Grizz you are 100% correct, it is not 100% proof. But when I analyze all changes , and data during that period it is the most likely conclusion I can draw. Your asking us to ignore the elephant in the room.
2nd your trying to argue from a vacuum with zero data along with the fact that you want one arena. Hence your views would naturally be biased. I really do not care if we have 1 arena or 2 or 20. My goal is simply to choose the configuration that MOST players prefer as show by the pocket books.
So to compare my analysis to your shredded wheat example is very insulting. I have a VERY large stake in the discussions, I may be wrong with some choices , but I have every motivation to get the analysis correct, while you do not.
HiTech
This is my point, even with your response you still do not state any
specific reasons why the single arena is unhealthy. Which means you are working off of a good deal of speculation which you just confirmed.
I understand the dynamic of the group and I agree that this is what happens. But that is a broad definition of what happens. What are the
exact problems we have that contribute to customer dis-satisfaction?
I will throw out there what I said before, we have horde issues, we have abuse issues, we have communication issues, and we have control issues.
As I said before, we could come up with a complex base cap system that would accomplish the same thing as the split arena and the only drawback is a slight restriction in choice of bases to fly from. This cant be any worse than being restricted from choosing an arena where the majority of the action is. At least in this case a guy who is separated from his squad is more likely to be reunited with them in a short period of time.
Split arenas are a form of crowd control without any real constructive frame work. Splitting up the kids does not deal with the issues that cause the frustrations that are supposedly causing subscription loss. You have a war without any command and control. In a war zone commanders didnt play lone wolf all the time and they werent allowed to launch offensives anytime and anyhow they felt like it. I suggest we look at how command and control worked in ww2 to find ideas and the first thing I think you should concentrate on is distribution of forces. And it seems to me this is the first step in giving this game a little more strategic play.
We should not have huge hordes at one or two locations on any map. The battle should be spread out all along the front lines and if you dont want to use base caps to accomplish this, maybe there could be other incentives put into place that would drive players to want to spread out. For example, if perks are that important to players, then how bout a sliding perk scale? If you fly in a zone that is largely overpopulated, then you get little to no perks, if the area is underpopulated then you get a large amount of perks.
Obviously there are also interpersonal issues that game rules arent going to remedy. Part of this is channel 200. I dont think it should be eliminated, but traffic gets overwhelming on it when the numbers are high. Limit 200 to a certain range? Perhaps there should be more in game volunteer moderators to control abusive behavior.
The point is, there is no structure to this game and as you pointed out the larger it gets the more control you need. We need more specific information and we need to deal with the issues that are causing dissatisfaction. I know the first impulse as a player is to want to do what you want, when you want and to resist all forms of control. But I think the problem with the split arenas is not merely we are being controlled but that it is not complex enough to target ONLY the issues that are causing the problems.
What you absolutely must do if you want any constructive criticism or ideas from us is give us a list of SPECIFIC problems your customers have that directly concern the "health" of the arena. (excluding wishes and retardedness of course) We cannot solve problems without knowing exactly what they are.
I suggest a pole. I think you have enough diversity in current customers, but if you can get former customers too, all the better. First get every possible complaint concerning the "fun" of the game and what ruins it for us. It should have an intensity scale involved. How much does this affect you on a scale of one to ten. And when you can tell us exactly what the problems are that need to be addressed you may not even need our input, but if you do I think we could come up with some compromises.
PS as far as distribution of forces, I seem to recall that the easier it is to take bases, the smaller the hordes were. Last time I played it was so hard to take bases that hardly ever did you see a few guys hanging around to defend a base because they knew it wasnt that easy. So everyone goes and joins the horde to take another base. After all, as hard as it was, you really needed all the help you could get. Just another thought on how to get people to spread out.
