Arena Reset.... ROTFLMAO! Later.... WTF did I do?

[Vermillion]

Ummm Lance..... your Solution?

2-Countrys: "UnAffiliated" pilots flock to the larger side, one side gets gangbanged.

4-Countrys: The two largest countrys each pick one of the smaller countries and ignore each other, now you have two gangbangs.

I have played 2,3, and 4 country setups, and the 3 country setup is by far the most balanced and fair.

Please somebody, Anybody, if you have an example of a 2 or 4 country setup that works better please share it with us.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[Kieren]

DoA. It is tons better with only 2 countries.

[Westy]

 Kieren, out of curiostiy what is the average number of players in DoA on a typical day. If low (less than 50) then a two country war would work. Especially if the players are of a seriouse nature.
 I personally would like HTC to try a  two country set up for one week, maybe two, and see hwo it goes.
 Forget four.

 -Westy

[Kieren]

DoA started out great, died down because of many reasons (don't want to start a flamewar). My memory seems to suggest we still had 50+ when two-side was implemented, but I could be wrong.

The thing about DoA that was/is great was the community. These were some of the best people I ever flew with, and would love to be there now. And yes, they were very cooperative, and we could do all sorts of fun things. We had races, aerobatics competitions, mini-scenarios... all started by player-generated suggestions. But I digress...  

The point is, would two sides work here? I think it would. Furballers will furball, bomber will bomb, and the hunters will be up there looking for the fight. The front will move back-and-forth. The only difference is that now it would be one front, not two (unless some enterprising bomber group circled behind  ).

[Vermillion]

Kieren, when I played DOA (and I remember you from there) there were never more than 20 to 25 players, and yes I agree that it did work there.

The only problem is that a small group of highly dedicated players isn't representative of how a MA works and we both know that.

When the there's only 20 people you tend to know each person by name, and its easy to get people to switch for playbalance reasons.

This isn't going to happen in a full scale MA arena type, at least in my opinon.

You have to account for the dweeb factor.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[Lance]

I think that either would be a better solution    As to which of the two is better, I'm still undecided.  Ideally, HTC would/could have tried 2, 3 and 4 country arena setups in Beta to see what works best here.  After flying under all three setups, maybe then some of the 3 country naysayers such as myself would agree with you, Vermillion.

Gordo

[Gadfly]

Well I can see that there is no hurry to activate my account.  This kind of childish roadkill is the reason I don't fly in the WB Main arena.

I am surprised you boys were able to develop the bad habits and worse aspects of the game in such a shot period of time.

You should all be ashamed.

[Kieren]

Gadfly-

I have to ask- and I know I'm supposed to ignore you- what are you hoping to do with such a post? People here are discussing the merits of such behavior. This is how a community decides what is acceptable and what isn't. You come in with an indiscriminate carpet bomb post declaring we should all feel ashamed? Why not post your viewpoint, make your reasoning, and hash it out like an adult?

I'm sure you have a lot of positive things to lend the community; why not type some of those ideas?

[Vermillion]

Lance, please don't take my last post as a personal assault.

Its just that for many of the people here, 2 or 4 sided combat is something they have already tried, over and over again. And the results are the same.

In fact, the guys that run HTC have either flown in, or been involved with companies that run each of the arena types.

They either played AirWarrior (classic 3 Sides), or they ran Warbirds (4 Sides, and the HA 2 Sided Arena).

Don't you think they would have tried those arena types if they weren't already familiar with the dynamics of such an arena?

I guess the reason I am so vehemently against them is that I have experienced the lopsided battles they create, to such a point that I almost quit flying.

If you think a 3 Sided fights create gangbangs, I suggest you go try to fly Gold country in Warbirds (4 country setup). Now I haven't flown there much since beta here started. But there didn't use to be a single night during primetime that either Green or Purp didn't have a greater than 2:1 odds advantage over you. And whichever one you weren't fighting, was over gangbanging Red with a 2:1 odds advantage. Oh and of course they very extremely rarely fought one another.

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"

[Lephturn]

Gadfly, what are you basing this little rant on?  Where you in the arena listening to what went down?

I was, and I can tell you it wasn't 1/2 as bad as it's being made out to be.  I was personally accused of saying things I did not say and insulting people I didn't insult.

Yep, things got a bit out of hand for a bit, as one can expect when people get frustrated, but nothing serious.  A couple of guys did get some threats of physical violence going for a bit (I was out of the conversation LONG before that), but cooler heads eventually prevailed.  When folks get frustrated they tend to yell at each other.  It's nothing to be ahamed about, it's just the nature of the human beast.

------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[Lance]

I didn't, Vermillion  You've got your opinion, I've got mine.  We probably agree on a whole lot more than we disagree on, we just don't know it.

Granted I don't have the experience in all of the arena formats that you do.  I don't think that necessarily invalidates my opinion.  Consumer analogy: I own one TV, a Sony.  I don't know if Sanyo, or RCA or Curtis Mathis is better.  Even so, I know my TV, and I know when its picture is screwed and when its time to start looking for a new one.  

I don't like the idea of changing sides.  I like flying with the people I've grown accustomed to seeing on the Bishops side.  Unfortunately, quite a few of them bail from the arena or switch sides when we get gangbanged, and I am afraid this is going to get worse.  I also tend to think the problems with the other arena setups that you outlined are not as bad or less apt to occur than what is a constant problem in the current arena.  That problem is that at any moment of the day, one country is getting the crap kicked out of them by two countries.

Beyond all of that, there are plenty of people around here who have posted against 3 sides that played WB, AW or both.  It might be a good idea if HTC put up a site poll for debated issues like this and take into account the results when/if they ever sit down to review some of the current game elements.

Gordo

[Gadfly]

Kieren- You are correct, but it just chaps me to see something like this this quick, although I guess it shouldn't be a surprise, since most of the persons here are WB MA flyers.  So, here is my reasoning:

First, to rag on someone for switching sides is silly.  If HTC did not want that feature, they would limit side switching.

Second, to rag a newbie for anything is not the way to garner new members.

Third, to intentionally not win the war and vultch the last base or two is plain old chickenshit.

Childish behavior ruins the game for all of us, be it cursing on 100, whining incessantly or whatever.

[Lephturn]

Gadfly,

First, HTC does limit side switching.  Once you switch you must wait a 1/2 hour or something before you can switch back.  That is done to discourage just this sort of behavior.  I guess they need to bump it to 24hrs or something like AW uses.

Second, who ragged a newbie?  I know that was claimed, but I certainly didn't rag any newbie out.  If somebody else did, I missed it.  I know Cave was trying to explain to somebody why he was pissed at MarkVZ and his buddy, but that's about it.  I didn't here one curse or disparaging remark to or about the newbie in question.  It's possible I missed some stuff because I was fighting the Nits at F8 at the time, but this "newbie" (if that is the case at all) certainly didn't get "jumped on" or ragged on by bunch of people.  I would have noticed that.  It didn't happen.  FWIW, I agree, beating on newbies is not a good move.  I tend to answer newbie's questions online when I can and help them out to help grow the community.

Third, are we only supposed to beat-down one country before forcing a reset?  So if you are a buff crew and you want to dominate the arena, wouldn't you want to take out one country, and then the second before forcing the reset?  What's wrong with that?  The idea that two sides "ganged up" to hold the bishies to two fields so they could vulch them is just plane false.  It's not what happened.



------------------
Lephturn
The Flying Pigs

[Kieren]

Gadfly-

Now I understand, and I agree!  

[Vermillion]

The obvious need, is for some sort of reward/recognition for a country to "win the war".

Currently you work you butt off, to take bases and get an advantage, then you win the war and ...... you lose all your hard work.

Maybe something as simple as a stat on the scoring page of "War Wins" thru the tour.

Or there has been talk of "nuetral" bases (heavily defended with ack both high and low level I hope) in the central mountains on the current map. Maybe if you win the war, you get random ownership, of one out of three bases.

Anything to give a team the incentive to go ahead and force the reset.

Right now, realistically why would a country want to give up its hard earned gains?

------------------
Vermillion
**MOL**, Men of Leisure,
Dicta Verm: "Never give the suckers an even break!" or translated "Never engage without an advantage"