Cap'n'boot - refined version

[Baumer]

I suspect you will see something more like this wish I posted a while back.

http://bbs.hitechcreations.com/smf/index.php/topic,288469.0.html

I don't think HTC will ever kick players from an arena, but as the numbers increase I could see something like this.

SERVER:The Blue arena is now open, you have checked the option to help balance the arenas
SERVER:Would you like to switch to the Blue arena now

And I think offering a small perk point bonus would entice the newer players to switch, maybe something like 2-5 perks in each category. This would have the added benefit of getting new players used to switching arenas, and that in the long run would really help the problem.

[hitech]

I like the Idea Lusche.

Is it important to save the state from the previous day? Or could we just boot everyone with out resetting the current state of the arena. The save really isn't an issue, I would just open and close 3 arenas. I.E. open 2 close 1 in morning and the close 1 open 2 in afternoon.

Only real question I have is which will cause less complaints?

HiTech

[grizz441]

I like the Idea Lusche.

Is it important to save the state from the previous day? Or could we just boot everyone with out resetting the current state of the arena. The save really isn't an issue, I would just open and close 3 arenas. I.E. open 2 close 1 in morning and the close 1 open 2 in afternoon.

Only real question I have is which will cause less complaints?

HiTech

HiTech, I am not a win the war type of player, but I believe it would be critically important to save the war settings.  A lot of the player base likes to be playing for 'something', even if it is silly like winning the war.  They want their progress and effort to be rewarded and not washed away on a daily basis.  Saving the settings will let them 'pick up where they left off' the next day.  Without doing this, you risk driving off a good portion of the win the war player base.

[Baumer]

Ooops I was wrong. 

Hitech you would have to save the state of the arena, or else there's little point in trying to capture bases.

Also for the sake of argument lets call them arena A, B, and C.

If arena A has map 1 currently in play, when it comes time to close A would you put map 1 (with arena A's current state) in arena B or C?

I think if it were done randomly between B or C then you might get a better player distribution as they come back in. On the other hand if everyone knows that map 1 from arena A is going to be in arena B then you'd be no better off than you are now, with everyone trying to get back into arena B.

It seems to be a hard balance between player distribution, and not removing the "win the war" aspect of the game. 

[Spikes]

Can't the one arena in morning times just 'switch' to 'night' and HT opens a second? Kind of like when TT gets turned 'off'.

[RTHolmes]

just out of interest has anyone played any other game which uses a dynamic cap system or similar to distribute players across maps/servers? rather than just using fixed caps.

[Soulyss]

I was thinking the other day, that the problem with populating the 2nd arena isn't necessarily one of overall population numbers but population density.  50-70 players on a large map isn't the same experience as the same number of players on a smaller map.  Rather than mess with the map locations what about opening/closing airfields based on arena population?  At first fields near the center of the map would be available then as the population increases a larger ring of fields has flight enabled, so on till at some point the entire map is open for business. 

Ideally I'm thinking this would keep players in the same neighborhood, a area small enough where they would be highly likely to run into each other but not so small as to make the fight entirely linear (back and forth constantly between the same 2-3 fields). 


Anyways it's just a random/zany thought that popped into my head this morning so I thought I'd throw it out there for discussion.

[curry1]

just out of interest has anyone played any other game which uses a dynamic cap system or similar to distribute players across maps/servers? rather than just using fixed caps.

I dont think I have but it is obviously needs to be done.

[AWwrgwy]

Only real question I have is which will cause less complaints?

HiTech

Of course not.  People live to complain. 

Essentially it would be just like a map reset without the map reset. 

Give everyone 5 perks for closing and close a random arena every day.  Throwing the yapping dog a bone.


wrongway

[hitech]

Ooops I was wrong. 

Hitech you would have to save the state of the arena, or else there's little point in trying to capture bases.

Also for the sake of argument lets call them arena A, B, and C.

If arena A has map 1 currently in play, when it comes time to close A would you put map 1 (with arena A's current state) in arena B or C?

I think if it were done randomly between B or C then you might get a better player distribution as they come back in. On the other hand if everyone knows that map 1 from arena A is going to be in arena B then you'd be no better off than you are now, with everyone trying to get back into arena B.

It seems to be a hard balance between player distribution, and not removing the "win the war" aspect of the game. 

You missing slightly the options.

Option 1.

Morning only 1 arena running call it A.

At switch time everyone gets ejected but nothing on the map changes, the arena cap becomes dynamic and arena B is opened in the same state it was the day before.

Option 2.

Everyone is ejected from A. And A is closed.

B & C are opened in the same state they were the day before with dynamic caps.

HiTech

[Boozeman]

If I understand the proposal correctly, I see these potential problems:

1.  When the daytime arena shuts down, the 2 nighttime arenas must be clones of the daytime arena to let every player resume the same game, albeit in 2 different arenas.
Imagine the whines when i.e. one chesspiece is dominating the war, then the arena shuts down, one arena saves the status quo and the other appears in default form. Now, when the playerbase moves in the 2 new arenas, probably 50% of those chess-pieces that dominated earlier on, find themselves with their efforts erased. I could imagine this as pretty frustrating experience.

2. If those 2 arenas are really clones of the previous one, then the problem above might not appear, but essential the actual choice between the LWAs is removed. We will always have the same maps in both arenas, and in many cases the actual state of war will be very similar, at least for a good while after the split.    

3. Lets say we stick to the clone theme, and let the state of war evolve in both arenas. This could mean that the sate of war in one arena is vastly different than in the other. Now the time comes to merge both arenas into one again. Which state of war should be carried over? Arena A or arena B? No matter which one is chosen, there is a big chance that again 50% of the playerbase are dissatisfied that their efforts got erased.  


Basically, I see chess-piece loyalty as a major obstacle and also fairness is most likely not guaranteed, unlike the current setup, which is pretty solid in this term.  

[ImADot]

Option 2.

Everyone is ejected from A. And A is closed.

B & C are opened in the same state they were the day before with dynamic caps.

HiTech

Otherwise, everyone will pile back into A right away.

[kvuo75]

. Now the time comes to merge both arenas into one again. Which state of war should be carried over? Arena A or arena B?

if i'm understanding right, the single arena would be saved before caps kick in.. everyone has to log into 2 (different) arenas... when caps turn off,  the 2 primetime arenas are saved, and the single arena picks up where it left off, and the cycle continues..

seems fine to me 

[RTHolmes]

I dont think I have but it is obviously needs to be done.

seems to me that the implication of this is that every other online game with multiple servers is doing it wrong and AH is the only one doing it right. which is strange considering the disruption it causes to the players. I cant be the only one that thinks theres something screwy with this surely?

[Bruv119]

omg my head hurts reading this thread what is the ANSWER!!!!