Instead of locking planes with ENY, they should be unlocked by points

[Drano]

And the caps were only because of the constraints of the servers/internet of the times. That's about all ya could get!

Sent from my Moto Z2 Force using Tapatalk

[Ack-Ack]

Different circus.  Different monkeys. 

Nope.  You and others have claimed that a 3 sided war will not work in an arena with low numbers.  I pointed out that AW, that had low number arenas (arenas were capped due to server limitations), the 3 sides did work rather well.  Even when the caps were raised in AW3 to 300 per arena, the 3 sided system was still the best option.

[FESS67]

Nope.  You and others have claimed that a 3 sided war will not work in an arena with low numbers.  I pointed out that AW, that had low number arenas (arenas were capped due to server limitations), the 3 sides did work rather well.  Even when the caps were raised in AW3 to 300 per arena, the 3 sided system was still the best option.

I think there is another factor here though and that is population density.  My memory is fuzzy but didn’t each side have something in the region of 5 fields each?  And I do not remember them being as physically separated as they are in many of the AH maps

I think this is very much a large part of the problem with AH.  100 players and 150 fields.

Even if we were to go to 2 sides unless population density was addressed the underlying problem would still exist.

It took bustr 2 years to produce the new map and it is buggy.  If it takes that much effort to create a map then we are going to be restricted to whatever tweaks can be made within the current ones and unless they can shut down bases to create ‘active’ front lines then 100 players is always going to feel like an empty arena.

[FESS67]

My recollection was they killed AW to clear the market for Battlefield 1942.  I tried it, then WW2OL then AW then here.

[Vraciu]

Nope.  You and others have claimed that a 3 sided war will not work in an arena with low numbers.  I pointed out that AW, that had low number arenas (arenas were capped due to server limitations), the 3 sides did work rather well.  Even when the caps were raised in AW3 to 300 per arena, the 3 sided system was still the best option.

I have said that three sides does not work in ACES HIGH with low numbers.   We’ve provided ample evidence to make the case.   Unless changes are made to settings it will remain sub-optimal.    The radar experiment may be a big help.  We will see. 

[Vraciu]

I think there is another factor here though and that is population density.  My memory is fuzzy but didn’t each side have something in the region of 5 fields each?  And I do not remember them being as physically separated as they are in many of the AH maps

I think this is very much a large part of the problem with AH.  100 players and 150 fields.

Even if we were to go to 2 sides unless population density was addressed the underlying problem would still exist.

It took bustr 2 years to produce the new map and it is buggy.  If it takes that much effort to create a map then we are going to be restricted to whatever tweaks can be made within the current ones and unless they can shut down bases to create ‘active’ front lines then 100 players is always going to feel like an empty arena.

This. 

When you have 55 players and 150 bases split three ways you are going to wind up with a whole lot of people with nothing to do.   We see this repeatedly. 

Maybe the new radar setup will help fix this...

[Ack-Ack]

I have said that three sides does not work in ACES HIGH with low numbers.   We’ve provided ample evidence to make the case.

No, you haven't provided any evidence at all.  All you have done is state your personal beliefs masked as evidence/data.

None of us are privy to the metrics for AH to state conclusively that a 3 sided system doesn't work.  However, people can state that a 3 sided system does work over a 2 sided system based on historic evidence.

[Ack-Ack]

I think there is another factor here though and that is population density.  My memory is fuzzy but didn’t each side have something in the region of 5 fields each?  And I do not remember them being as physically separated as they are in many of the AH maps

I think this is very much a large part of the problem with AH.  100 players and 150 fields.

Even if we were to go to 2 sides unless population density was addressed the underlying problem would still exist.

It took bustr 2 years to produce the new map and it is buggy.  If it takes that much effort to create a map then we are going to be restricted to whatever tweaks can be made within the current ones and unless they can shut down bases to create ‘active’ front lines then 100 players is always going to feel like an empty arena.

Before the jump from DOS to Windows, AW maps did have a small number of fields, think 10 for each side.  When AW made the jump to Windows and AOL, the number of fields doubled with visible bases and secret bases that weren't visible on the map.

[Vraciu]

No, you haven't provided any evidence at all.  All you have done is state your personal beliefs masked as evidence/data.

None of us are privy to the metrics for AH to state conclusively that a 3 sided system doesn't work.  However, people can state that a 3 sided system does work over a 2 sided system based on historic evidence.

But we are privy to our experience as players. 

We’ve made the case.  You are biased against it so your mind is made up. 

/Discussion

[The Fugitive]

My recollection was they killed AW to clear the market for Battlefield 1942.  I tried it, then WW2OL then AW then here.

From what I was told by a couple of the higher up who were friends with squad members at the time EA wanted the code that AW was using to run the games servers for both AW and Mech Warriors. They were only looking to put their games on line and buying a working system was cheaper than building their own.

[Vraciu]

So what happened to the thousands of players Ack-Ack says were in AW?   Where did they go?  Did most simply quit playing fighter games?

[Ack-Ack]

My recollection was they killed AW to clear the market for Battlefield 1942.  I tried it, then WW2OL then AW then here.

EA really didn't have any intention of developing AW any further than AW3MV.  EA didn't feel online combat flight sims had any future, despite AW being  the second most popular game on EA.com.  EA decided to go ahead and put all development in OU, Motor City Online and MPBT 3025 but more importantly, EA wanted the Aries Network code to power MCO  and MPBT.  So as a result EA finally pulled the plug on AW and killed development of AW4.

EA's decision ultimately led to the demise of EA.com game portal as MCO ended up to be a financial failure and Microsoft forced EA to stop development of MPBT.

[Ack-Ack]

So what happened to the thousands of players Ack-Ack says were in AW?   Where did they go?  Did most simply quit playing fighter games?

The vast majority came to AH, with a smaller number migrating to WW2OL or Fighter Ace.

[Rebel28]

When Air Warrior was moving off of AOL the squad ask me to try and find another game to play. First I tried Warbirds and did not like it at all. Also for a time I did try WW2online. I had tried to get the rest of the squad from Air Warrior to move here also but they hated the flight model. Their response was I want to play a game and have fun I do not want to have to learn to fly a real plane to do it. As a result only 2 others came with me during the move but have since moved on.

[FESS67]

Yeah we had the very same issue when we moved here from Fighter Ace.  Nose bounce was the biggest problem for them.