Author Topic: Attrition - Idea  (Read 752 times)

Offline DoKGonZo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1977
      • http://www.gonzoville.com
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2004, 10:46:47 AM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
A version of this already exists in the arena settings.........

two settings (deathmaxcount  and deathtimemult) are set to limit the number of deaths a player may experience over a set period of time.

It is (or can be) used in events to limit the number of "lives" a player may use.

However it can be set in the MA to do the same. It will not balance game play however..............

It could be used to limit repeated suicide attempts at

a)launching from a capped (vulch enabled) field

or

b)spawning at a camped GV spawnpoint

or

c)suiciding a whole formation of bombers

if set to say 3  lives over 4 or 5  mins


Interesting ... if you set it to 2 lives in 15 minutes, how would that affect the "conveyor belt?"

    -DoK

Offline xHaMmeRx

  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 402
      • http://www.netaces.org
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #16 on: September 09, 2004, 12:48:28 PM »
Good ideas Soda, and I agree with DokGonzo's modifications.  10 minutes would be enough to make the average joe look somewhere else.  

Hammer
netAces.org - Tips, Tactics and More!

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #17 on: September 09, 2004, 02:34:39 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
A version of this already exists in the arena settings.........
[/b]

I thought the current system was at an entire arena level, I don't want that.  I don't want people sitting in the tower unless they die a massive amount (which is generally only possible if being vulched or doing something else stupid which is difficult in my model).  Even if you die every 2 minutes, with no transit time, you only have a max of 15 fields you are limited at.  Those would have to be unique fields also, so count in some time to do a ".move" and at least 1-2 min of transit.. likely it would be nearly impossible to have more than 5 total fields that were off limits even at the worst time, assuming you die at a rate of once every 6 minutes.  A single sortie longer than that and multiple fields would "re-open" to you spawning.  I think you'd have to die a lot in order for it to be an issue and that usually happens when all you have left are fields that are all basically being vulched.  When that happens a reset might be the kindest thing that can happen.  Remember, even if you ran out of fields to spawn from, there is always furball island... unlimited spawning there.

Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
It will not balance game play however..............
[/b]

Correct, but it might make superior numbers more managable/beatable. I've always found that I didn't mind the aspect of facing superior numbers, it was when I knew beating it initially wasn't going to ultimately change the outcome.  Eventually I'd have to leave (fuel/ammo/damage), or get beat, so sortie rates combined with superior numbers would almost always be the victor in the end. This would be more like the dueling arena, the sides are set and the person with the last guy(s) flying is the victor, regardless of what the odds were before.  Having a couple of really skilled guys along is going to certainly help, some squads in AH are going to be able to beat 3:1 odds, or worse, because they can employ their skill better.  Right now even at 5:1 ratios they eventually lose as fresh opponents come back over and over until they vulch/pork you back to your runway. I think a lot of large aircraft number but poorly staffed/planned capture attempts would fail miserably with my idea.

Quote
Originally posted by Tilt
It could be used to limit repeated suicide attempts at
[/b]

Yes, but it is an "equal opportunity penalty" for any death.  Certainly it hits the suiciders the worst if they persist on using those tactics.  If they adopt something with better survival chances they are less likely to die and more likely to have multiple sorties from one location.  It means a few suiciders are less likely to have an impact, not that they can't try and succeed, but it make take more of them and ultimately may result in failures to suicide things "enough".

Quote
Originally posted by DokGonzo
30 mins is way too long. Make it 10 minutes ... which is about how long it'd take to fly home from the "average" inter-base furball, or about how long it'd take to sortie from the next nearest field and get back to the same fight.
[/b]

I was a bit ruthless in my choice of 30 min, maybe it could be changed, but here was my reasoning.  Basically, if you fail I think you should "move on", or at least be enticed to do so. If you are really intent on seeing something through (even post-death), then the penalty is the flight from another field, likely an addition of +5 min or so of transit, but effectively if you died again you'd be looking at LONG flight times to continue anything (you'd really have to move then).  Also, if you make it 30min, then the time it takes for something to "repair" like troops, would be shorter than your return times, ie, if you suicide porked something by the time you got back it would be fixed.  Making it only 10 minutes, you could basically launch constant sorties from two fields (assuming you can survive 10 min consistently, which a majority would be climb/transit times) where mine makes it almost impossible to sustain any sort of attack for more than 1-2 sorties from any reasonably distanced field.

I think making people move on also populates the map a bit better.  It releases people from "constant defense" who choose to oppose capture attempts.  It also makes failed attacks more suceptable to counter-attack (there is a whole 30 min window of opportunity to counter-attack in before the same guys can defend).  Attacks that failed would come back to a fully-functional field on their second attempt (30 min later).  Defenses that failed would give the attackers up to 30 min to get the capture complete.  Most attacks/defenses/furballs would turn into brief and bloody battles where the victors could really capitalize (basically 30 mins worth) on the result.

Good comments though, creative discussion.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2004, 02:41:25 PM by Soda »

Offline Redd

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1316
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #18 on: September 09, 2004, 05:58:44 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Soda


I doubt my idea can force either of these.  It guess it depends on what it means to be "timid" also... if someone uses late war speed to extend from a better slow-performer, is that timid or just smart?  I my mind he's using his advantage to beat yours.  It can be frustrating as hell, no doubt, but if you can't stop it then he has the advantage and is using it for his own reasons.  You might respect someone in a 190D9 that decides to turnfight a Spitfire V as brave/skilled but from a tactical standpoint that would be stupid.

As for overuse of late war rides, we see what has happened with the ENY penalty stuff, it's a mess of complaints.  To me, it really hasn't made any difference, I have yet to have a single sortie not run because I couldn't take the aircraft I wanted.  Too many people rely on the uber rides to survive as they really do hold an advantage over a majority of the planeset, it's certainly a handicap and does make people rely on speed to save them (it can rot your ACM and SA skills quite a bit) but whatever works for them and is within the rules has to be considered fair game I guess.  

Personally, I wouldn't mind a planeset that was pushed back a bit though, bringing more "middle-planeset" options into play, something in the 190A5/SpitV range with light perking from there up... I think Kweassa has posted concepts along that line before.

-Soda



Nah wasn't talking about  using your plane correctly  eg D9 vs Sp 5  , different thing completely.

And yas I would also like to see the perk system extended, it seems to me it is underutilized , and could be used to shape things more in the arena, and get more planes out of the hangars.


Anyway , don't want to shift your thread - that's all for another one, and been done to death probably.
I come from a land downunder

Offline SPQR

  • Zinc Member
  • *
  • Posts: 50
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2004, 07:00:38 AM »
I really like this! To historical rememberance to factual strategic doctrine of the Allies of WW2, specifically in reference to the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command who lost over 60,000 airmen. It was imperative to the cause to diminish the war capability of the enemy to wage war at the front lines. Strategic planning must play a bigger part in MA. Creating a more sound tactical doctrine at the front lines. Main point: I get tired of just porking airfields with my strategic bomber want to see more relevance of cities and factories.
Quote
Originally posted by Kweassa
While the idea itself sounds good, it does seem to fall under the category of "individual attrition" rather than "total attrition".

 Despite the fancy words the two concepts are fundamental in creating all "war" type games.

 Attrition rates were an important factor in warring environments and makes up the drive for people to find targets of wider importance than just the fight in front of you. Raids to cities, facilities, factories all make up a part of the picture of attrition. So does individual deaths and kills.

 However, there are two methods of attrition applied to a game - the first method is to make the individual pay the consequences of attrition. The second method is to make the whole team pay the consequences of attrition.

 The former, individual attrition, is direct and very quickly applied. For instance, the idea making an individual being unable to up from a base, or having a set number of 'available planes' on a base.. or, the former AH MA style 'fuel busting' all fall under the "individual attrition" category. As we have noted from experiences of the past, individual attrition is THE source for complaints.

 The latter, total attrition, is very hard to balance out. If it is anything like in the real world, it may be considered too powerful. If it is too little in effect, it becomes something like MA facilities - fuel refineris, troop training, radar factories, etc. These targets are virtually useless and more or less complete waste of time to go after, considering MA dynamics.

 The former AH MA, had individual attrition of some resources(fuels), but no attrition for planes and pilots. It also had no strategic scale attrition rate at all(virtually useless).

 The current MA, has removed all attritional resources. Killing fuel stuff was under huge complaint. If killing the fuels, which still allowed you to spawn, has met such high resistance, it isn't hard to see how people will react to attrition that effects plane spawning itself.

 IMO the only way to go, is to strengthen attrition rates at a strategic scale, so it makes sense. People are required to hit fuel facilities, radar factories, ack factories and etc - but unlike it is now, these should have lasting effect to show some kind of continuity in strategic/tactical action.

 An attrition applied to all resources(which is accounted by a factory), which acts slow, but steady as well. In this type of attritional setting, people will not be limited in their playing time directly, but the results of attrition to resource facilities will cause a slow but constant 'bleeding', which will in the end, bring a gigantic effect if not properly accounted for.

 Only by this method IMO, will AH gamers be willing to make a compromose. They won't be limited in when they fly where, but they will be duty bound to protect their own facilities, and as much attack the enemy facilities.. or in the long run, it will decisively effect the ability to wage war.

Offline Soda

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1543
      • http://members.shaw.ca/soda_p/models.htm
Attrition - Idea
« Reply #20 on: September 10, 2004, 06:44:50 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by SPQR
I really like this! To historical rememberance to factual strategic doctrine of the Allies of WW2, specifically in reference to the 8th Air Force and British Bomber Command who lost over 60,000 airmen. It was imperative to the cause to diminish the war capability of the enemy to wage war at the front lines. Strategic planning must play a bigger part in MA. Creating a more sound tactical doctrine at the front lines. Main point: I get tired of just porking airfields with my strategic bomber want to see more relevance of cities and factories.


Strategic changes are not really in my idea but might represent another layer.  You have to remember that a strategic change would represent something that would likely take much more to accomplish and may have immediate impacts on people's play.  Eg, you log on and you find that there are serious restrictions placed on play (be it aircraft available, fuel, etc)... You may find such a poor strategic position overall that "playing" would be accepting that you are honestly going to be defensive (or whatever) for a whole evening.  I think only the hardcore person is going to accept that, hence why there is some talk about things like the TOD (where this might be part of such a model).  The thing is the balance would be so difficult... how much should one person be able to "cripple" another country, how serious would be the restrictions, and how long would it last.  These would all be difficult to balance.  I agree if done right it could be cool though.

My idea is only local, short, attrition.  It hands immediate advantage to the "victor" but has no longer term consequences.