Author Topic: perhaps an alternative to plane disablement  (Read 1298 times)

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #30 on: August 31, 2004, 09:22:02 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
True, but this is a "snapshot" of a particular point in time. There are many other "snapshots" that could be brought forth that show something completely different.

This could be construed as a "Rook Whine". Your not gonna get much sympathy for the Rooks state of affairs due to the drubbing that they have put upon the MA for that last six months or more. What I have noticed, since the ENY disabler has gone into effect, is that the Rook Horde is somewhat non-existent, neutered, or both. That, in and of itself is good.

I am somewhat surprised to not see more tweaking of the ENY disabler. I do agree that it needs some more and as you stated before, there have been some good ideas brought forth that could add to and enhance it and make it better for all.

What are your ideas on "when", "where", and "how" ?

I don't know about anybody else, but I have seen a greater mixture of aircraft flying around ... more diverse than I have seen it in over a year or more.

The ENY disabler has forced me to look at other planes due to the fact that it can reach a point to where the P-38 and/or the Spit V is disabled (OH THE HORROR !!!).

I am loving the P-47-D25 (ENY 35) and probably wouldn't have tried this monster unless the ENY disabler made me think about it.


Why then with Bish holding almost 50% more fields than Knits, were Knits putting up no effort to take some Bish fields so that they could win the reset when Rooks fell?

I have seen no significant change in the odds or the behavior. As often as not when I log in (West Coast times) Rooks are pushed back to some degree and when we finally amass enough numbers to overcome the double-team, we have to do it with an ENY disadvantage.

And no it's not "Rook Whine" ... I scan the map and see who's in contact with who.

When, where, how ... as I said in my prior post, combine number of planes, number of fields, and the difference between in-combat odds and in-flight odds (i.e. if it's 100:100:100 and you have 140 planes attacking your front, you're getting truced). My preference would be that until you have more fields than you started with there's no ENY kick-in ... meaning you should be able to fight your way back to even territory without penalty.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #31 on: August 31, 2004, 09:40:43 AM »
Actually, I'm NOT seeing great difference in less popular planes being flown. I'm still seeing the same planes as before.

While I prefer the P-38 (after flying it almost exclusively for 7 years or so of flight sims) I don't suffer greatly under the ENY penalty since I switch to a Corsair or a TBolt.  I am getting ready to drag out the old WarHawk/Tomahawk when the odds are fairly even, despite the fact that for me swapping planes actually hinders my flying greatly due to being entrenched in habits formed by a certain plane.


Dok is right about the truce horde. It exists, and has existed, and it appears the ENY limit does nothing at all about it. Last night was an obvious example, and it is not only common, but existed before the ENY limiter. I'm not really complaining much, hanging around A8 last night I was able to increase my k/d ratio considerably, almost starting to make up for the problems I had with my computer and previous installation earlier this month. I was able for the most part to maintain a 3:1 k/d ratio against the constant onslaught. That's remarkable considering I'm a horrible pilot.

Oh, and by the way, even when the numbers were WORSE than what Dok quoted for the Rooks, I saw PLENTY of P-51Ds,  and La 7s. So the ENY system was only working against one half of the larger two countries, something I felt would happen to begin with.

And the truce horde DOES work very well against the Rooks. Especially when the Rooks are lazy and complacent about being organized. It is NOT unusual to see 100 or so Bishops and about the same number of Knights effectively stop 200 or more Rooks, this was happening BEFORE the ENY limiter.

The Rook horde effectively neutered itself to a great degree when it grew excessively large. At that point effective communication and cooperation consistently dropped to the point that even with a serious advantage in numbers they very often could not make serious progress towards a reset. That isn't to say that there were no local areas where a section of the horde wasn't racking up kills due to 3:1 or better odds. What it IS saying is that the horde could be stalled completely with just a little teamwork, and once the stall happened, the horde effectively fell apart, and was no longer effective as a whole.

I think the horde thing is overrated anyway. I've seen effective teamwork stall hordes repeatedly. Once thrown into disarray, the horde almost always starts coming back in very small groups, virtually ineffective against a determined and organized defense of decent size. The vaunted "conveyer belt" becomes a conveyer belt of death as they come in without sufficient numbers and tactics. They just die off in small groups, often without scoring kills or doing any real damage. All three sides do this, I see Rooks do it more often than the other two.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #32 on: August 31, 2004, 09:49:45 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Why then with Bish holding almost 50% more fields than Knits, were Knits putting up no effort to take some Bish fields so that they could win the reset when Rooks fell?

I have seen no significant change in the odds or the behavior. As often as not when I log in (West Coast times) Rooks are pushed back to some degree and when we finally amass enough numbers to overcome the double-team, we have to do it with an ENY disadvantage.

And no it's not "Rook Whine" ... I scan the map and see who's in contact with who.

When, where, how ... as I said in my prior post, combine number of planes, number of fields, and the difference between in-combat odds and in-flight odds (i.e. if it's 100:100:100 and you have 140 planes attacking your front, you're getting truced). My preference would be that until you have more fields than you started with there's no ENY kick-in ... meaning you should be able to fight your way back to even territory without penalty.



Isn't it funny that what happened mostly on Sunday nights was taken to be the constant norm for the arena for the entire week?

I'm seeing NOTHING different during the week than I was before. Something I predicted would be true.

You are correct, the truce does exist, there is no other reason for what you saw and what is often seen.

The position I have is the same I had before. I'm not terribly worried about the ENY limit for myself, it rarely affects me as I never fly those planes anyway. But I have always felt it better to give something to the group suffering the worst odds without taking from the others. The example you gave is the norm, and why taking from a group rather than giving to the other is bad. It would be far better to make perk planes so cheap for the outnumbered side as to make them irresistable. Almost to the point of the system issuing messages telling players on the outnumbered side "you can have a practically for free".
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #33 on: August 31, 2004, 09:51:59 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo



But until the logic is in place to determine whether a country is at a disadvantage or not, the rest of the discussion is meaningless. Once you have that, then Horde Warrior and Truce Warrior become harder games to play. Number of players, number of fields, in-combat odds versus in-flight odds - the datapoints you need are all right there. If ENY and perk values were modified based on an equation that incorporated these, the whole system would work a lot better.


I still don't see why this needed to be "fixed" at all, though. The "game" we play really hasn't changed in almost 20 years.



Facts. Solutions. Plain and simple.


Horde Warrior never has been the ONLY problem, and Truce Warrior IS a serious problem, and is basically "gaming the game" for the ENY limiter.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #34 on: August 31, 2004, 10:03:33 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
True, but this is a "snapshot" of a particular point in time. There are many other "snapshots" that could be brought forth that show something completely different.

 

This could be construed as a "Rook Whine". Your not gonna get much sympathy for the Rooks state of affairs due to the drubbing that they have put upon the MA for that last six months or more. What I have noticed, since the ENY disabler has gone into effect, is that the Rook Horde is somewhat non-existent, neutered, or both. That, in and of itself is good.



I am somewhat surprised to not see more tweaking of the ENY disabler. I do agree that it needs some more and as you stated before, there have been some good ideas brought forth that could add to and enhance it and make it better for all.

What are your ideas on "when", "where", and "how" ?

I don't know about anybody else, but I have seen a greater mixture of aircraft flying around ... more diverse than I have seen it in over a year or more.

The ENY disabler has forced me to look at other planes due to the fact that it can reach a point to where the P-38 and/or the Spit V is disabled (OH THE HORROR !!!).

I am loving the P-47-D25 (ENY 35) and probably wouldn't have tried this monster unless the ENY disabler made me think about it.


That "snapshot" is more the norm than not. You could show a few snapshots to make any point you wanted, but they would not necessarily be all that valid, and neither would the point. You could show a snapshot from a Sunday night RJO, but that would not really show the norm that currently exists in the arena.

I'm not whining. It really didn't hurt me anyway, and for example last night I figure my k/d ratio was at least 2:1 or more (outstanding for me, I'm a truly lousy pilot). Again, the ENY deal doesn't bug me much really, I needed to get some seat time in a couple of other planes I like anyway. It's more of an incentive to fly the Corsair and TBolt than anything else. I need to fly the WarHawk some as well.

I'm not at all surprised that there has not been more tweaking. Hitech appeared to be well pleased with the results in most all of his posts. Besides theyare supposedly working very hard on the next MAJOR patch. So long as the loudest whiners were placated, the din has been reduced and they can work with less distraction.

I have not seen any more diversity really, although larger numbers of opponents do tend to produce a slightly wider variety of planes, though not any different than what I saw when seeing that many opponets before the ENY limiter.

As stated elsewhere, it takes a bunch to make the ENY limiter get to the P-38 (highest ENY plane I ever fly) and I just go to the Corsair and the TBolt and fly them just as poorly as I fly the P-38.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #35 on: August 31, 2004, 10:34:29 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
...

I'm not at all surprised that there has not been more tweaking. Hitech appeared to be well pleased with the results in most all of his posts. Besides theyare supposedly working very hard on the next MAJOR patch. So long as the loudest whiners were placated, the din has been reduced and they can work with less distraction.

...


That may be true, but there is a risk being run.

That risk is that the people who are getting shafted through no fault of their own (i.e. run squads, fly when they always flew for years but now get ENY porked, etc.) will simply bail. And while HT may indeed want the whiners to STFU, he certainly doesn't want the backbone of his player base throwing up their hands and walking away. It's the people who are not saying they'll quit here in the BBS that are at risk.

This is in no way a threat or incitation. Just what I expect to see after 17 years of observing and being part of this player community. So I see a greater sense of urgency here.

Nor should my comments be taken as a knock on HT. I see where he's heading with this idea and I've always found Horde Warrior to be perfectly dull (save for "squad nite" kinds of deals ... I refer to the relentless, nightly drooling horde). With some tweaks and tuning ENY/Perk balancing makes things more interesting.

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #36 on: August 31, 2004, 11:01:52 AM »
Well this just goes to show ya that we all look at this from different viewpoints.

There is no "Horde Truce" ... at least that I am aware of. I have not seen or heard any dialog between the Knights and the Bishops.

What you are forgetting Capt'n and maybe Dok doesn't know this since his has basically just returned, but the map position that the Rooks have on Trinity is ALWAYS (99%) the corner of the map that gets reset and ganged. Simple as that.

The design of this map lends itself to more fights in that corner. The Knight/Bish front on this maps is stymied by huge mountains and vast expanses of water. The Knight/Rook front on this map does not have the same obstacles.

For most of the weekend, at least when I was on, the majority of the Knights resources were being used at A8 and A10 ... the fight/furball went on for hours upon hours with nothing gained and nothing lost real estate-wise.

I spend the majority of my time between A199 and A145 ... Knight/Bish front. We traded thos bases back and forth all weekend.

Just last night before I quit, the Bish stole/rolled 3 bases in our northern most territory and only a handfull of Knights tried to stop it and less than that put in an effort to try and get it back. Guess where the majority of the Knights resources were ? ... yup ... in the A8 - A10 area. This area is akin to A44 on Mindano ... furball central.
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #37 on: August 31, 2004, 11:13:25 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
That may be true, but there is a risk being run.

That risk is that the people who are getting shafted through no fault of their own (i.e. run squads, fly when they always flew for years but now get ENY porked, etc.) will simply bail. And while HT may indeed want the whiners to STFU, he certainly doesn't want the backbone of his player base throwing up their hands and walking away. It's the people who are not saying they'll quit here in the BBS that are at risk.

This is in no way a threat or incitation. Just what I expect to see after 17 years of observing and being part of this player community. So I see a greater sense of urgency here.

Nor should my comments be taken as a knock on HT. I see where he's heading with this idea and I've always found Horde Warrior to be perfectly dull (save for "squad nite" kinds of deals ... I refer to the relentless, nightly drooling horde). With some tweaks and tuning ENY/Perk balancing makes things more interesting.



I agree completely, that's been my position all along.

My squad always flies Saturday and Wednesday, has since I joined the 1st time in AW years ago. They happen to be Rook, they have been all along, since they came from AW, and when the Rooks were the whipping boy. They were Az in AW, always, in FR.  It is simply a loyal group with loyal friends that has NEVER switched sides, not in AW, and not here.

That being said, we are strong and growing, regardless of what is happening. The ENY limiter has little effect on us, while the plane in our logo is a P-51D, we don't often fly it. There is little danger of OUR squad leaving. That does not mean there is no danger of other squads doing so.

I too am all for making things better. I don't like hordes either. But, on the otherhand, organized things like Rook RJO is VERY good for the community. This should not be penalized or discouraged by the game. Rather it should be encouraged, and the other countries should be enticed and encouraged to respond in kind. Imagine rather than the ENY limiter handicapping a Rook RJO, having the Knights and or Bishops organize a RESPONSE. An arena with 600 or so players, while having its own server logistics issues possibly, would be a huge boost to the community. The response to a country having a joint operations SHOULD be organized mass opposition by other countries. Massive fights should be used as an incentive to draw more players.

I was the original organizer of the Az force, it was something I did right after joining the squad. I did it as a low ranking wingman, I simply went to the squad staff and proposed it. I first contacted Tarkus of the DDZ, and it grew from there, eventually in AW FR there were about a half dozen squads in the Az force. I think it was STICK (real name Lance, the original organizer of the real KOTH back in AW) who came up with the name Az force, I didn't even come up with the name, just the basic idea, and that wasn't original, it just worked.


I wish there were people doing that sort of thing not only for one country, but in and for all countries. What I did was nothing special at all, and I was and still am nobody. So if a nobody like me can do it than anyone can and should. It just took a little effort and thought. I'd LOVE to see an organized response to an RJO, or even just to the usual Rook Sunday night.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #38 on: August 31, 2004, 11:27:30 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
Well this just goes to show ya that we all look at this from different viewpoints.

There is no "Horde Truce" ... at least that I am aware of. I have not seen or heard any dialog between the Knights and the Bishops.

What you are forgetting Capt'n and maybe Dok doesn't know this since his has basically just returned, but the map position that the Rooks have on Trinity is ALWAYS (99%) the corner of the map that gets reset and ganged. Simple as that.

The design of this map lends itself to more fights in that corner. The Knight/Bish front on this maps is stymied by huge mountains and vast expanses of water. The Knight/Rook front on this map does not have the same obstacles.

For most of the weekend, at least when I was on, the majority of the Knights resources were being used at A8 and A10 ... the fight/furball went on for hours upon hours with nothing gained and nothing lost real estate-wise.

I spend the majority of my time between A199 and A145 ... Knight/Bish front. We traded thos bases back and forth all weekend.

Just last night before I quit, the Bish stole/rolled 3 bases in our northern most territory and only a handfull of Knights tried to stop it and less than that put in an effort to try and get it back. Guess where the majority of the Knights resources were ? ... yup ... in the A8 - A10 area. This area is akin to A44 on Mindano ... furball central.


I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that it is not exclusive to the map nor where the countries are on the map at that time.

There does not need to be a vocal or verbalized agreement or any dialog to have a truce. It happens very easily as a product of habit, history, rivalry, or merely present circumstances. To assume that there needs to be a meeting or something assumes it is a formal thing that had to be worked out. That needn't be the case.


I agree there are choke points and resource pits on several maps. I've noticed them as well. They do affect the balance somewhat. But I've seen the truce horde on almost every map, regardless of the position of the countries on that map. Perhaps it is to a degree a response the Rooks issuing a pounding recently. I don't disagree with that or discount it at all.

Certainly numbers advantages are transient and often fleeting.

However, you are discounting a few things.

First, the Rooks have been strong, and have steamrolled the Knights and Bishops lately. To think that no rivalry was created there is silly. Everyone goes to knock off the big guy, when given the chance, that's human nature.  Especially when the big guy has been picking on you.

Second, the Rooks were the smallest and weakest for a while, and the Knights and Bishops took advantage of that as well. To think that a habit of attacking one country you've attacked all along rather than another country does not exist, is to ignore the other facet of human nature at work here, called habit.

It is simply a matter of human nature, even in games, to be in the habit of preferring to attack or fight or play against a certain team or group. I doubt that you could say it does not exist here as a general rule.

That is not to say that some don't go for the bigger challenge or the change of pace, or what is tactically advantageous or expedient. Some do, but they remain in the minority, as another facet of human nature.
« Last Edit: August 31, 2004, 11:32:19 AM by Captain Virgil Hilts »
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #39 on: August 31, 2004, 12:15:40 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I would agree with you if it were not for the fact that it is not exclusive to the map nor where the countries are on the map at that time.

There does not need to be a vocal or verbalized agreement or any dialog to have a truce. It happens very easily as a product of habit, history, rivalry, or merely present circumstances. To assume that there needs to be a meeting or something assumes it is a formal thing that had to be worked out. That needn't be the case.


I agree there are choke points and resource pits on several maps. I've noticed them as well. They do affect the balance somewhat. But I've seen the truce horde on almost every map, regardless of the position of the countries on that map. Perhaps it is to a degree a response the Rooks issuing a pounding recently. I don't disagree with that or discount it at all.

Certainly numbers advantages are transient and often fleeting.

However, you are discounting a few things.

First, the Rooks have been strong, and have steamrolled the Knights and Bishops lately. To think that no rivalry was created there is silly. Everyone goes to knock off the big guy, when given the chance, that's human nature.  Especially when the big guy has been picking on you.

Second, the Rooks were the smallest and weakest for a while, and the Knights and Bishops took advantage of that as well. To think that a habit of attacking one country you've attacked all along rather than another country does not exist, is to ignore the other facet of human nature at work here, called habit.

It is simply a matter of human nature, even in games, to be in the habit of preferring to attack or fight or play against a certain team or group. I doubt that you could say it does not exist here as a general rule.

That is not to say that some don't go for the bigger challenge or the change of pace, or what is tactically advantageous or expedient. Some do, but they remain in the minority, as another facet of human nature.


Sorry ... I misunderstood the "Truce" notion. There was a verbal truce not to long ago and I thought that maybe you guys thought that it was still an ongoing dialog.

No ... I really didn't discount anything ... I was addressing what I thought was a verbal truce. You have nailed the "human" aspect of gameplay as I see it too, along with the shortcomings of maps that lends its gameplay flow to certain parts of the map. Truce hording is done by all teams.

You know as well as I do, had people/squads stepped up to the plate and tried to create a balance, as some did when the Rooks were getting trounced upon, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why was it so easy then to make a switch and not now ?
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."

Offline detch01

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1788
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #40 on: August 31, 2004, 12:17:47 PM »
There's been a lot of good points made in this thread but I think the problem with the game is the limited variety of game play options available. There's a functional strat off-field strat system that is largely irrelevant to game play. Game play is focused on fields only. That in itself concentrates players and causes problems.
Some suggestions:
- spread out the fight by making the existing strat targets more immediately relevant to the readiness of fields and reduce the down-time of damaged strat facilities;
- increase the hardness of fields so that taking down zone strat is a prerequisite for steam-rolling a zone.
- get rid of the ENY compensator, from what I saw before I left it didn't cure the #s imbalance and just ticked people off;
- setup radar so it's tower dependant and ditch the HQ radar kill altogether; and,
- bring back the system brag calls on radio 6 (system: xxx killed yyy).
In short, turn AH back into a game where players and squadrons can specialize if they like, where players can build some solid and public PvP and Sqd v. Sqd rivalries and the synthetic hate in the game can be turned into a positive instead of the lame-ass whine fest it is now.
Raise the required IQ in the game and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the player base will follow.
asw
Latrine Attendant, 1st class
semper in excretio, solum profundum variat

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #41 on: August 31, 2004, 12:49:28 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by detch01
... Raise the required IQ in the game and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts the player base will follow.


Abso-freakin-lutely.

Strat is tricky though. If you let strat targets have a dramatic effect on front-line combat effectiveness, you must make these targets hard enough that a couple Lancs at 75,000 ft aren't all it takes to take them out. It's more than building toughness ... it's also the amount of dispersion of the structures so that it takes several planes or trips.

It would be cool if prior to base captures there needed to be a serious assault on the local area HQ or other nearby strat targets. Then medium and heavy bombers would, like, operate as they're supposed to and get escort like they're supposed to. Fields on the target route would get suppressed ... and then captured once the strat was down.

Just having a zone HQ need to be down before capture within the zone is possible could lead to a drastic change in play style. In which case you could leave the basic strat system and target structure as is, and just add the zone-hq-prevents-capture switch in there. (This could also remote the main hq runner syndrome ... just leave radar on.)


As for truces ... it doesn't take a rocket surgeon to look at the map and count red dar-bars.


And, as much as I know many folks would hate it, using an early- or mid-war plane set on weekends would lessen the effectiveness of hording. Slower, faster turning planes favor defense ... and slow down the conveyor belt. Without Lanc and B17 dive-bombers, players would need to work for base captures.

Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6128
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #42 on: August 31, 2004, 02:10:33 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SlapShot
Sorry ... I misunderstood the "Truce" notion. There was a verbal truce not to long ago and I thought that maybe you guys thought that it was still an ongoing dialog.

No ... I really didn't discount anything ... I was addressing what I thought was a verbal truce. You have nailed the "human" aspect of gameplay as I see it too, along with the shortcomings of maps that lends its gameplay flow to certain parts of the map. Truce hording is done by all teams.

You know as well as I do, had people/squads stepped up to the plate and tried to create a balance, as some did when the Rooks were getting trounced upon, we wouldn't be having this conversation. Why was it so easy then to make a switch and not now ?


Okay, I can understand that.

Now, the truce you spoke of by nature has its own inertia, meaning it has a tendency to continue on. Again, a truism of human nature that cannot be ignored.

With regards to people and squads "stepping up" to create a balance, I can only speak for those I fly with. And they have always been a non side switching group. They picked the underdog when they formed here, and they have stayed REGARDLESS of how bad or good it has been. They've always made a home and stayed, regardless of odds or conditions. I have no reason to expect them to change, nor do I feel anyone else should expect them to, nor are they being unreasonable.

Now, as to other squads, I have no right to speak for them, nor have I any qualifications to do so. I do not know who switched and when, and I feel that no one but that squad is in ANY position to expect them to move if they do not want to. Perhaps side balancing is not the only reason some squads moved. Perhaps they have found a group they feel at home with and enjoy flying with. Sure, you can argue they might consider "broadening their horizons" and "making new friends".

You are correct that perception and position are irrevocably tied together. Group 1 expecting people from group 2 or 3 to switch to enhance the enjoyment of group 1 are ignoring the fact that people from group 2 or 3 may be happy where they are and not want to switch, as they are enjoying themsleves where they are.  Some may have been in group 1 and not want to be there again. People in group 2 or 3 may be ignoring the fact that group 1 feels they are short handed and aren't having fun. But in the end, who is at fault, and what should be done? It is a game, and people are where they want to be, doing what they want to do, because it is a game played for pleasure. That is why the solution is far more difficult and complex.

While the ENY limit has had short term moderate success, it is not at all without fault, and is by no means the end all be all ultimate solution. That is not a bad thing, unless it is the only solution ever tried.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline detch01

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1788
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #43 on: August 31, 2004, 02:49:00 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by DoKGonZo
Abso-freakin-lutely.

Strat is tricky though. If you let strat targets have a dramatic effect on front-line combat effectiveness, you must make these targets hard enough that a couple Lancs at 75,000 ft aren't all it takes to take them out. It's more than building toughness ... it's also the amount of dispersion of the structures so that it takes several planes or trips.

Very true. The trick would be to ensure that there is a dramatic enough effect on front-line combat effectiveness to make it worthwhile and at the same time making sure that effect is limited to a short duration unless the upstream strat facilities are seriously damaged or destroyed. For the most part the strat system already used in the game can be tweaked to provide this sort of game play.

Quote
Originally posted by asw (detch01)
- increase the hardness of fields ...

Changed my mind on this - leave hardness as is and reduce regen times instead, but with a wrinkle for hangars only: have hangar regen independant of the strat system but make hangar regeneration consequtive instead of concurrent, with the priority being FH's, then VH, then BH's. That leaves the field defendable right up to the capture unless there is a serious cooperative and effective attack at the field.
asw
Latrine Attendant, 1st class
semper in excretio, solum profundum variat

Offline SlapShot

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 9121
perhaps an alternative to plane disablement
« Reply #44 on: August 31, 2004, 03:42:59 PM »
Quote
With regards to people and squads "stepping up" to create a balance, I can only speak for those I fly with. And they have always been a non side switching group. They picked the underdog when they formed here, and they have stayed REGARDLESS of how bad or good it has been. They've always made a home and stayed, regardless of odds or conditions. I have no reason to expect them to change, nor do I feel anyone else should expect them to, nor are they being unreasonable.


If everybody felt this way, then the Rooks would STILL be in the hole. It took some people with guts to make the switch back then. I know a couple of long time Knight squads left to make it balanced ... can't speak for the Bish but I would bet there were some that did.

Quote
You are correct that perception and position are irrevocably tied together. Group 1 expecting people from group 2 or 3 to switch to enhance the enjoyment of group 1 are ignoring the fact that people from group 2 or 3 may be happy where they are and not want to switch, as they are enjoying themsleves where they are. Some may have been in group 1 and not want to be there again. People in group 2 or 3 may be ignoring the fact that group 1 feels they are short handed and aren't having fun. But in the end, who is at fault, and what should be done? It is a game, and people are where they want to be, doing what they want to do, because it is a game played for pleasure. That is why the solution is far more difficult and complex.


You know, I could follow this ... that's scarey !!! Reminds me of "Who's on first ?".

Quote
While the ENY limit has had short term moderate success, it is not at all without fault, and is by no means the end all be all ultimate solution. That is not a bad thing, unless it is the only solution ever tried.


I have stated the same for quite some time now. I hope that HT is tweaking as we speak ... I know he took a break about a couple of hours ago ... with all the BBS editing ... :D
SlapShot - Blue Knights

Guppy: "The only risk we take is the fight, and since no one really dies, the reward is the fight."