Meaningful perk system

[Traveler]

I’d like to see a perk system that promotes more then just fur-balling.  Currently the perk system is geared towards rewarding the individual.  Perhaps it’s just a reflection of our modern society, but the population of each country appears to be more motivated towards self promotion rather then team oriented play or god forbid, country loyalty.

Unlike real war in AHII when one country wins the reset the other countries involved, the ones losing the reset face no down side.  I’d like to suggest that during a period of war. Any perks earned are only paid out after the reset by the winning side.   That the players in the countries that did not win the reset lose any perks awarded.  That just like in real life “to the winner go the spoils”. 

To prevent last minute side switching, only allow side changing once every 56 days.  Promote country loyalty and team play. 

[trotter]

Come on trav, you've been around a while, you know better than this.

Perk values are currently assigned to planes and vehicles whose merits lie in high individual performance. Why award perks on a team-based system just so that awardees can spend them on individually-focused crafts? It is a diametric opposition that is inherently illogical.

If your system was implemented, we'd have to instead perk great "team" planes and vehicles...110G's for town killing, m3's for troops and supplies.

And of course on top of all of that, some of us don't care about winning the war, some of us do, but the common denominator is that we all play an individual role in whatever it is we do (impossible not to, unless you play this game through some sort of spiritual sharing proxy). Therefore perks are awarded for individual performances because we all deserve to acquire them, and individual performance is the only common denominator we are all guaranteed to share.

[dkff49]

I really don't think your "wish" is going to accomplish what you are suggesting that it will.

Reason is a good many people in game don't really care about winning the war. I can tell you I personally won't be changing my way of having fun for some perks because I rarely ever use them and when I do I expect to lose them because I don't usually live long.

I do think that this type of change will tend to promote the armchair general mentality though. I can here it now.

squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: "COME ON GUYS, LETS WORK TOGETHER SO I CAN HAVE MY PERKS"
30 seconds later
squeaker: this country sucks and because of you guys I can't get any perks, I'm changing countries at end of tour

[Traveler]

I'm not suggesting that anyone change their game play, I'm suggesting that only the players of the winning country retain the perks and the losers get nothing. 

[dkff49]

I'm not suggesting that anyone change their game play, I'm suggesting that only the players of the winning country retain the perks and the losers get nothing. 

but you are saying that if we want to get the perks that we fought and deserve to have would have to change our game play to get them. I think that we would still have to endure more of barrating arm chair generals.

[humble]

What if someone could care less about "the war", has no interest in who "wins" and doesn't equate mind numbing hordes of marginally skilled players as being good. I dont much care about perks regardless but from my perspective in AH...more often then not the "winners" are the biggest bunch of losers.

[kamilyun]

2/10 on the troll scale.

[Traveler]

but you are saying that if we want to get the perks that we fought and deserve to have would have to change our game play to get them. I think that we would still have to endure more of barrating arm chair generals.

What I'm say is that even if you fought and deserve to get perks, that if your country loses , as in real war, you don't get the perks of war.

[Traveler]

What if someone could care less about "the war", has no interest in who "wins" and doesn't equate mind numbing hordes of marginally skilled players as being good. I dont much care about perks regardless but from my perspective in AH...more often then not the "winners" are the biggest bunch of losers.

Because you could care less, any change has no effect on your game .

[Motherland]

To prevent last minute side switching, only allow side changing once every 56 days.  Promote country loyalty and team play. 

Umm, yeah, it affects a lot of people.

[humble]

Actually your wrong. IMO this type of system would just encourage even lamer game play then we have now.

[rabbidrabbit]

There are lots of good ideas on implementing a viable perk economy.  This isn't one of them.

[Traveler]

There are lots of good ideas on implementing a viable perk economy.  This isn't one of them.

I did do a search on Perk System prior to my post, didn't get anything.

[dkff49]

What I'm say is that even if you fought and deserve to get perks, that if your country loses , as in real war, you don't get the perks of war.

and what I am saying is I should not have to lose my perks that I earned because I don't care whether the country I play on wins the war or not.

I also don't want the barating that this will start when some tard doesn't get the support that he thinks he should have because he wants to win the war.

[Bronk]

LOL "real war"