deliberate and positive ways. In this way you organize the players to fulfil your gameplay goals without restriction or heavy-handed, divisive measures, such as your decision to split your relatively small player base in half.

To be honest, I love HTC, I hold HTC is great esteem. But, if there is one area you make an 'F' it is in visionary game design. Since its inception AH has not really had any fundamental strategic gameplay design enhancements, additions or augmentations. AH is more or less just Airwar with a few twists, glaring omissions and better graphics. Updates primarily consist of cookie cutter additions of a plane or two and a vehicle, with a few minor, mostly graphical, bug fixes and UI tweaks. The core infrastructure of the game has not been altered or enhanced in any significant way since inception. The elements in place since the beginning, such as factories, the zone concept, supply infrastructure and airfields types have been relegated to an insignificant role, rarely if ever a consideration in day-to-day gameplay.

This is a squandered opportunity to enhance the game while at the same time going a long way to achieving desired gameplay objectives without negative coercion. To this point, from AH1 beta to the present, the vast majority, if not all of your major changes, have been to artifically manipulate or inflict through arbitrary punitive penalties, not directly associated with actual gameplay elements, coercive force upon your players to behave differently with limited success. I suggest you try the implimentation of some creative and imaginative design changes to achieve the same objectives while enhancing the scope and depth of your product at the same time.

[bongaroo]

Well since we are handing out report cards:

HTC: A+, otherwise you wouldn't be getting my money

Zazen posts: C+, too many words for such little substance.

This thread in general: D-, we've been through this conversation far too many times.

[Zazen13]

Well since we are handing out report cards:

HTC: A+, otherwise you wouldn't be getting my money

Zazen posts: C+, too many words for such little substance.

This thread in general: D-, we've been through this conversation far too many times.

Bongaroo brown-nosing: A+

[BaldEagl]

Ok, let's apply this same logic to your current game design. Currently, and especially on HUGE maps, which predominate the rotation, there is no compelling reason to defend or attack multiple bases or areas simultaneously in focused, but less numerous concentrations of force... So, without any compelling reason to diversify or spread out, players tend to conglomerate in a giant blob in a very finite geographic area. Those that do not choose to do that form a single overwhelming force to "cherry" undefended bases throughout the other vacant 90% of the playing area.

Hmmm... I don't know what big maps you are playing on but I see fights large and small scattered all over the big maps.  The only playing area not being used might be that which is deep behind the lines.

Last night I was in Orange.  Both Rooks and Knights had been fighting Bish while largely leaving one another alone.  I could have upped at any Bish base and been in a fight within a few minutes and that's anywhere in the Bish territory.

I think the big maps do exactly the oppostie of what you claim.  They give players every reason to spread out and provide far greater diversity of gameplay than the small maps do.