Yet Another Idea

[DoKGonZo]

This would induce more Truce Warrior as the side being ganged up on would have to use weaker planes as they get vultched.

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
This would induce more Truce Warrior as the side being ganged up on would have to use weaker planes as they get vultched.

The way it works, if a country is seriously outnumbered, they will be able to launch late war planes to defend themselves against attacks by mostly mid war planes.  It incorporates the same balance concept that was incorporated in patch 8.

BTW; oops.  I guess I started this thread in the wrong forum.  

eskimo

[DoKGonZo]

Originally posted by eskimo2
The way it works, if a country is seriously outnumbered, they will be able to launch late war planes to defend themselves against attacks by mostly mid war planes.  It incorporates the same balance concept that was incorporated in patch 8.

BTW; oops.  I guess I started this thread in the wrong forum.  

eskimo

How can the host detect that with 3 nearly equal-strength sides 2 are ganging up on the 3rd?

[eskimo2]

Originally posted by DoKGonZo
How can the host detect that with 3 nearly equal-strength sides 2 are ganging up on the 3rd?

It can't, only when one country has a lot more players than the others (as it works now).
I see now that you meant "ganged up" as two sides VS. one; that situation would be no different than it is now, except instead of late war vulching late war, you would have mostly mid war vulching mid war - no more of an advantage or disadvantage over the current system.

This is a real problem that has never been addressed (talked about much, but never even partially solved).  I'd like to see some new ideas on 2:1.

eskimo

[eskimo2]

OK, here’s an idea that would partially address the 2:1 problem:
* The “Front Line” is not treated like a front line (with plane type restrictions) unless an enemy aircraft is within 35 miles (or whatever distance proves best).  This would mean that if one of your front line bases does not have an enemy aircraft within 35 miles, you may launch late war aircraft.  A gang bang country players’ choice would then be:
A. Join the gang bang by flying a mid war plane from a front line base. (About 25 miles away)
B. Join the gang bang by flying a late war plane from a secondary front line base. (About 50 miles away)
C. Attack an undefended truce country’s base by flying a late war plane from a front line base. (About 25 miles away)

With this plan, it’s hard to imagine that bases of truce countries would be undefended, which would help the problem.  It would do nothing to prevent the majority of players on truce counties from ganging on one, however.

eskimo

[DoKGonZo]

There's really two isses with the whole balancing act. One issue is how to correct for when a gross imbalance is occuring. The idea of "front line" bases taking time/supply before they can handle latewar planes could work - or at least help. I'd add the exception that recapturing fields that were yours at the start of the reset should be exempt (in other words, have the system try to balance things back to the original borders).

As for detecting when this are off-skew, there are three datapoints which are actually available to build that decision calculation:

- Numbers of players per side
- Number of bases per side
- Number of enemy planes facing each side

That last one is the one we're missing now. Basically for every sector your country controls or has planes in, you add up the number of enemy planes in that sector - and then total it up. For instance, if the odds are 100:100:120, but the first two countries are using 75% of their planes against the 3rd, then the "numbers being faced" would look something like 85:85:150. That ratio is greatly different that the player odds, so something is imbalanced. Meaning even though the 3rd country has a slight edge, they are in fact outnumbered.

If you combine that last number with "bases held", a picture of which side is "losing" gets much easier to discern.

Note that this would also allow the host to detect a "blitz" situation. Take the "joint ops" case of 100:100:150 odds ... but the 3rd country decides to use 2/3 of their planes to attack the 1st in a "blitz", and the 2nd country holds even coverage. Counrty 1 has 3/4 of their planes in action against country 3 because of the blitz. In this case, the "players faced" number is 150:75:125.

Here again, it's easy to detect a gross imbalance. The host could then make adjustments in favor of country 1.

What those adjustments are ... well ... who knows?