Using perks to win the war

[MANDOBLE]

Actually, war is won only by conquest, not considering aircraft/vehicle/ships/structures/etc losses. We can use the perk system to implement a second way to win the war with a single counter per country. After each reset, those counters are reset to 0 and they'll be modified depending on perks lost/gained by each country. That is, if I kill a bish nikki and I get 1 perk point, that point is substracted from the total counter of the bishes. Once a country have an advantage of more than 25% in perks over other country, the war is won by it.

With this system we can even have a display with curves (like netstatus) showing the evolution of each country relative to the other two.

[Wilbus]

Think I understood what you mean, and it sounds very good.

Hopefully such a thing wouldn't bring people to get pissed of eachother such as "you stupid *** you died now we lose!".

Good idea  

[MANDOBLE]

What about "We stupid *** have let two obsolete Ju88 to get over our factories and now we are about to loose (-20 perks)".

We'll be able to win a war just by an "attrition" effect instead taking all the enemy bases over'n over.

A country with only few bases will have a good chance to win the war if causes tremendous damage to a "brainless-overpopulated-nikkiaddict" attacker while flying 109Fs.

This way the ENY/OBJ values will have a real impact in the game.

[AKDejaVu]

Would this promote vulching?

Would this promote spawn point camping?

Would this favor the country with numbers?

Who gets more kills.. the country attacking or the country defending?

Could a country win the ware without ever capturing a base?

I ask all of these questions because you have come up with a system that bases winning the war on score.  When you do that, people play to score points by whatever means are more efficient.  Unfortunately, the most efficient means to score points aren't always condusive to what most would call enjoyable gaming.

Perks should be used in some manner to help out the underdog... if someone could just figure out a decent way to calculate who that underdog is.

AKDejaVu

[MANDOBLE]

AKDejaVu, point by point:
1 - "Would this promote vulching?"
can it be even more promoted??? anyway this will be compensated because the "vulched" country will not spawn over'n over.

2 - "Would this promote spawn point camping?"
Of course not, while vulching will be "promoted", spawning over'n over will be suicidal.

3 - "Would this favor the country with numbers?"
It depends, if a country with numbers sacrifies too much to force a reset by conquer, the other country will be able force a reset by casualities of the attacker.

4 - "Who gets more kills.. the country attacking or the country defending?"
Usually, both. But remember, the key is not just the number of "kills", but the perks gained. I may be killed three times in a 109F by someone in a Nikki, but if I destroy that nikki only once with my 109F the advantage will be for my country. Early planeset inmediately promoted. Flying and dying in "costly (while not necessary perked)" planes will be "costly" for your country.

5 - "Could a country win the war without ever capturing a base?"
Yep, as it should be. But base captures are rewarded also by perks. If you capture a base you'll be closer to the victory by conquer, but also by "perks". As in RL you can force a "surrend" by taking the territory or by causing tremendous looses to the enemy.

[AKDejaVu]

can it be even more promoted???

Yes it can.  Currently, the only thing most vulching accomplishes is a serious score padding for a pilot.  With your system, vulching will actually contribute to winning the war simply via points... not strategic relevance.

 

Of course not, while vulching will be "promoted", spawning over'n over will be suicidal.

You've made it no less suicidal.  All you've really accomplished is to increase the reward to the victor.

 

It depends, if a country with numbers sacrifies too much to force a reset by conquer, the other country will be able force a reset by casualities of the attacker.

What does the country with numbers have to sacrifice?  They don't have to risk land-grabs... only winning more A2A engagements.  No need to even venture attacking GVs.

 

I may be killed three times in a 109F by someone in a Nikki, but if I destroy that nikki only once with my 109F the advantage will be for my country.

And my point is that you are also giving the distinct advantage to 4 109Fs attacking 1 N1K2.  If the N1K2 kills 3 of the attackers and dies to the third... the pilots with the 4:1 advantage score more "war" points.  Dunno how that can seem fair to you.

 

Yep, as it should be. But base captures are rewarded also by perks. If you capture a base you'll be closer to the victory by conquer, but also by "perks".

Umm.. not that many perks.. and only for one pilot.  How many planes are sacrificed to get that goon down?

So.. once again... you've simply offered a different way to play the score game.  It doesn't really promote fairness or eveness in any way.  I just can't see how this would do anything similar to your claims.

AKDejaVu

[Nifty]

This system could be gamed too easily.  All you have to do is get someone willing to take up high perk planes for a rival country and sacrifice himself.  How?  Field vulching is one way.  Your team vulches the field, but the other team says "screw it, don't give 'em perkies."  One or two gamers constantly spawn niki (or some high value plane) giving perks to their side.  Of course these people don't gain perks for themselves, but the next time, someone else will be doing the crashing and they'll get the perks.

Personally, winning the war through score isn't a good idea in my opinion, mainly for the reasons deja mentioned.

[Baddawg]

Deja!!! Vulching does not pad my score!
 It is in fact, my only source of scoring