OK how bout this

[DREDIOCK]

This new system really doesnt effect me as I dont fly the planes effected all that much.

 All this wh....errr complaining is merely culture shock that will go away in time.
Well maybe not go away but will lessen, As the horde discover there are ways to accomplish the same thing with diferent planes.
And 200 of anything is STILL alot of planes.

Not that the others dont but
There is one point that is made however that does have validation.

That is the unavailability of the 163

Actually the way the perk system is set up I think any currently perked plane should be available at the inflated prices that usually come with having massive #s

If you have the perk points available and are willing to blow them at the inflated prices you still should be able to get them.

In addition I think the P51D and the La7 should be moderately perked at all times  similar to the C-hog or 152. (both planes should probably be perked anyway)
Of course that perk cost would rise as the numbers increase.

That would help with some of the wh...complaints.
And would enable us that enjoy flying these "lesser" planes like the A5 and FM2 to be rerwarded with inflated perk points for killing them again.

In case you havent noticed your perkie reward points have also gone down  with the lack of ezmode planes to kill



Oh and BTW in case nobody noticed. Rooks STILL managed to put up more then 210 people last night.

[SlapShot]

I too am, at at least for the time being, uneffected by this change, but have to agree that perk planes (especially the 163) need to be exempt from the "Delirium Factor".

I don't agree with the perking of the P-51 and La-7. Those who fly them are timid enough without adding the possibilty of losing perks too, while flying these planes. They would never engage if this were to happen.

[Zanth]

163 wasn't always in AH.   The problem is, and always was, the HQ=Radar feature - exaserbated by the inability to repair a damaged (as in not 100% radar down) HQ with goons.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

We've been informed that the new system will remain in place as is except for minor adjustments in the percentages vs. ENY disabled threshold.

It does at times affect me since I do fly one plane 95% of the time and it happens to have an ENY of 15. I do however also fly a couple that are between 35 and 40.

I'm not going to complain about it anymore. When it reaches the point it annoys me enough that it is no longer fun to fly, I'll simply log. I suppose that is the desired result.

Rather than complain about it, I'll just state a couple of issues I see with it.

1. The new system assumes : country 1 has 200 players, country 2 has 120 players, country 3 has 130 players, and therefore country 1 should be penalized as if they only face EITHER country 2 OR country 3 BUT NOT BOTH. The problem with that assumption is that not all of country 1's players will attack EITHER country 2 or country 3, but rather some will attack EACH. That means that country 1 DOES NOT have nearly 2:1 numerical superiority over BOTH countries, and in fact MAY not have more than 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 over EITHER .

Perhaps the solution to issue 1 is to have the system apply the penalty when one country out numbers the other two combined by a certain percentage. In the above case it would mean the first penalty is applied when country 1 reaches 251 while country 2 and country 3 remain at 120 and 130 respectively or some combination that equals that.

2. The new system also assumes that those who fly for a certain country within a certain time frame can easily fly for that country at any other time. That is not necessarily so. It may be true for the vast majority even, but it is simply not true for everyone. This is after all a game, to be enjoyed, (you wouldn't pay $15 to be frustrated, annoyed, or just plain pissed off) and as such, it is not always convenient or even possible for every single player to rearrange their real life, which is not a game, in order to fly when their country of choice does not have superior numbers.

3. The new system assumes that no players feel that part of their enjoyment of the game is to fly only for a certain country that they feel loyalty to. I realize that some see this as  ridiculous. But the fact remains that there are a lot of players that only want to fly for one particular country.

So the new system works on assumptions that are not necessarily true, and in many cases are totally false.

I suppose I can understand that HTC may have felt that they HAD to do SOMETHING . I see that they are in an unenviable position. On the other hand, I have not seen anyone show conclusive evidence that the imbalance that occurs on one or two nights is any worse or anymore prolonged than it was in the previous history of AH. And this is the first time I see where HTC went to such great lengths to do something about it.

I guess we'll all live with it and see where it takes us. I don't like it, I think it is wrong. While I don't have an alternative, I also don't see that the problem is that much greater or has gone on that much longer than it did previously.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by SlapShot
I too am, at at least for the time being, uneffected by this change, but have to agree that perk planes (especially the 163) need to be exempt from the "Delirium Factor".

I don't agree with the perking of the P-51 and La-7. Those who fly them are timid enough without adding the possibilty of losing perks too, while flying these planes. They would never engage if this were to happen.

I don't think they are that timid, they will attack when they have every advantage, or when they think their escape is close to assured. That makes them excessively disruptive. If they never engaged, they'd be at least somewhat less disruptive than they are now. But I'm not entirely sure I'd want them perked, either.

On the other hand, I'm not at all in favor of the idea of keeping people from flying planes they like and can afford perk wise. I've got near a couple thousand perks or so, because I rarely fly a perk plane, the exception being the VERY RARE flight in a 152 or 262 to defend HQ. But that doesn't mean I'd want to keep anyone else from flying them (perk planes).

Personally I despise the tactics of taking a runner up and cherrypicking at every opportunity and running the rest of the time, but I guess some see that as fun. So I am not opposed to letting them have their plane and their fun.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Regarding the 163 and HQ.

First, I think the idea of HQ controlling radar for the entire country is absurd at best. HQ should control messages of a base being attacked or dar bars more than four sectors away. In other words, if HQ is down, you should only see darbars and dot dar within a four sector radius. Further, you shouldn't get base under attack messages or see flashing bases unless they are within the same four sector radius. And I'm not sure HQ being down shouldn't affect the country channel in the same manner.

The fact that HQ affects your SA over the entire area of your country in that manner should be enough incentive to protect it. That would also eliminate the need for a country down to a very few bases to worry about protecting HQ, and keep them from being denied radar for SA. And it would prevent the stupidity of porking HQ just to annoy people, by taking radar down for the whole country.

It would leave some incentive to hit HQ as part of an overall organized attack.

The 163 is, I suppose, nice to have to protect HQ. But if HQ is that important, it should be better protected. An incentive would be a (relatively) large reward in perks, points, or rank for killing an enemy in the same sector as your HQ.  That would encourage people to patrol some near HQ in something that would be an effective bomber killer. Then just leave the perk system in place with inflated perk costs due to the numerical imbalance, and allow perk planes to be flown at the inflated costs.

Or, as an added part of the "new system", leave them disabled, but allow lower ENY planes to be launched from bases within a sector of HQ. This would allow planes like the P-51D and the P-38L, among others, with sufficient fuel to reach high altitudes and patrol with long endurance, to be used to protect HQ. But it would cut way down on their usage as attack planes. And it would effectively prevent other planes with low ENY values from being launched from those bases to make offensive moves. You could allow the planes to carry drop tanks only, and no external ordinance, to prevent their use as anything other than a fighter to defend HQ.

[Crashy]

Originally posted by Zanth
163 wasn't always in AH.   The problem is, and always was, the HQ=Radar feature - exaserbated by the inability to repair a damaged (as in not 100% radar down) HQ with goons.

Agreed.

[kj714]

"1. The new system assumes : country 1 has 200 players, country 2 has 120 players, country 3 has 130 players, and therefore country 1 should be penalized as if they only face EITHER country 2 OR country 3 BUT NOT BOTH. The problem with that assumption is that not all of country 1's players will attack EITHER country 2 or country 3, but rather some will attack EACH. That means that country 1 DOES NOT have nearly 2:1 numerical superiority over BOTH countries, and in fact MAY not have more than 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 over EITHER "

Nicely put however it assumes a perfect world where the smaller countries would attack the bigger country and the big country would split resources between the smaller countries. Unfortunately it doesn't happen that way, if it did there would be no real problem.

The horde effect is by nature an overwhelming amount of resources concentrated in a few places, to achieve any balance at all the numerical advantage must be offset by something.

How many times has side balancing really affected any side during US prime time over the past week? On Sunday the rooks didn't seem to be logging off in droves, they had #'s for quite a while. They just weren't slamming bases quite as fast as usual, except they seemed to be doing good for a while in the south against the knits. They didn't get crushed either, I really don't think overall base control changed all that much while I was on.

[kj714]

Speaking of perkies, lets trade in those useless bomber perks for something.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

"1. The new system assumes : country 1 has 200 players, country 2 has 120 players, country 3 has 130 players, and therefore country 1 should be penalized as if they only face EITHER country 2 OR country 3 BUT NOT BOTH. The problem with that assumption is that not all of country 1's players will attack EITHER country 2 or country 3, but rather some will attack EACH. That means that country 1 DOES NOT have nearly 2:1 numerical superiority over BOTH countries, and in fact MAY not have more than 1.1:1 or 1.2:1 over EITHER "

 

Originally posted by kj714



Nicely put however it assumes a perfect world where the smaller countries would attack the bigger country and the big country would split resources between the smaller countries. Unfortunately it doesn't happen that way, if it did there would be no real problem.

The horde effect is by nature an overwhelming amount of resources concentrated in a few places, to achieve any balance at all the numerical advantage must be offset by something.

How many times has side balancing really affected any side during US prime time over the past week? On Sunday the rooks didn't seem to be logging off in droves, they had #'s for quite a while. They just weren't slamming bases quite as fast as usual, except they seemed to be doing good for a while in the south against the knits. They didn't get crushed either, I really don't think overall base control changed all that much while I was on.

On the other hand, you automaticaly assume that the situation ONLY goes one way, and that is NOT the case.

Note that what I said was that the new system works on assumptions that are not necessarily true, and in many cases are totally false. That does not mean they are ALWAYS true or ALWAYS false, but that the assumptions COULD be false as much as they COULD true.