Solution to Arena Player Imbalances

[Dingy]

Why not add a new perk point modifier that takes into account the relative numbers in the arena? For example, the new formula to calculate perk points would be:

Mission perk points x [(total numbers in arena /3) / your country's numbers]

So if all the countries are equal in numbers you get the standard number of perk points. If your country is outnumbered, you get BONUS perkies!  

And to put the icing on the cake, if you are heavily populated, you get fewer perkies!!!

This would also do a good job of modelling the relative difficulty of getting the kills.

Another benefit is that it would give people who are more interested in perkies and have no country affiliations to come over to the underdog to get more perkies.

THIS IS THE ANSWER GUYS!  

-Ding

[hblair]

I vote yes for dingys idea.  

[Bombjack]

Me too  

[straffo]

hum ...
with K:30 R:30 B:30 if it's K+R vs B (for exemple) all  player got same point but who's is gang banged ?

Mpp*[(((K+R+B)/3)*B)]*(NBFieds/NBtotalFields)
would be better perhaps ?

[RAS]

Well, I already posted this on the other board that has this idea on it.......GOOD idea Dingyski (don't want to keep saying that, your head will get too big...hehe).

Would chuck one other idea on to yours.  Allow us to "resupply" the damaged facilities with the C47 (or M3).  Allowing for quicker rebuild time based on the number of C47's you get in to that facility.  Would give us goon drivers something else to do besides hauling drunks around the theatre.  They did, afterall, haul cargo in those things too.  

Thanks again for the great idea Dingyski-bob.

RAS  

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by straffo:
hum ...
with K:30 R:30 B:30 if it's K+R vs B (for exemple) all  player got same point but who's is gang banged ?

Mpp*[(((K+R+B)/3)*B)]*(NBFieds/NBtotalFields)
would be better perhaps ?

Hmmm....interesting but I think ya put a multiplication sign where a division sign should be  

So what you are saying is in addition to a population multiplier you propose having another multiplier based on the number of bases you own?   In theory its a good idea but it leaves the door open to abuse since it benefits the side which allows its bases to be captured and doesnt take any.  IMO, this isnt good for promoting teamplay which I think is important.

And anything which doesnt promote teamplay I think is bad for the arena.  Look what the mass missions put together by players like Zig, Rip and Hang have done for their respective countries.

-Ding

[This message has been edited by Dingy (edited 03-13-2001).]

[straffo]

 

Hmmm....interesting but I think ya put a multiplication sign where a division sign should be  (Image removed from quote.)

I'm fighting with math since 2 weeks   and I'm pretty tired  

// Formule de Gauss pour desiner la
//                    1          - ((x - M)*(x-M))/(2*(S*S))
//  F(x) = Y = ------------- * e
//             S*(Sqrt(2*P))
FCapabilite.GaussBell.clear();
XX := LaMoyenne - 3*EC;
   if (EC <>0) then begin
   While (XX < (LaMoyenne + 3*EC)) do begin // While (X..
         XX := XX + (NBCLasses*EC)/400;
         //(1/(EC*Sqrt(2*Pi)))*
         Y :=imax*exp(-(((XX-LaMoyenne)*(XX-LaMoyenne))/(2*EC*EC)));
         FCapabilite.GaussBell.addXY(XX,Y,'',clRed);
   end;  // While (X..
   XX:=0;
   end;

Ugly no ?

 

So what you are saying is in addition to a population multiplier you propose having another multiplier based on the number of bases you own? In theory its a good idea but it leaves the door open to abuse since it benefits the side which allows its bases to be captured and doesnt take any. IMO, this isnt good for promoting teamplay which I think is important.

Yep but it will also help the country with less field having a chance of taking over and feeling more LW 1945  
And I've often see the gangbanged side having less field and being victim of endless HQ/DAR raid without being able to defend ...

[Soda]

Way to offer a suggestion, but I'm not convinced it would make a difference.

What difference will it make if someone gets 1 perk point, or an enhanced 2 perk points for his kill of X in Y.  It won't change things and I don't believe people would switch sides just to get the extra perk point or two.

The place where you can apparantly really earn perk points (serious points) is in a vulch where you shoot helpless defenders on the ground, or you make milk runs to unprotected strategic.  Both these scenarios require that you have an position of advantage (ie. a overpowering situation ).

Another more interesting possibility, at least in my mind, is to start to limit the planes (type) that the overpowering sides can choose to fly.  ie. actually roll back the planes available so not everyone can fly a C-Hog or 190D9, instead only the 190A5 and D-Hog are available for a while.  People could still buy the perk stuff to try and finish off the job (thus making the perk plane more important at the end) but the defenders would slowly, and that is key, build an advantage in aircraft type.

I don't know though, it's only an idea and it's sure to find vast opposition from people who find their favorite ride disabled when they try and take off.

-Soda

[Ripsnort]

Well, Dingy, I'm not a big proponent of giving weight of points to the losing side, simply because you could have a mass exodus to one side within, say, 2 hours, then those folks might get pissed when the side they were on is now the side with the fewest...and they have to wait another 10 hours (12 total) to 'switch back'..

I have seen the numbers sway from country to country so often in a 24 hour period (yes, I've been online at 4am, 8am,12pm,4pm,8pm,12am...) and one thing is consistent, the inconsistency of 'numbers' favoring any one country.

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Ripsnort:
Well, Dingy, I'm not a big proponent of giving weight of points to the losing side, simply because you could have a mass exodus to one side within, say, 2 hours, then those folks might get pissed when the side they were on is now the side with the fewest...and they have to wait another 10 hours (12 total) to 'switch back'..

I have seen the numbers sway from country to country so often in a 24 hour period (yes, I've been online at 4am, 8am,12pm,4pm,8pm,12am...) and one thing is consistent, the inconsistency of 'numbers' favoring any one country.

Understood Rip, but if the numbers sway as frequently as you state, then by the law of averages this perk point weighting system will have no effect on any pilot since there will be equal times they get the bonus and the penalty.

BUT....if one country is significantly unbalanced for a majority of the time then they would get a small bonus to their perk point kills. And they would continue to get that bonus (as well as the overpopulated teams getting penalized) until the numbers evened out a bit.

Eventually, an equilibrium would be reached where each country is approximately the same population.

I think this would work wonders. At least it would make flying for the Rooks worthwhile as of late

-Ding

PS...I just snipped my reply from another thread Rip...I guess it makes more sense here anyway  

[Pepe]

That was my point, Dingy.

Cheers,

Pepe

[Dingy]

 

Originally posted by Soda:
What difference will it make if someone gets 1 perk point, or an enhanced 2 perk points for his kill of X in Y.  It won't change things and I don't believe people would switch sides just to get the extra perk point or two.

I disagree...with the weighting system I propose, the country with more pilots than the others gets a small proportion fewer perkies than the outnumbered team...the lesser team gets a small proportion more.  Over the long run if things remained the same...it could mean a significant difference in their perk earning power if they stay on the larger team.  Now if perkies dont mean much to you, fine.  But if flying for the underdog means you can earn that sweet new ride 30% faster than if you stayed on the bigger side...I bet you there would be quite a few people who would move  

 

The place where you can apparantly really earn perk points (serious points) is in a vulch where you shoot helpless defenders on the ground, or you make milk runs to unprotected strategic.  Both these scenarios require that you have an position of advantage (ie. a overpowering situation ).

Are you implying we want to encourage this???  I think alot of pilots (at least those on the vulched or milkrunned side) would prefer not to see this happen.

 

Another more interesting possibility, at least in my mind, is to start to limit the planes (type) that the overpowering sides can choose to fly.  ie. actually roll back the planes available so not everyone can fly a C-Hog or 190D9, instead only the 190A5 and D-Hog are available for a while.  People could still buy the perk stuff to try and finish off the job (thus making the perk plane more important at the end) but the defenders would slowly, and that is key, build an advantage in aircraft type.

Ugh! You are gonna get a LOT of resistence on this one, Soda.  If you start restricting what planes people can fly you are going to have ALOT of angry customers.  Better to give them a slight penalty/benefit to their perkies depending upon the player distributions.

-Ding


[This message has been edited by Dingy (edited 03-13-2001).]

[Ripsnort]

Good point Dingy, and you know me, I'm always open to try any new idea, (part of being a software analyst!), however, keep in mind that perk points mean nothing to the likes of myself and(... I think I can speak for most of my squadron) my squadron..we just don't care about perks.  To us, AH means flying together, taking enemy territory, defending our territory, to the best of our abilities...the points, whether alot or alittle per sortie, have no meaning to us.

If the end result would be that personal insults thrown at me on private text and open text would go away, then by all means, I would say implement it!

[Pepe]

Ripsnort,

Like Dingy says, at the end you will have equilibrium.

The mass exodus issue is easy to solve. Simply put the actual numbers in the maproom, just under the buttons used to change sides.

Cheers,

Pepe.

[Yeager]

Didnt pyro already address this?  A perk modifyer for arena imbalance...

If he didnt, he should.  

The only complication I ca think of is the side switching but Im not sure thats neccessarily a problem.

Y

[This message has been edited by Yeager (edited 03-13-2001).]